Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6652005" data-attributes="member: 82106">If all this is true, then why can't you accept that 4e is equally flexible? It has basically the same DC/check type system, same ability score mechanics, etc. Its absolutely just as flexible and generalized a system as you claim 5e is. If 5e can do basically any flavor of D&amp;D, etc, then so can 4e. I mean we've SEEN with 4e almost completely redesigning the core classes. They did it and maintained total compatibility with the existing classes. Without that constraint the sky is the limit. The flat out truth of the matter is that 4e could have had a book added to it the size of the 5e PHB to provide the same style of play that 5e affords. And the reason [MENTION=80414]Bearcat[/MENTION]man <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> objects is perfectly understandable to me. The only reason this is 5th edition and not a 4e supplement is fan outrage. So you gotta understand, we're tired of all the &quot;4e bad, couldn't have done X, Y, Z, didn't work, wasn't D&amp;D, blah blah blah blah blah.&quot; Its all about 'PR' not what you can do with mechanics. The only thing worth talking about is what the mechanics ARE and what we prefer, that's all. Every time someone sticks an edition label on a comment that isn't identifying the edition for the purpose of clarity when discussing a specific mechanic, they're bashing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6652005, member: 82106"] If all this is true, then why can't you accept that 4e is equally flexible? It has basically the same DC/check type system, same ability score mechanics, etc. Its absolutely just as flexible and generalized a system as you claim 5e is. If 5e can do basically any flavor of D&D, etc, then so can 4e. I mean we've SEEN with 4e almost completely redesigning the core classes. They did it [b]and maintained total compatibility with the existing classes.[/b] Without that constraint the sky is the limit. The flat out truth of the matter is that 4e could have had a book added to it the size of the 5e PHB to provide the same style of play that 5e affords. And the reason [MENTION=80414]Bearcat[/MENTION]man ;) objects is perfectly understandable to me. The only reason this is 5th edition and not a 4e supplement is fan outrage. So you gotta understand, we're tired of all the "4e bad, couldn't have done X, Y, Z, didn't work, wasn't D&D, blah blah blah blah blah." Its all about 'PR' not what you can do with mechanics. The only thing worth talking about is what the mechanics ARE and what we prefer, that's all. Every time someone sticks an edition label on a comment that isn't identifying the edition for the purpose of clarity when discussing a specific mechanic, they're bashing. [/QUOTE]

Verification