I couldn't disagree more. They're a player-facing part of the PC build that give capabilities to the PC related to who they are in the setting that the player can expect to be able to call upon reliably. Of course, the DM would do well to honor and not shut down this part of PC build, like any other, but the purpose of the feature is to tell the player what their character can do.
This doesn't apply to me, because I'm already using Level Up instead of the 2014 PH, but I can see why people have that issue. Let's start by not making the assumption that every 2024 mechanical element with the same name as a 2014 mechanical element is objectively superior. If one prefers the older version (say the 2014 warlock) and it is due to be replaced by a version you don't like as much (online and in the public consciousness, if not literally removed), I can see being irritated by that, particularly if you've formed any sort of emotional attachment to the older material. And people do form those attachments. In concept it's not all that different from being annoyed by WotC throwing out the old lore of a favored setting and replacing it with new lore which you don't like, but uses all the same names and effectively replaces it in public discourse.
I've seen games dry up over people being at loggerheads about some fairly trivial offal when you get right down to it. So yeah, if there's a debate, someone is going to leave the table. In a debate between the players and the DM, if either group quits, there's no game anymore.
You as player were able to stop the commoners from attacking the party because your feature states positively "commoners will extend you every courtesy and do their utmost to help you." If your feature were replaced by a first-level feat, I wonder how that interaction might have played out in a way that honors your choice of background as a Haunted One in the setting. Maybe you could have gained advantage on a Charisma check or a bonus to initiative.
Yea. It’s also a position that if applied equally to the players completely demolishes the point. If the players just don’t care about it then the whole issue goes away too.
Sure, but it's not exactly the same. By not guiding players seeking Inspiration towards their character's personality traits, bonds, etc., they are deemphasizing the importance of those elements of character build, if not outright deleting them.
Authoritarian table came up in 697 supporting the same allowed unless the GM meets the high bar you've been pushing for. I'm not going to link to 697 because you literally quoted one while accusing me of inventing it.
Yeah, that's how it works, but the DM ought to be a benevolent dictator, and the players ought to accept DM arbitration, otherwise the group falls apart.
