Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cyberen" data-source="post: 6176663" data-attributes="member: 69074">Lol !Ten pages ago [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] told us he considered the rules to be a base for his tinkering... and he got beaten for that.Now he tells us he finds the concept of Bards as adventurer silly, and he's getting beaten again by guys citing the RAW to prove that Bards are a valid concept (or, even more funnily, find -perfectly valid- Appendix N justification for the Bards but conveniently ignore that sidekicks are also a perfectly valid staple of the fantasy genre).I recognize [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] view as fully coherent : he has a clear view of the genre he wants to run, and doesn't feel constrained by the RAW. He legitimately defines his "bias" as his director signature. Some posters have made a quite convincing case for Balance being more or less mandatory in the RAW (because, if you present a choice, every option need to be somewhat viable) but I find the violent flak a DM is taking by avowing a prejudice against some options offered is... amazing.I hope Next will be houseruling friendly, because I wouldn't mix kung-fu monks with dual wielding rangers with healing foutains with ... I think this mess requires some serious editing at campaign level (and I totally can envision bard-friendly campaign settings as well as bard-hostile ones).</blockquote>