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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreatLemur" data-source="post: 3721159" data-attributes="member: 28553">I'm pretty torn about this whole thing.  I've got a really serious, gut-level dislike of anything that goes against the internal consistency of a game system and thereby decreases its modularity.  Modularity is incredibly important to me, because I don't really feel like playing any game the way it's supposed to be played.  I don't believe that anyone on earth is looking to play half-celestial awakened gelatinous cube paladins, but orc, bugbear, gnoll, and lizardfolk PCs sound like a great idea.  So does customizing less PC-appropriate monsters with class levels to take them outside of their usual schticks.  Why shouldn't there be fire giant wizards or goblin monks?But, at the same time, I realize that Mearls' "build it for what it'll be used for" approach is the "right" thing to do in that it'll lead to the most improvement for the most people.  Build the world's most popular RPG for the average gamer, and let us gearheads customize it ourselves, because you know we'll be houseruling the hell out of it, anyway.Furthermore, I'm sure there will be ways to play as orcs, bugbears, gnolls, and lizardfolk.  And even if the fact that the PC versions of those critters are different from the monster versions offends my sense of logic, I know that it ain't really gonna mean much at the table.  And, hell, however they end up working that bit, it's gotta be better than ECL.</blockquote>

Verification