Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6994952" data-attributes="member: 996">There really, really is, yes.&nbsp; Which does make it a moot statement.&nbsp; The core rules were set in stone (baring any reluctant stabs at errata) when the core books (PH, DMG, I suppose MM) hit the shelves.&nbsp; End of story.It'll always be quite convenient to limit a campaign to using just those rules.&nbsp; Even in rules-obsessed/player-entitled 3e, you could get away with that.Maybe I drank the koolaid, but I have to believe that, in the context of 5e, the former /is/ the case.&nbsp; That's the attitude 5e has fostered both in it's very DM-focused &quot;Empowering&quot; design and in the softer aspects of presentation and designer communications.&nbsp; The latter is, at best, an attitude held over from the 3e era, if you're coping with that attitude you might as well play PF, because you are, no matter what book is on the table, playing something about like 3e.&nbsp; (At worst, it's just plain wanting to dictate to other people how to play the game.)I find it blessedly easy to ignore Feats in 5e, just for one instance.&nbsp; But, yes, it's placement in the PH makes it about as easily-asserted an option as possible.&nbsp; There's a clear hierarchy of officialdom:Basic RulesPHPH, but labeled 'optional'DMG 'module'Dead-tree supplements, prettymuch in order of release.UA3ppDMsG&nbsp; I don't think that's necessary or the 'only way,' but I sure wouldn't mind the added choice &amp; flexibility.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6994952, member: 996"] There really, really is, yes. Which does make it a moot statement. The core rules were set in stone (baring any reluctant stabs at errata) when the core books (PH, DMG, I suppose MM) hit the shelves. End of story. It'll always be quite convenient to limit a campaign to using just those rules. Even in rules-obsessed/player-entitled 3e, you could get away with that. Maybe I drank the koolaid, but I have to believe that, in the context of 5e, the former /is/ the case. That's the attitude 5e has fostered both in it's very DM-focused "Empowering" design and in the softer aspects of presentation and designer communications. The latter is, at best, an attitude held over from the 3e era, if you're coping with that attitude you might as well play PF, because you are, no matter what book is on the table, playing something about like 3e. (At worst, it's just plain wanting to dictate to other people how to play the game.) I find it blessedly easy to ignore Feats in 5e, just for one instance. But, yes, it's placement in the PH makes it about as easily-asserted an option as possible. There's a clear hierarchy of officialdom: Basic Rules PH PH, but labeled 'optional' DMG 'module' Dead-tree supplements, prettymuch in order of release. UA 3pp DMsG I don't think that's necessary or the 'only way,' but I sure wouldn't mind the added choice & flexibility. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification