D&D 5E Spell Versatility is GONE. Rejoice!

[Crimson Longinus]

But like I've said before, whether or not it is bad is entirely subjective.

It's not. Game design is a skill and I'm glad the designer's at WotC realised the issues with this rule.

And, I never said that they should publish endless amounts of optional rules, as that would be ridiculous and is warping the argument. However, it would not have ruined the game or the book if this one rule was printed, which a large number of people do like. The book had room.

The rule originally appeared as a playtest material. The purpose of playtest and gathering feedback is to recognise potential issues. They did. Not everything from the UA will end up in the books, if it did, the whole playtesting and feedback phase wouldn't be doing anything.

 

[FrogReaver]

I stand corrected on that front. However, my point still stands. If my loss of fun equals you having fun, that's a you problem, not a me problem and not an optional rule problem.

It’s not your loss of fun that’s causing my gaining of fun, that would be morally wrong. Instead the fun comes from keeping the game away from bad published rules so that I don’t have to deal with tables using them or players wanting to use such bad rules at any time now or in the conceivable future.

There is also a measure of trust in the rules that seeing bad rules become published erodes that trust which also tends to be detrimental to a persons fun.

 

[FrogReaver]

Better as not being in the argument, as that's a strawman argument. Equating a "Swap out one spell on a long rest" rule with "power word greatsword" is a bad faith argument.

Reducto ad absurdum is not a straw man or bad faith.

 

[FrogReaver]

I call BS on this. If their fun is dependent on people at another table not having access to an official optional rule, then they don't deserve fun.

The rule could be ignored by them just like I'm ignoring the custom race rules.

Or they can just home brew the optional rule into their game if they really want it. Thus, My stance against the rule being “official optional” has no bearing on their fun. They don’t actually need an official optional rule to have their fun.

 

[FrogReaver]

Seems to me the whole issue is actually not about fun directly but about to what lengths the official content should facilitate other types of fun at the expense of the traditional player.

As has been argued, having the rule be official optional makes it easier for those that want to use that rule to do so. They can find more tables and games playing with it due to the official status.

however, that also means i will find less games not using it. So the facilitation of that other playstyle does defacilitate my playstyle.

thus those for and against the inclusion of the rule bith have something to gain or lose by doing so.

 

[Maxperson]

Or they can just home brew the optional rule into their game if they really want it. Thus, My stance against the rule being “official optional” has no bearing on their fun. They don’t actually need an official optional rule to have their fun.

Officially is very important to a lot of people. It's pretty petty and selfish to not want a company to print an optional rule just because you(general you) don't like that rule. Don't use it if you don't like it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Reducto ad absurdum is not a straw man or bad faith.

It is a fallacy, and making use of a fallacy for your argument is the definition of "arguing in bad faith." It is a strawman and reducto ad absurdum, as that is not what we are arguing.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It's not. Game design is a skill and I'm glad the designer's at WotC realised the issues with this rule.

. . . It is a skill, but as this is something that wouldn't destroy the balance of the game, this isn't a "skill/balance-based removal." Therefore, "bad and good" is entirely subjective on this matter.

It’s not your loss of fun that’s causing my gaining of fun, that would be morally wrong. Instead the fun comes from keeping the game away from bad published rules so that I don’t have to deal with tables using them or players wanting to use such bad rules at any time now or in the conceivable future.

There is also a measure of trust in the rules that seeing bad rules become published erodes that trust which also tends to be detrimental to a persons fun.

Here's the thing, when I see an official rule not make it into the official rules that I disliked and thought would disrupt the balance of the game, that doesn't enhance my fun, like you said it does for you. I feel a bit of relief, but it doesn't feel fun to me to see something not make it into the rules, especially if it was something that people liked.

It doesn't erode anything if it's an optional rule that you aren't being forced to use.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Here's the thing, when I see an official rule not make it into the official rules that I disliked and thought would disrupt the balance of the game, that doesn't enhance my fun, like you said it does for you. I feel a bit of relief, but it doesn't feel fun to me to see something not make it into the rules, especially if it was something that people liked.

'Relief' seems pretty accurate. This is internet so some people of course will resort to hyperbole.

It doesn't erode anything if it's an optional rule that you aren't being forced to use.

Publishing bad rules erodes my confidence that the designers know what the naughty word they're doing. The customising origins mess has certainly done that, as optional as it may be.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

For the last time, @Crimson Longinus it is entirely subjective whether or not this rule was good or bad. It is opinion based, stop claiming that it isn't. That's complete BS.