Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9211892" data-attributes="member: 93670">Are you just declaring Badwrongfun to defend poor design rather than actually trying to defend the design itself on whatever merits it might have?  Even if fixing the examples of  passive aggressive design  noted above leads to an additional page in the character sheet and/or a core rulebook I think you will be fine[spoiler="honest"]A standard sheet of laser-printer paper of the usual thickness, either US "letter" size or international "A4" size, weighs 4.5 grams. That means 100 sheets weighs almost exactly one pound. One sheet is 0.16 of one ounce (28.35g); there are 6.3 sheets per ounce.<a href="https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/12" target="_blank">-source</a>[/spoiler]By your own admission it sounds like you wouldn't be using the character sheet s& completed rules sections much or at all.  Having a section you don't use much or at all on the character sheet with fleshed out rules in the ruleset for people who do use them doesn't negatively impact you since you aren't using them much or at all.  Not having them significantly impacts those who do need them.You've done an excellent job of demonstrating just how petty & passive aggressive these roadblocks of omission come off<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Q:Should the PHB explain attunement & attunement slots so players will understand them & be able to reference the section if they gain an item that requires attunement?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A: No because [USER=6909860]@Uni-the-Unicorn![/USER] prefers to play low / no magic item D&D so they want that to remain.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Q: Should a standard set of Body slots or similar be defined somewhere so that concepts like slot affinities and slot conflicts can be explained?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A: No because [USER=6909860]@Uni-the-Unicorn![/USER] prefers to play low / no magic item D&D so they want that to remain.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Q:Should the character sheet include a page that some groups can use to track magic items a character has on them & has chosen to equip or somehow keep active in a way relevant to the magic item?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A: No because [USER=6909860]@Uni-the-Unicorn![/USER] prefers to play low / no magic item D&D so they want that to remain.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Q: Should there be actual rules of any sort for containers rather than just capacities?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A: No because [USER=6909860]@Uni-the-Unicorn![/USER] prefers to play low / no magic item D&D so they want that to remain</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Q:Should there be useful carry capacity rules that create interesting choices rather than two awful ones that do neither while discouraging their use?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A1: No because [USER=6909860]@Uni-the-Unicorn![/USER] prefers to play low / no magic item D&D so they want that to remain</li> </ul></li> </ul>I didn't expect such a clear example that simultaneously confirms fixing these omissions won't particularly impact them while showing the sort of petty & passive aggressive tone these kinds of omissions set for the hurdles they throw at a GM choosing to engage in what someone deemed to be BadWrongFun back in 2014</blockquote>

Verification