Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3219418" data-attributes="member: 18280">BTW, I am alone in thinking that "The default isn't a problem because I don't have to use the default" is sort of a cop-out answer?  True, but obvious, and it doesn't really answer the question.  I mean, my house rules tone down magic a lot, but I didn't think that we were talking about the Rules As Changed.The OP sort of assumes that we are talking about the RAW, rather than the OP's house rules, after all.  Or are we up in arms against/in support of Emirikol's house rules?   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> "I gave out a ton of magic because that was the core assumption" is, of course, as lame a response.  Still, if you want to use published material (and many do, even if only for the stat blocks), then the core assumptions do affect your game (or at least your prep time).YMMV, of course.RCEDIT:  The ruleset and the core assumptions are not the same thing, BTW.  The ruleset could easily accomodate other core assumptions.  Though modification would be required (as in my house rules), those modifications do not require to adjust the most basic mechanics.IOW, I think that the ruleset is great, but what they chose to do with it is not.  I imagine that I am not alone in this; after all, who was that guy who wrote an alternate Player's Handbook with a different spell selection?  What other books did he write?  I think it was clear before Book One hit the shelves that there was going to be a call for alternates to the core assumptions.RC</blockquote>

Verification