Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 9502627" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I think we are mostly arguing meanings of words here so I don't see carrying this line of discussion further.I would have argued that ad hoc means you can do anything you want not that you have to do anything you want.So ad hoc and some pre-canned reusable ideas.&nbsp; I got it.&nbsp; To me, this was inherent in what I said.Yeah I could go with six.&nbsp; The Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Rogue, and Elf(your swordmaster), and Dwarf(give it some new name).&nbsp;&nbsp; Part of what makes today's game so unfun to me is the massive profligation of classes and races.&nbsp; Any world that contained all of these seems like a rare bizarro world which is fine for a one off but I'd hate to try to keep repeatedly doing this with every campagn.It's really a guideline not a rule.&nbsp; Rules aren't supposed to be broken.&nbsp; And if the guideline is not followed enough whatever is done is the new guideline.I'm not against exceptions based designed.&nbsp; I didn't like 4e at all but that is not solely because of exceptions based design.&nbsp; If someone offered me a million dollars I could make 5e fun with enough house rules but with that many house rules I might as well house rule another game.&nbsp; I do like traits to imply things. So there is a middle ground.&nbsp; I'm fine with undead being driven by negative energy but I'm also fine with a particular monster overriding the negative energy part.&nbsp; If I was going to make a ton of these kinds of creatures then I'd probably like deathless as a trait.&nbsp; But I agree with you that no one should be bound on any given monster where they can't just change something.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 9502627, member: 6698278"] I think we are mostly arguing meanings of words here so I don't see carrying this line of discussion further. I would have argued that ad hoc means you can do anything you want not that you have to do anything you want. So ad hoc and some pre-canned reusable ideas. I got it. To me, this was inherent in what I said. Yeah I could go with six. The Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Rogue, and Elf(your swordmaster), and Dwarf(give it some new name). Part of what makes today's game so unfun to me is the massive profligation of classes and races. Any world that contained all of these seems like a rare bizarro world which is fine for a one off but I'd hate to try to keep repeatedly doing this with every campagn. It's really a guideline not a rule. Rules aren't supposed to be broken. And if the guideline is not followed enough whatever is done is the new guideline. I'm not against exceptions based designed. I didn't like 4e at all but that is not solely because of exceptions based design. If someone offered me a million dollars I could make 5e fun with enough house rules but with that many house rules I might as well house rule another game. I do like traits to imply things. So there is a middle ground. I'm fine with undead being driven by negative energy but I'm also fine with a particular monster overriding the negative energy part. If I was going to make a ton of these kinds of creatures then I'd probably like deathless as a trait. But I agree with you that no one should be bound on any given monster where they can't just change something. [/QUOTE]

Verification