Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8121281" data-attributes="member: 6901101">That's cool. Good on you for compromising with the player. Everyone, look. DM's compromising with a player. Sounds like a good table. I could start with an 18 and be better than everyone at my niche. <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> The past helps define the present, especially with literature, history and ideas.So because it doesn't contain all nontraditional archetypes, that's not one of the intentions of the book. Got it. Lore, written lore, with no mechanics to back it up are a different subject. Maybe that is where you are confused?I've seen it. That's my anecdotal evidence. So who is right? My guess - you. Why? Because of what you said in bold. So everyone on this forum - no more arguing about whether it is optional. Chaos has spoken. He says it's unlikely that any table will refuse these "optional" rules. So we should reprint the PHB and place them in. These are not options - I agree Chaos.</blockquote>