Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7874671" data-attributes="member: 7006">There's not a single thing in the game that is not an &quot;issue&quot; for me at some time or another.&nbsp; It comes up and does something I personally as a player/DM don't care for, my internal monologue sighs, and then I move on.&nbsp; Or if it comes up enough, I create a bunch of new house rules for my next campaign to see if I can ameliorate my issues.&nbsp; Some work, some don't.&nbsp; The ones that do work (amended skill list, the Using Variant Abilities for skills variant etc.) I keep going with.&nbsp; The others that didn't actually fix or satisfy my issues I just go back to what the game had before.But the thing is... none of that bothers me.&nbsp; I have no problems making house rules for individual campaigns, changing power levels up or down, grittier fights / easier fights and so forth.&nbsp; I also try to never look at characters in a vacuum via what the PHB could say they could be and then get all upset at what a potential problem a PC could have.&nbsp; I try to only care about the PCs that actually appear at the table and do what they do.&nbsp; So stuff like &quot;Expertise means a Rogue or Bard could be more of X than this other class&quot; doesn't matter to me one whit because if I never actually see a Rogue or Bard played at the table with Expertise in Arcana, or Religion, or Athletics, or Survival etc. etc... then it's not actually an issue.And this goes for a whole crap-ton of other things.&nbsp; And I'm not immune by any stretch-- I'm constantly coming up with scenarios of how the game could work which make me go all squiggly... and often inspires me to develop whole new sets of rules to try and &quot;fix&quot; these scenarios (when I can't just brush them off). But then only to finally realize after wasting all this time that my problems are things that won't actually ever appear in the game (especially depending on the types and size of the party).&nbsp; So as a thought-experiment my rules jiggering might come up with some interesting ideas... but in truth they become completely unnecessary and are never used.Does D&amp;D have things that an individual will find irritating?&nbsp; Absolutely.&nbsp; Does &quot;fixing&quot; them via house rules actually solve the issue?&nbsp; In my case only like one out of every ten.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7874671, member: 7006"] There's not a single thing in the game that is not an "issue" for me at some time or another. It comes up and does something I personally as a player/DM don't care for, my internal monologue sighs, and then I move on. Or if it comes up enough, I create a bunch of new house rules for my next campaign to see if I can ameliorate my issues. Some work, some don't. The ones that do work (amended skill list, the Using Variant Abilities for skills variant etc.) I keep going with. The others that didn't actually fix or satisfy my issues I just go back to what the game had before. But the thing is... none of that bothers me. I have no problems making house rules for individual campaigns, changing power levels up or down, grittier fights / easier fights and so forth. I also try to never look at characters in a vacuum via what the PHB could say they could be and then get all upset at what a potential problem a PC could have. I try to only care about the PCs that [I]actually appear[/I] at the table and do what they do. So stuff like "Expertise means a Rogue or Bard could be more of X than this other class" doesn't matter to me one whit because if I never actually see a Rogue or Bard played at the table with Expertise in Arcana, or Religion, or Athletics, or Survival etc. etc... then it's not actually an issue. And this goes for a whole crap-ton of other things. And I'm not immune by any stretch-- I'm [I]constantly[/I] coming up with scenarios of how the game could work which make me go all squiggly... and often inspires me to develop whole new sets of rules to try and "fix" these scenarios (when I can't just brush them off). But then only to finally realize after wasting all this time that my problems are things that won't actually ever [I]appear[/I] in the game (especially depending on the types and size of the party). So as a thought-experiment my rules jiggering might come up with some interesting ideas... but in truth they become completely unnecessary and are never used. Does D&D have things that an individual will find irritating? Absolutely. Does "fixing" them via house rules actually solve the issue? In my case only like one out of every ten. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification