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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9543257" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I don't see it as forcing anyone to do anything. I see it as removing forces that force me to play like what only some people want to play, turning those forces into opt-in mechanics rather than opt-out ones.If there really are well-written, effective "Novice Level" rules with "incremental advance" options (read: you can pick up just one perk as if you were a level higher, e.g. more ki points, more rage uses, that sort of thing), I don't see how this would harm anyone's experience. It would help me, because then I could know that any group that is using those rules isn't a group I'll have any interest in joining. And it would help those groups, because now, instead of having to rely on kinda-janky hacks or Billy's untested homebrew, they can have actually polished, tested, reviewed rules for the experience they want to have.I don't see how any part of that "forces" anyone to do anything. It acknowledges a pattern--DMs have a tendency to start at level 1 regardless of what "level 1" actually means--and responds by providing more tools, more options, more variety, not less. Who exactly is being "forced" to do anything here?And, for the record, I've been calling for "Novice Level" rules since before the D&D Next playtest ended. This ain't some new song I've only just started singing. I've been beating this drum for a long, long time now. It has absolutely nothing to do with my frustrations with (most of) the 5e DMs I've had over the years.</blockquote>

Verification