Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 6614944" data-attributes="member: 12460">I would argue it is not cool at all, just patently silly. Unless you are trying to run a game where RAW allows you to fly in the face of common sense and historicity or resemble a wacky anime series more than Sword & Sorcery novels, I don't see why this ought to be acceptable on a general basis. But since you don't seem to mind the idea of an Aaracockra Ranger/Paladin/Monk/Cleric, I suppose the former sounds right up your alley.I didn't bring up AD&D or B/X, but I'll explain why I'd rather play mostly vanilla 5e (no feats and very few other optional rules). I enjoy the old-school roots of 5e with a streamlined system for core mechanics like ability score modifiers, spell/ability save DCs and proficiency by level (as opposed to older versions of the game where every class, ability score, and weapon had an enormous diversity of different tables of rules). It allows for the STORY to be the focus of the game as opposed to the numbers. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy a 50/50 mix of action-packed combat and deep, thoughtful puzzle-solving or roleplaying. But 3e, 4e, and PF all focused the game way too much on the former IMHO, such that I had to cut out portions of the core game. 5e (supposedly) tells me as a DM that there are rules I don't have to use, but when it seems like virtually every player expects some of these rules to be available (for whatever reason), I feel like the game design philosophy of 5e missed the mark. I'd rather have a few more archetypes for the classes that lack more than two (barbarian, druid, ranger, sorcerer) in the PH than rules for feats (and multiclassing) which I feel as a DM I ought to be able to ignore. If they had been in the DMG, I feel that would have been a better design. But including them in the Player's Handbook seems to suggest that they are available by default, and I am having difficulty coming to terms with that.I feel player characters most certainly ARE my business as a DM, because the types of player characters I allow in my campaign sets the tenor and mood of the game I want to run. As a DM, I ought to enjoy myself as well. Striking that balance between what the player enjoys and what the DM enjoys seems compromised from the DM's perspective when an "optional" rule is viewed as more or less mandatory by the players.</blockquote>

Verification