I want it because otherwise we are telling corporations that it's ok to lie about their motives to the public, that we don't mind being lied to (even if in just a minor way). They can sell their product effectively without claiming it's something that it isn't, whether people see through it or not. I also want it because I value honest discourse, between people and between corporations and the public. Is there something wrong with that?
Multiple people have stated that they played the UA classes with standard 2014 classes and it was not an issue.
Wotc's efforts to claim it can be both ways easy peasy by design comes with a real & quantifiable cost though. You need only look at the recent indignation about "authoritarian tables" if a GM does not allow players to individually decide or vote for what the GM allows as a group for examples of the very real downstream problems being setup for GMs a year or two down the line when the books are getting published.
My thoughts on this are simple. If you are a corporation, and the public asks you a question, and there isn't a legal reason why you can't answer it, you should, and you should do so honestly. Even if the answer is something like, "We're still working out our product schedule and have no release dates yet" or, "This is an edition change to a degree similar to what's been done in the past, but we're not using that term in our advertising because some people react negatively to it". Or even, "We do want you to buy the new stuff we're releasing, and expect it to replace the existing material".Thing is, from what I can tell, is that you don't need to replace all books, just pick and choose. Most groups will probably switch to the new PHB classes, but there's no need to buy anything else. If you like the way the current classes work but think monsters could be improved you could buy the new MM. Nobody reads the DMG anyway, so why bother buying a new one?
But WOTC is not "lying" or "covering up" anything, they've clearly stated that this is more than a reprint with new covers and artwork. They're open that some things are changing, they've just chosen not to use the "edition" language.
Not saying it is but it could be selection bias. The tables most likely to allow that are also most likely not as worried about class balance and also the ones least likely to min max a lot.
The DM should always be in a discussion with their players as to what rules are going to be allowed at a table. That's just social contract 101.
And I think that's extremely unlikely. Class balance simply isn't that tight in 5e.
The idea that the DM should, at best, have no more authority over the game played than any other player is far from a universal one.
Yep. Social contract doesn’t have to give everyone an equal voice.
Being "in a discussion" with the players is a far cry from "no more authority than any other player".
