Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8979116" data-attributes="member: 6704184">You seem to have missed what I mean, because I'm definitely not calling you on not saying the term "5e", I'm challenging your point, and especially the premise of that point. I rarely give people crap for how they say a thing, because the point of their statements is all that actually matters, and I find pedantry about as pleasant to experience as being stuck in an MRI machine for over an hour, and tend to think less of folks who habitually use it to talk down to people. My point is, an updated and revised PHB is still The PHB. The fact that the 2014 core books won't be getting new print runs (barring significant fandom demand, because say what you will about wotc, they listen and change course when enough of the fans yell at them), is not a significant point. The FAQ fails to word it's statements in a way that makes clear that they just mean the 2014 core books, while also implying that future official dnd will be purely digital (and thus, if you don't want to play digitrally and have a monthly subscription, we've got you covered! We're saving DnD!), while further indicating that they see their own game as a continuation of 5e but don't see the 2024 core books as also a coninuation of 5e dnd, all coming together to leave a very bad taste in a lot of mouths, especially because it comes across as a thing we have seen before. Smaller publishers dissing DnD in order to uplift their own game.This ain't it, chief. As someone with severe ADHD, first of all I've no idea that you also struggle with it, even if I did know that, say, a week ago. Secondly, I'm not being a jerk, I'm telling you t;hat you're being rude and insulting to someone for whom English is a second language because they used a word differently from how you'd prefer. (I'm also compltely unfamiliar with the phrase you keep using of someone missing something out. First time it read like typo-induced gibberish, but contextually I gather that it means they left out a word? Something like that?)That all said, the effect of a statement exists independent of it's intent, so I will say, I'm sorry for wording my challenge of your statements in such a way as to make you feel that I was making fun of you for behavior that is a symptom of a really painful disorder that I also suffer from. I've spent my entire life ricocheting between being lauded for my creativity and intellect and being made to feel like a moron for forgetting or not paying attention to something, or processing information differently. I get it.No one is. Not one person, as far as I can see. You are misinterpreting people's statements, if this is your conclusion.So you're categorizing any criticism of KP's faq as dishonest as wildly dramatic. Oooookay. I'm gonna go ahead and not take that too seriously. Respectfully. What people are critising the misleading implications of the FAQ. I have made it very clear repeatedly that I don't think they intended to mislead, but they did. it's a bad way to proceed talking about a productOne DND is 5e. See other posts for more on that. The last part I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not arguing that 1dnd isn't 1dnd? I'm saying that it's 5e. To dig in more, one dnd is more than just the 5e rules, because the term also refers to the vtt and ddb, It's a revision of the 5e rules, updating them to fix pain poiints, address opportunities they see to get people excited about things that haven't excited people before, make the game play faster in places where it can sometimes bog down, and future proof things like spell lists (which I kidna get but like, there are other ways), along with an expansion of the digital tools, and some other stuff.No, they've explicitly said they don't view it as separate from 5e, that all adventures and supplements will continue to work with the revised rules, and that they've no intention of ever abandoning 5e to rebuild the game from scratch, that they intend to evolve 5e over time as needed, not make a new game. One DnD is 5e.As I said to our friendly local KP representative upthread, it may be that I've got all the right people on ignore, but I am not really seeing wildly dramatic comments. This does explain why you are being particularly condescending and bordering on outright insulting to people, though. If the comments of those I can't see anymore are that bad, fair enough. I've learned that it's best to walk away from stuff that makes me that upset, but I'm hardly doing that perfectly, and I've a posting history that gives me no place expecting anyone else to do so. Kyle Brink said when talking to [USER=11365]@Alphastream[/USER] that "it feels more like 3.5 than anything, more a revision of the same game", but that's an off-hand remark in an interview, and it is preceeded by explicit statements that they don't internally view one dnd as separate from 5e in any way.There's the wild dramatic take you referenced as your norm upthread!Hardly mindless. Do you watch the design videos discussing playtest feedback? If not, watch the ones recently, and also as an aside, note that Crawford repeatedly refers to the playtest as an unearthed arcana series, playtesting "the 2024 PHB options", seemingly to drive home that it is not a new game in any sense, but is instead a what would be thought of as a new edition had wotc not borked how people in the community view that word. That is, a revision of the same game. But I have literally run sessions for a group that included a Tasha's options using PHB Ranger and a UA Ranger with the PHB Hunter subclass because we all agree that the UA hunter sucks, which they basically recognize in the video about the expert classes survey feedback, noting that "people miss the options that the hunter has in the 2014 phb" (paraphrased from memory)As well, they have repeatedly talked about how diverse the playerbase is, and I see no evidence that the survey respondant skew heavily toward older white men. Perhaps if a few people ask about it on twitter, they'll toss out some details on that front.Well, no, a subclass from 5e printed within the last 9 years will continue to be compatible with the 5e core books and it's classes going forward. Because it's all 5e. You can't like, mix parts of the two versions of the class by RAW, but...I mean of course you can't, just like you can't take the parts you like most from the various reprints of the Bladesinger and make a character from them by RAW. Revisions replace previous versions. That's what a revision is. What a revision isn't, is a separate game.</blockquote>

Verification