Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9492701" data-attributes="member: 18">You've presented no evidence which supports your contention that this is intentional incompatibility, I'm afraid. It seems that Occam's Razor (sorry) dictates that a simple lack of consideration/thought is far more likely than a roundabout unstated conspiracy to render a relatively popular Feat from another book into a state where it literally does nothing at all.Not logical.By the same false logic there's no reason to ever take a 2024 Background, only the 2014 Custom background. In both cases it's an issue created by them not thinking through what they were doing.The reality is D&amp;D editions trying to be compatible with prior editions always create odd possibilities here and there (we saw this with 1E and 2E extensively). That doesn't mean we should make up fictional restrictions to block them and then assert those fictional restrictions are RAI, as you appear to be doing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9492701, member: 18"] You've presented no evidence which supports your contention that this is [I]intentional[/I] incompatibility, I'm afraid. It seems that Occam's Razor (sorry) dictates that a simple lack of consideration/thought is far more likely than a roundabout unstated conspiracy to render a relatively popular Feat from another book into a state where it literally does nothing at all. Not logical. By the same false logic there's no reason to ever take a 2024 Background, only the 2014 Custom background. In both cases it's an issue created by them not thinking through what they were doing. The reality is D&D editions trying to be compatible with prior editions always create odd possibilities here and there (we saw this with 1E and 2E extensively). That doesn't mean we should make up fictional restrictions to block them and then assert those fictional restrictions are RAI, as you appear to be doing. [/QUOTE]

Verification