Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7967347" data-attributes="member: 2525">Yes it was. I think you are spinning and taking out of context what he said. I even quoted him word for word while YOU chose to paraphrase it.There is no such thing as D&D's "meta setting" aside from the core. If it comes in an expansion book, and often times a very late-in-the-edition-cycle expansion book, it's not a core concept to the setting. It's not "imprinted on D&D's legacy" if it was one of the last books published for an edition like it was for 4e, for example. It's not even a unified concept for D&D, as seen in all these debates where almost nobody can even agree on what is or is not Psionics and whether it needs to be a dedicated class or a series of subclasses, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE HEAVY PRECEDENT IN PRIOR EDITIONS.Shaman in fact has been published in 1) more editions of D&D, and 2) for more time during those editions than a dedicated Psionic class. Which is my point - TIME and NUMBER OF EDITIONS is not a determining factor. No matter how you spin it, the OP is in fact arguing they are determining factors. It's not me taking him out of context if you dispute that, it's you. You seem to have wanted him to be making a different argument than the one he made</blockquote>