Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 5112712" data-attributes="member: 32164">Actually, as the OP, I thought it might be helpful to bring some perspective (if not peace) to the clash over editions if we see where people are coming from.I've seen AC go down from 9. I've seen it go up from 10. I've been through to-hit tables, fighting wheels, THAC0 and BAB. I've seen 1st-level PCs with a single hit point or 30 hit points, and just about everything in between. I've measured monsters with Hit Dice, CR, and just &quot;level.&quot; And to me, it still feels like D&amp;D, because my core pieces are still there. But I can see that someone someday might make a change to it that I won't like. That's a perspective I try to keep in mine when edition fights start.Someday, that could be me.For myself, I've experimented with so many variant magic systems over the years, I never really thought of the classic &quot;Vancian Magic&quot; as being part of the identity of what constitutes D&amp;D. So when 4e dumped it, I shrugged. But I'm sure that for some people, it was a big deal, perhaps even a deal-breaker...However, even to me, some things are so much a part of what D&amp;D IS, that I just wouldn't be happy to get a D&amp;D game without them. For instance, it just wouldn't be D&amp;D without elves, dwarves, halflings and humans. Ditto the 6 attributes of strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom and charisma. I'm also oddly fond of the 3-18 starting scale for said attributes. I realize that's completely irrational...but that's the way it is.And as much as I rail on occasion about the separation between arcane and divine magic, I'm not sure the game would still be D&amp;D without it. So something I'm not even sure I like is kinda part and parcel of what I think makes D&amp;D what it is.Odd, isn't it?By the way, there's not really a &quot;point&quot; here other than to discuss these things in a friendly, open, and honest conversation ( hopefully without an Edition war). I just thought it would be interesting to see different perspectives.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 5112712, member: 32164"] Actually, as the OP, I thought it might be helpful to bring some perspective (if not peace) to the clash over editions if we see where people are coming from. I've seen AC go down from 9. I've seen it go up from 10. I've been through to-hit tables, fighting wheels, THAC0 and BAB. I've seen 1st-level PCs with a single hit point or 30 hit points, and just about everything in between. I've measured monsters with Hit Dice, CR, and just "level." And to me, it still feels like D&D, because my core pieces are still there. But I can see that someone someday might make a change to it that I won't like. That's a perspective I try to keep in mine when edition fights start. Someday, that could be me. For myself, I've experimented with so many variant magic systems over the years, I never really thought of the classic "Vancian Magic" as being part of the identity of what constitutes D&D. So when 4e dumped it, I shrugged. But I'm sure that for some people, it was a big deal, perhaps even a deal-breaker... However, even to me, some things are so much a part of what D&D IS, that I just wouldn't be happy to get a D&D game without them. For instance, it just wouldn't be D&D without elves, dwarves, halflings and humans. Ditto the 6 attributes of strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom and charisma. I'm also oddly fond of the 3-18 starting scale for said attributes. I realize that's completely irrational...but that's the way it is. And as much as I rail on occasion about the separation between arcane and divine magic, I'm not sure the game would still be D&D without it. So something I'm not even sure I like is kinda part and parcel of what I think [i]makes D&D what it is.[/i] Odd, isn't it? By the way, there's not really a "point" here other than to discuss these things in a friendly, open, and honest conversation ( hopefully without an Edition war). I just thought it would be interesting to see different perspectives. [/QUOTE]

Verification