The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread


log in or register to remove this ad















BookTenTiger

He / Him
"4e did X, and 4e failed, so X = failure" is such a logical fallacy that it makes my head spin.

Whatever else you think of 4e, there are a lot of things it did that did not lead to its failure. Cantrips, giving Clerics more to do, awesome monsters... It's silly to use 4e as a bogeyman to judge how others play the game.

"Have you, or have you not, had sympathies towards 4th Edition D&D? Just answer the question!"
 


Cadence

Legend
Supporter
"4e did X, and 4e failed, so X = failure" is such a logical fallacy that it makes my head spin.

Whatever else you think of 4e, there are a lot of things it did that did not lead to its failure. Cantrips, giving Clerics more to do, awesome monsters... It's silly to use 4e as a bogeyman to judge how others play the game.

"Have you, or have you not, had sympathies towards 4th Edition D&D? Just answer the question!"
So, the bogeyman can be good too? Did I read that right?

::ducks for cover:::
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
"4e did X, and 4e failed, so X = failure" is such a logical fallacy that it makes my head spin.

Whatever else you think of 4e, there are a lot of things it did that did not lead to its failure. Cantrips, giving Clerics more to do, awesome monsters... It's silly to use 4e as a bogeyman to judge how others play the game.

Uh... there's a lot people say about 3e ... but the one thing I've never heard is, "Hey guys, the Clerics in that edition really, really sucked. Do you know what the worst, least-powerful class that had nothing to do was? The CODZILLA! Thank goodness 4e rectified those weak-azz Clerics and gave them something to do!"

...but maybe I missed out on some of the discourse?
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top