Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5969061" data-attributes="member: 32536">There's so much wrong with this...First off, I never claimed to speak for the fanbase. I did, however, speak for myself and several other people in this thread who have shared very similar opinions to my own. In fact, that's the point. It's entirely irrelevant whether or not an opinion is the majority or not. D&D should be capable of appealing to a variety of tastes and desires, especially in a "unity edition" like 5E is trying to be.Also, you are quite clearly placing the preferences of the people who disliked the changes brought by 4E as being more important than those who liked the changes brought by 4E. You can't accuse me of "speaking for the fanbase" one moment and then talk about 4E as if it were a failure the next, because in doing so you yourself are trying to establish a "speaking for the fanbase" position.Also, I won't agree that appealing to old gamers is at all necessary to bring new players in to the game. I brought myself into the game without ever meeting another D&D player, and there are plenty of newer fans who don't care about tradition at all who can bring in the next generation of players.This is just plain rude.If you can't or won't respond to the question of why you brought that little sub-discussion in or what you meant by it, fine. To be honest, I was actually curious about what you meant, but couldn't make sense of it. If you don't want people to understand what you write, go ahead, but you have absolutely no right to tell me that I can't participate in this discussion. I also happen to understand the general discussion just fine. The whole "I wasn't really talking to you" claim rings a little hollow when you were quoting me, particularly when the post you quoted was me quoting you, who was quoting me. I don't care what you have been saying to other people. For my last several posts, I've been responding to what you have said to me. Disavow it if you want, but I've been responding entirely to things you have said.Anyways, I don't think I'll reply to you any more. No need to drag this thread down with any more of this kind of bickering.EDIT: And to answer your last question... Pretty much my entire point is that the basic question you've been asking, about what the "source" for a Fighter's power is, is a silly question. Fighter's don't need a source, because no one else really needs one. Wizard's don't have one and they work just fine. Wizards study to learn spells, fighters study to learn how to salmon leap or slice through mountains. That's all the game really needs, and it works just fine that way.</blockquote>

Verification