Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7215326" data-attributes="member: 15700">She's also a lot smarter than a hobgoblin warlord.&nbsp; Which means she can and should come up with better tactical use of the creatures under her.&nbsp; It's the DM's job to use everything under her description, and not just use defined abilities while ignoring all the rest.&nbsp; Why some people can't grasp, or refuse to admit that is beyond me.Personally, I think it's a huge fallacy to assume &quot;advancements from edition to edition&quot; are automatically better than the previous edition.&nbsp; They aren't.&nbsp; Calling them &quot;advancements&quot; is just an opinion.&nbsp; Other people think of them as faults.&nbsp; Just like new Coke was not an advancement over regular coke just because it replaced the previous recipe.&nbsp; And how did that work out?&nbsp; It's also inherently contradictory.&nbsp; I.e., by that logic, then since 5e is the most recent, then the &quot;advancements&quot; in 5e are inherently better than previous editions.&nbsp; So that line of argument falls flat on several levels.&nbsp; What it comes down to, is someone defining an &quot;advancement&quot; by what they personally like on a line they personally and arbitrarily drew between editions, but they are trying to position it as some sort of objective gaming advancement when it's not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7215326, member: 15700"] She's also a lot smarter than a hobgoblin warlord. Which means she can and should come up with better tactical use of the creatures under her. It's the DM's job to use everything under her description, and not just use defined abilities while ignoring all the rest. Why some people can't grasp, or refuse to admit [I][B]that [/B][/I]is beyond me. Personally, I think it's a huge fallacy to assume "advancements from edition to edition" are automatically better than the previous edition. They aren't. Calling them "advancements" is just an opinion. Other people think of them as faults. Just like new Coke was not an advancement over regular coke just because it replaced the previous recipe. And how did that work out? It's also inherently contradictory. I.e., by that logic, then since 5e is the most recent, then the "advancements" in 5e are inherently better than previous editions. So that line of argument falls flat on several levels. What it comes down to, is someone defining an "advancement" by what they personally like on a line they personally and arbitrarily drew between editions, but they are trying to position it as some sort of objective gaming advancement when it's not. [/QUOTE]

Verification