Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6881522" data-attributes="member: 996">The thing that bothers me is not so much that it's inevitable that 5e can't succeed completely in that goal, it's the speed and zeal with which that 'failure' (incomplete success) is sometimes put forth in what seems to be intended as a 'defense' of 5e.&nbsp; 5e has a tremendous amount of flexibility - if the community remains open to the idea of adapting it to the full range of past and possible styles.&nbsp; If 5e discussions turn into us/them exercises in dismissing others' concerns, if some group of circled wagons starts to get proprietary about it - if, worse case, a 5e edition war gets started - then it's not just going to inevitably, ultimately not quite succeed completely with it's re-unification/inclusiveness goal, it's going to see that goal undermined.'Unfortunate' really doesn't do it justice.It's not a matter of opinion, but of fact.D&amp;D present options that use magic and options that don't.&nbsp; When you label an option that doesn't use magic - like a 3e Barbarian or a 4e martial class or 5e Champion - as using magic, you are simply wrong.&nbsp; You may not like that a short-rest-recharge mechanic is used to refresh the 4e martial character's encounter powers, a 4e arcane caster's encounter spells, a 5e Champion's Second Wind, and 5e Warlock's spells, but it doesn't make 'em all magical.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6881522, member: 996"] The thing that bothers me is not so much that it's inevitable that 5e can't succeed completely in that goal, it's the speed and zeal with which that 'failure' (incomplete success) is sometimes put forth in what seems to be intended as a 'defense' of 5e. 5e has a tremendous amount of flexibility - if the community remains open to the idea of adapting it to the full range of past and possible styles. If 5e discussions turn into us/them exercises in dismissing others' concerns, if some group of circled wagons starts to get proprietary about it - if, worse case, a 5e edition war gets started - then it's not just going to inevitably, ultimately not quite succeed completely with it's re-unification/inclusiveness goal, it's going to see that goal undermined. 'Unfortunate' really doesn't do it justice. It's not a matter of opinion, but of fact. D&D present options that use magic and options that don't. When you label an option that doesn't use magic - like a 3e Barbarian or a 4e martial class or 5e Champion - as using magic, you are simply wrong. You may not like that a short-rest-recharge mechanic is used to refresh the 4e martial character's encounter powers, a 4e arcane caster's encounter spells, a 5e Champion's Second Wind, and 5e Warlock's spells, but it doesn't make 'em [i]all[/i] magical. [/QUOTE]

Verification