Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sonofapreacherman" data-source="post: 6328724" data-attributes="member: 2315">This game will always be subject to errata. Hence the 'Version 0.1' on page one of the free PDF. The designers have said that they will remain committed to making corrections to D&amp;D. They would be wise to make good on that promise.Moreover, regarding the freedom to create house rules, of course that option exists. I can always invent my own game, but then why would I pay for it? If I'm going to pay for a game, it's because it supports a wide selection of play-styles.Feats are a good example. Instead of making them a variant rule, make them core, but preserve the choice that is being suggested now. If you want them, you can have them. If you don't, you can take an ability score bonus. That way people who want complexity can have it (without any variant rule restrictions), and people that don't can abstain. You can even have both types of people playing at the same table in the same party.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sonofapreacherman, post: 6328724, member: 2315"] This game will always be subject to errata. Hence the 'Version 0.1' on page one of the free PDF. The designers have said that they will remain committed to making corrections to D&D. They would be wise to make good on that promise. Moreover, regarding the freedom to create house rules, of course that option exists. I can always invent my own game, but then why would I pay for it? If I'm going to pay for a game, it's because it supports a wide selection of play-styles. Feats are a good example. Instead of making them a variant rule, make them core, but preserve the choice that is being suggested now. If you want them, you can have them. If you don't, you can take an ability score bonus. That way people who want complexity can have it (without any variant rule restrictions), and people that don't can abstain. You can even have both types of people playing at the same table in the same party. [/QUOTE]

Verification