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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 6132638" data-attributes="member: 8863">It sounds like the same reasons 1e fans like to read Gary's writing.There's that to some degree, though I never had that problem with PS cant.  When it was used well, you could pretty much understand what was being said through context.  Another problem with the cant I've seen comes from the perspective of British players; a good chunk of the cant comes from British slang and was probably chosen by the designers because it sounds unusual to an American audience (though that's a YMMV bit too because I recognized some terms like barmy and sod right from the start).  But then a British player picks up the stuff and recognizes the cant in a way that was probably unintended by the writers, and the intended feel is then lost.I'm pretty sure PS kept things pretty conservative with class/race combos because the designers were well aware that not every DM out there collected every single setting and that at least some of those DMs want to have some degree of control over what goes on in the campaign (I did however find it strange the PS restricted PHB races like elves, dwarves, etc since pretty much every 2e product assumed the players all had the PHB).I'm largely okay with a player asking if he can play a certain type of PC I don't want if he lets it go when I say no.  I mean there's just so many combinations out there that I can't realistically say everything I don't want is banned beforehand.  It's the players that are persistant about it that become the problem.  And asking to play a WoW race in D&D is just plain silly.</blockquote>

Verification