Watching OSR folks get mad about there being lots of options in modern RPGs just shows they have no sense of the history of the hobby. It took until The Strategic Review vol 1 #2 in 1975 for the Ranger to get added to the game, with Supplement I Greyhawk about the same time.
It's curious that you say OSR folk are getting mad. I don't think the Old Schoolers give a snot since they don't buy product from WOTC. Sure, if someone wants to DM 5e at our table, we'll play. We have 50 years of products to explore and quite frankly we make a point of not supporting WOTC in any way. Next week we're playing AD&D. We're doing fine with our old hard bounds. - Thank You
@Blackmoor_Film @MerricB OSR got lots of opinions on stuff that never historically happened 😂
@Blackmoor_Film @MerricB 2002's ENWorld just called. It wants its nonsense, made-up clichés about Grognards back.
@Blackmoor_Film @MerricB It really is an odd statement.
@Blackmoor_Film @MerricB I still think 5e is better "technology" than 1e or 2e and a lot of the perceived flaws I hear about are actually just coming from a perspective of not having seen the whole picture - like if you knew everything, it would make sense but because you don't it doesn't to YOu
@Blackmoor_Film @MerricB I think "the old schoolers" is not a helpful term. There's so many that fall into the osr that I doubt you can even generalize w How the groups feel. It's hard enough to get agreement just on what osr means