Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Giltonio_Santos" data-source="post: 8089980" data-attributes="member: 36874">I get the impression that people here are discussing two things as if they were the same, which they are not, in my opinion.It's one thing to defend a greater customization of the character races, as PF2 already does and &quot;Advanced 5e&quot; also intends to do, allowing players to create their preferred combinations of race and class, but maintaining the balance between the various options.Another completely different thing is to look at this lazy solution that WotC presented, which messes up the balance that supposedly existed in the races as conceived in the PHB, and saying that it is OK, no problem.&quot;OK, no problem&quot; would be an appropriate answer if we were talking about a homemade solution that one of us thought for their own campaign. As I said before, though, a designer was paid to come up with this. It seems that this bad houserule will soon be appearing in a $50 hardcover. It's the solution presented to Adventurer's League, where DMs will have to deal with characters built using these rules, regardless of whether they agree with them.Besides that, the &quot;it's optional, use it if you want&quot; argument is great in theory, but anyone who (like me) has spent the last 25 years in the DM chair knows that when a player arrives with a new book and says they would like to use one of the options presented there, saying &quot;no&quot; feels more like an act of diplomacy than authority. And you feel bad about having to do that. Many DMs who I know avoid nonofficial stuff exactly because they believe you can trust the owners of D&amp;D to do a better than average job with their rules.No, I don't think this is an acceptable situation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Giltonio_Santos, post: 8089980, member: 36874"] I get the impression that people here are discussing two things as if they were the same, which they are not, in my opinion. It's one thing to defend a greater customization of the character races, as PF2 already does and "Advanced 5e" also intends to do, allowing players to create their preferred combinations of race and class, but maintaining the balance between the various options. Another completely different thing is to look at this lazy solution that WotC presented, which messes up the balance that supposedly existed in the races as conceived in the PHB, and saying that it is OK, no problem. "OK, no problem" would be an appropriate answer if we were talking about a homemade solution that one of us thought for their own campaign. As I said before, though, a designer was paid to come up with this. It seems that this bad houserule will soon be appearing in a $50 hardcover. It's the solution presented to Adventurer's League, where DMs will have to deal with characters built using these rules, regardless of whether they agree with them. Besides that, the "it's optional, use it if you want" argument is great in theory, but anyone who (like me) has spent the last 25 years in the DM chair knows that when a player arrives with a new book and says they would like to use one of the options presented there, saying "no" feels more like an act of diplomacy than authority. And you feel bad about having to do that. Many DMs who I know avoid nonofficial stuff exactly because they believe you can trust the owners of D&D to do a better than average job with their rules. No, I don't think this is an acceptable situation. [/QUOTE]

Verification