Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9686726" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Some have. Some haven't.THAC0. Bards as (functionally) a ridiculously over-complicated PrC. Five bizarrely- (and often inaccurately-)named saving throw categories. Skill points.Some things are like coelacanth or ginkgo or sharks, surviving hundreds of million years all the way up through the present...and others are like trilobites, which had a nearly 300MY run, only to be done in by the Permian extinction event.Or, in simpler terms: The fact that a thing survived before isn't actually evidence that it will, let alone should, survive again. No President needed to be told they didn't get a third term until FDR.Tradition isn't inherently bad. It also isn't inherently good. Slavish adherence to tradition simply because it is traditional is unwise. Unthinking destruction of tradition simply because it is tradition is unwise. That's why I said we need to ask whether or not they are productive--not presuming that they are unproductive, nor the opposite. Genuine, sincere, unbiased investigation.Some old things get left behind merely for fashion reasons. It's chronological snobbery to pretend that everything old is bad. Some new things get ignored merely because they don't have enough pedigree--which is also fallacious, an appeal to tradition (sadly, it lacks a snappy name like "chronological snobbery"--perhaps "genealogical snobbery"?)</blockquote>