Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Legildur" data-source="post: 2694075" data-attributes="member: 1258">I have two groups, and they are both great (large crossover between the two groups though), with zero conflict.&nbsp; So, no, that isn't the problem.Given that characters in our games usually 'live' for about 2 years real time before a TPK, then any decisions taken on character generation now, are around for some time.&nbsp; And no one wants to re-engineer a character at a later stage because of a rules change (or miss out on an attractive option while waiting for clarification).It's not that we don't have house rules, but they probably only number half-a-dozen that I can think of off the top of head.&nbsp; Our preference, which may or may not match that of other groups, is to play as closely to the RAW as possible.&nbsp; That way there are no surprises.One example (and I apologise in advance for using this particular example) is that for a dwarven monk character I inquired about taking Improved Natural Attack.&nbsp; The DM for that group ruled that it was a monster feat (in the MM) and that a monk did not have natural weapons (open to debate I know), and therefore ineligible for the feat - a position for which I had some sympathy.Now, I could show them the FAQ and say 'look here' he would have been allowed.&nbsp; But I can't in good conscience do that as it is unclear whether that 'clarification' is reliable.Had it been in Errata, then no questions asked - except, of course, for the possibility to have it house ruled out.I think WotC are being lazy (on numerous) accounts and need to revise how they do things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Legildur, post: 2694075, member: 1258"] I have two groups, and they are both great (large crossover between the two groups though), with zero conflict. So, no, that isn't the problem. Given that characters in our games usually 'live' for about 2 years real time before a TPK, then any decisions taken on character generation now, are around for some time. And no one wants to re-engineer a character at a later stage because of a rules change (or miss out on an attractive option while waiting for clarification). It's not that we don't have house rules, but they probably only number half-a-dozen that I can think of off the top of head. Our preference, which may or may not match that of other groups, is to play as closely to the RAW as possible. That way there are no surprises. One example (and I apologise in advance for using this particular example) is that for a dwarven monk character I inquired about taking Improved Natural Attack. The DM for that group ruled that it was a monster feat (in the MM) and that a monk did not have natural weapons (open to debate I know), and therefore ineligible for the feat - a position for which I had some sympathy. Now, I could show them the FAQ and say 'look here' he would have been allowed. But I can't in good conscience do that as it is unclear whether that 'clarification' is reliable. Had it been in Errata, then no questions asked - except, of course, for the possibility to have it house ruled out. I think WotC are being lazy (on numerous) accounts and need to revise how they do things. [/QUOTE]

Verification