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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7027607" data-attributes="member: 996">I'm glad I could help educate you on the unfortunate history of the edition war, then.   By the same token, the mere fact that something false you've repeated is dismissed with the reference to it being an oft-disproved h4ter talking point doesn't double-reverse make it true somehow.  It's still a false statement, no matter how much pain & indignation you display in reaction to the way the mistake was pointed out. Not the point I was replying to, and not an absolutely false one, though perhaps couched in misleading terms:   Yes, D&D had gone to a clearer, more consistent presentation of 'crunch' in 4e (not exactly a major change of direction from 3e, but substantial move none the less), and the result was better-balanced than other editions (which is not actually saying a whole lot).  You could call that an 'outlier' or a 'pinnacle' or a 'nadir' depending on your perspective and how much you valued or abhorred those system qualities.H4ters wanting to dismiss 4e as "not really D&D," would, of course, prefer your wording. Really?  PvP to illustrate a point about relative class balance?  I mean, it's amusing that your party had a moment of terror when you turned against them, but that's really pretty likely with any PC.  PCs are a lot scarier than monsters in some ways.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   It simply has more options to work with, sure.  It's easy to dismiss analysis of the actual system (in as much as it can be divined from the natural-language presentation of the rules) as 'theorycraft,' but it's at least trying to be quantitative or objective about it.  Conversely, in actual play, the DM's rulings matter so much more than the rules that, ironically, it illustrates nothing much about those rules, at all.  (Hey, kinda makes you wonder why we debate the rules so much, huh?  Apart from the fact there the only objective (in the sense they're in the book in B&W, not in the sense they're not open to wildly varying interpretations) thing we have to debate, that is.   Habbit left over from the 3.x RAW-uber-alles zietgiest, I suppose. )</blockquote>

Verification