Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9038214" data-attributes="member: 7635">Without psychoanalyzing any or all posters (there are too many of them to fit into a single box) I find the sort of rhetoric being used is primarily used for point scoring rather than actual discussion. We're all guilty of this from time to time. But it's the same posters trying to score the same points thread after thread despite how well worn that point has been hashed out that saps the will. It doesn't matter what WotC will call the new books right now. The current playtest has a moniker and it's OneD&amp;D. We can use that to discuss the different versions for now and in 2024 they will be the new ruleset for D&amp;D. The rest is a pointless semantics debate on what constitutes an edition or what the definition of &quot;compatible&quot; entails. We can discuss whether the change to wild shape is good or bad and how to make it better, but to rehash how it's different from the old druid and whether that makes it a new edition or a .5 edition or even 5e at all just allows people to camp up in their bunkers and take pot shots at each other. So I guess I'm asking for that to take a break. Because the amount of arguing that revolves around putting the rules into some neat little box with a label isn't doing anything but what WotC was trying to avoid in the first place: splitting the fan base.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 9038214, member: 7635"] Without psychoanalyzing any or all posters (there are too many of them to fit into a single box) I find the sort of rhetoric being used is primarily used for point scoring rather than actual discussion. We're all guilty of this from time to time. But it's the same posters trying to score the same points thread after thread despite how well worn that point has been hashed out that saps the will. It doesn't matter what WotC will call the new books right now. The current playtest has a moniker and it's OneD&D. We can use that to discuss the different versions for now and in 2024 they will be the new ruleset for D&D. The rest is a pointless semantics debate on what constitutes an edition or what the definition of "compatible" entails. We can discuss whether the change to wild shape is good or bad and how to make it better, but to rehash how it's different from the old druid and whether that makes it a new edition or a .5 edition or even 5e at all just allows people to camp up in their bunkers and take pot shots at each other. So I guess I'm asking for that to take a break. Because the amount of arguing that revolves around putting the rules into some neat little box with a label isn't doing anything but what WotC was trying to avoid in the first place: splitting the fan base. [/QUOTE]

Verification