Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pollo Loco" data-source="post: 6616615" data-attributes="member: 6795384">Reading through the entire post-chain, this post (the last one to-date) had the most relevant point in my opinion...That players are intended to have characters based on the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK.&nbsp; The other books, DMG, MM, etc., are intended for the DUNGEON MASTER.&nbsp; Having been both a player and DM for about 30 years, this has been a pretty standard rule for every version of the rules of any game I have played.As a DM, I might house-rule something into a home-game if the player could give a viable reason for it (the role-playing of a wizard earning a non-standard familiar being a perfect example).&nbsp; I would be exceedingly hesitant to allow a variant rule for a player that gave them a option that is pretty much the exclusive domain of another player; i.e. if we have a chainlock in the party, there is pretty much no chance any other player is going to get an &quot;improved&quot; familiar.&nbsp; Without a chainlock in the party, I would be willing to be more lenient with the familiars for other players, but would still make the player earn it, not simply cast a spell for it.&nbsp; For a Wizard, maybe researching an improved version of the spell (with a higher spell level, obviously) might work.&nbsp; Or seeking out one of the critters and befriending it like the MM suggests for pseudodragons would be a possibility as well.In my humble opinion, thinking that optional rules in a non-player resource simply allow players that option is opening a Pandora's Box that is better left unbreached.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pollo Loco, post: 6616615, member: 6795384"] Reading through the entire post-chain, this post (the last one to-date) had the most relevant point in my opinion...That players are intended to have characters based on the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK. The other books, DMG, MM, etc., are intended for the DUNGEON MASTER. Having been both a player and DM for about 30 years, this has been a pretty standard rule for every version of the rules of any game I have played. As a DM, I might house-rule something into a home-game if the player could give a viable reason for it (the role-playing of a wizard earning a non-standard familiar being a perfect example). I would be exceedingly hesitant to allow a variant rule for a player that gave them a option that is pretty much the exclusive domain of another player; i.e. if we have a chainlock in the party, there is pretty much no chance any other player is going to get an "improved" familiar. Without a chainlock in the party, I would be willing to be more lenient with the familiars for other players, but would still make the player [I]earn[/I] it, not simply cast a spell for it. For a Wizard, maybe researching an improved version of the spell (with a higher spell level, obviously) might work. Or seeking out one of the critters and befriending it like the MM suggests for pseudodragons would be a possibility as well. In my humble opinion, thinking that optional rules in a non-player resource simply allow players that option is opening a Pandora's Box that is better left unbreached. [/QUOTE]

Verification