Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6438301" data-attributes="member: 37579">There are certainly a range of house rules, but in general, just replying with &quot;house rule it&quot; when discussing a problem with the system (and not your campaign) is problematic. I also expanded that point out initially in the post the quote was pulled from.The argument was that there was no problem having elves that didn't make good wizards as you could house rule that. But, if it was so simple, then why did WotC create the eladrin and change the lore of an entire subrace in two campaign settings into extradimensional fey? And rework a monster? That's a bit of a big change when you could just make a house rule (which, to WotC's credit, they did perfectly with Essentials). They did completely revamp something. I have no problems house ruling at my game. I'm anxiously about to start a Pathfinder game, and that will be using wound points (further house rules from the official variant rules), a morale system, a reroll token system, and a system to replace stat boosting magic items. It get a little more frustrated when instead of choosing to house rule I have to house rule. Especially if the house rules are revisionary rather than additive. Which is why 5e is so appealing: I don't need to change many rules, just add them. But 3e/4e you really have to change so you could add. And, similarly, I don't like having to house rule/change campaign settings. I'm very comfortable making my own campaign setting. I've done it several times and <a href="http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/131097/Jester-Davids-HowTo-Guide-to-Fantasy-Worldbuilding" target="_blank">written a book on the subject</a>. But when I use a published setting, I don't want to have to make sweeping changes as that defeats the purpose of using a published setting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6438301, member: 37579"] There are certainly a range of house rules, but in general, just replying with "house rule it" when discussing a problem with the system (and not your campaign) is problematic. I also expanded that point out initially in the post the quote was pulled from. The argument was that there was no problem having elves that didn't make good wizards as you could house rule that. But, if it was so simple, then why did WotC create the eladrin and change the lore of an entire subrace in two campaign settings into extradimensional fey? And rework a monster? That's a bit of a big change when you could just make a house rule (which, to WotC's credit, they did perfectly with Essentials). They did completely revamp something. I have no problems house ruling at my game. I'm anxiously about to start a Pathfinder game, and that will be using wound points (further house rules from the official variant rules), a morale system, a reroll token system, and a system to replace stat boosting magic items. It get a little more frustrated when instead of [I]choosing[/I] to house rule I [I]have[/I] to house rule. Especially if the house rules are revisionary rather than additive. Which is why 5e is so appealing: I don't need to change many rules, just add them. But 3e/4e you really have to change so you could add. And, similarly, I don't like having to house rule/change campaign settings. I'm very comfortable making my own campaign setting. I've done it several times and [url=http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/131097/Jester-Davids-HowTo-Guide-to-Fantasy-Worldbuilding]written a book on the subject[/url]. But when I use a published setting, I don't want to have to make sweeping changes as that defeats the purpose of using a published setting. [/QUOTE]

Verification