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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 8751038" data-attributes="member: 20564">You really seem like your arguing that I can't care about something because you don't care about it.  Just in this response you set up several strawmen by twisting points about what I said so you can knock them down.  Why are you putting this much effort into trying to convince me not to care about something?  You ask me why I cared, I ask you the same - why are you putting this amount of effort into defending that it absolutely is the same edition even if the same amount of changes have precendet as a half edition change.  Where is your payoff that makes your care it's the same edition?Except for the change I was talking about this being close to, D&D 3.0 to 3.5.That word "all" is vastly important for it being the same edition.  It's not obfuscating anything.Pre-MotM, any changes getting published about character creation/advancement rules was made combatible via errata.  "All" is pretty clear in this context.EXACTLY.  And that's what makes it a new edition.  It IS NOT compatible.  It IS NOT the same edition.I don't know how you post things supporting my point yet act as if it refutes it.Okay, new rule going forward, in future responses, I'll just post "CHANGES SUPPORT IT BEING A DIFFERENT EDITION" in caps every time you repeat this mistake.  I won't bother to refute it more than that, that's already been done.If they started playtesting 4e right now and in 2024 they published the 4e PHB and said it's the same edition, according to you it would not be lying saying it's the same edition because we expect them to make changes?No, changes are what makes it another edition.You can not have it both that it's the same edition and that it's not compatible.  You also can not have that they aren't lying to us because we expect them to be lying about it being the same edition.Your examples support my point, again.  The fact that people expect changes has nothing to do with if it is or is not truly a new edition.  It being incompatible has to do with if it is a new edition.  I expect changes -- I think it's a new edition.Tasha's added options for a DM to introduce.  Are these being introduced as modular options to pick and choose, with the 2014PHB still in play as the base?  No.  Strawman #1.I don't want the errata to say anything.  I said that I think the changes are good and I just want them to be truthful it's a new edition.  I would only need errata if it really was the same edition and really remained compatible, and I really don't because the changes look massive.  You you go on and on like I want massive errata, which I don't so I'm not going to quote your individual points that ascripe a motive to me I don't support.  Strawman #2.I'll address this one point -- an errata document is what kept the game in sync as a single edition as earlier books did introduce changes.  It was never for the people buying new books, since a new printing would always have all the errata included.  It was for the people who already owned the book.  Pretending that there are no people who own the 2014 PHB to make your point is Strawman #3.  It's very easy to say "It's the same edition, as long as no one has ever played or is playing this edition", and that's just not true.I know.  Which is why it's an edition shift.  Just like the precedent already when the same scope of changes was in 3.0 to 3.5.You seem to be confusing what the masses think about something and a fact.  I live in the US, they can be vastly different animals.</blockquote>

Verification