Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7602250" data-attributes="member: 996">If you want to label others' interpretations as 'deviated from the rules,' you are advocating devotion to the RaW.&nbsp; If not for its own sake, then for the sake of buttressing a position you fear can't stand on its own merits without the imprimatur of RaW. Or, rather, that's an impression that you're creating which I'm pushing back against, because I hold a very similar interpretation, that's I'd like to see stand on its merits, as such, rather than defending it as dogma.&nbsp;&quot;High level&quot; in that context is a matter of scope and detail, not importance.Sorry if that's getting a trifle strident, but we have spun in this circle for a while now.&nbsp; It gets frustrating.&nbsp;Not in an absolute sense, as in 3.x RaW (which, even then, was more an ideal than a reality).&nbsp; Rather, by convention (both ancient D&amp;D tradition and explicit 5e intent) the DM's interpretation of what is or isn't 'permitted' within the existing rules is the final word. That'd be a strange argument to undertake.&nbsp; 5e is /meant/ to be accessible to new players.&nbsp; It's also very much meant for long-time and returning players, who will necessarily learn it in the context of their past experiences.&nbsp; That's really 5e's great accomplishment: working for both.&nbsp; It's why it's accepted by the existing fans rather than warred against, in spite of being accessible to potential new ones.My feel for it is that, while you certainly can learn any edition without reference to any other, or learn it primarily in terms of what it changes from a prior edition, another manifestation of this acceptable/accessible feat of 5e, is that probably the /best/ way to learn it is at a mixed table of new, long-time, &amp; returning players, each contributing their own perspective to the D&amp;D experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7602250, member: 996"] If you want to label others' interpretations as 'deviated from the rules,' you are advocating devotion to the RaW. If not for its own sake, then for the sake of buttressing a position you fear can't stand on its own merits without the imprimatur of RaW. Or, rather, that's an impression that you're creating which I'm pushing back against, because I hold a very similar interpretation, that's I'd like to see stand on its merits, as such, rather than defending it as dogma. "High level" in that context is a matter of scope and detail, not importance. Sorry if that's getting a trifle strident, but we have spun in this circle for a while now. It gets frustrating. Not in an absolute sense, as in 3.x RaW (which, even then, was more an ideal than a reality). Rather, by convention (both ancient D&D tradition and explicit 5e intent) the DM's interpretation of what is or isn't 'permitted' within the existing rules is the final word. That'd be a strange argument to undertake. 5e is /meant/ to be accessible to new players. It's also very much meant for long-time and returning players, who will necessarily learn it in the context of their past experiences. That's really 5e's great accomplishment: working for both. It's why it's accepted by the existing fans rather than warred against, in spite of being accessible to potential new ones. My feel for it is that, while you certainly can learn any edition without reference to any other, or learn it primarily in terms of what it changes from a prior edition, another manifestation of this acceptable/accessible feat of 5e, is that probably the /best/ way to learn it is at a mixed table of new, long-time, & returning players, each contributing their own perspective to the D&D experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification