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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8115641" data-attributes="member: 6901101">[USER=6801228]@Chaosmancer[/USER] I came here to say something similar. I think from a logic standpoint, you are spot on Chaos. The clarity of your post, and its succinct point could not have been said better. But the intent behind a rule change sometimes means the lines in the sand change position. I simply think this is one of those times. Again, 5e was created. It is a success. My thoughts about the line fall in between the two: rules change to make things easier. They often change to give a certain group an advantage. And in this case, it will be the min/maxers that get an advantage. As has mostly been the case through D&D's evolution. And each time that happens, a little bit of lore gets lost. DM's that spent hundreds of hours, with hundreds of pages of notepads, and hundreds of play hours, creating a world, now feel that what they did might be ruined.And yes, you can say, but DM's don't have to use the rule, or that, they can just find a new group, etc. But one: that isn't really true for all. And two, that doesn't dismiss the fact that their creation is slowly being strangled out of existence.So I would just ask from you, to have a little sympathy and understanding for that side.On a side note: That is one of the nice things about a new edition. It rewrites the rules. And when it does that, it is like an author ending a book series. Sure, they could continue with their series, or they can wrap it up, and start on a new one. So there is not as much of a feeling of loss compared to rewriting rules in the middle of an edition.</blockquote>

Verification