Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Coroc" data-source="post: 7888679" data-attributes="member: 6895991">I would give you 10 likes if I could, if you would have split up your OP into 4 paragraphs posted separately I could have given you at least 4.Besides addressing the issue perfectly you gave me some good laughs.Here is some of what I liked best of your arguments (citations in italics):...Additions for the sake of additions are the bane of thoughtful design...And that's why dragonborn should not be shoehorned except there where they really might fit in...and the PHB3 &quot;Play as a Gelatinous Cube&quot;?OMG I hope you did not seed some idea into people now &quot;But I want to play my Gelatinous cube paladin in your darksun campaign. You are SO grognard and a declared enemy of diversity !&quot;One is to sandbox certain features (bounded accuracy is kind of a way of doing that!)Wow, I never thought about it that way, but yes sandbox can also mean sandbox to the core mechanic aka&nbsp; crunch so you can mod more safely!Tbh everyone as he likes at his table and I do not have problems modding, leaving out, converting and even ADDING stuff. You are reading correctly, I do not only restrict stuff sometimes I add some things. E.g. intimidation based on Str (Fighters) or even Con (Dwarven Fighters) is a houserule I am totally fine with.Why ? Because it does not hurt at all! You might say ah no, the fighter guy did not invest in Cha so why is he allowed to do so? I say yes, he can intimidate based on Str at my table that does not mean he can bluff, perform or gets a good save vs charm. He intimidates well, because that is a property a strong fighter eventually should have, no matter if he wins a beauty contest.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Coroc, post: 7888679, member: 6895991"] I would give you 10 likes if I could, if you would have split up your OP into 4 paragraphs posted separately I could have given you at least 4. Besides addressing the issue perfectly you gave me some good laughs. Here is some of what I liked best of your arguments (citations in italics): [I]...Additions for the sake of additions are the bane of thoughtful design...[/I] And that's why dragonborn should not be shoehorned except there where they really might fit in [I]...and the PHB3 "Play as a Gelatinous Cube"?[/I] OMG I hope you did not seed some idea into people now "But I want to play my Gelatinous cube paladin in your darksun campaign. You are SO grognard and a declared enemy of diversity !" [I]One is to sandbox certain features (bounded accuracy is kind of a way of doing that!)[/I] Wow, I never thought about it that way, but yes sandbox can also mean sandbox to the core mechanic aka crunch so you can mod more safely! Tbh everyone as he likes at his table and I do not have problems modding, leaving out, converting and even ADDING stuff. You are reading correctly, I do not only restrict stuff sometimes I add some things. E.g. intimidation based on Str (Fighters) or even Con (Dwarven Fighters) is a houserule I am totally fine with. Why ? Because it does not hurt at all! You might say ah no, the fighter guy did not invest in Cha so why is he allowed to do so? I say yes, he can intimidate based on Str at my table that does not mean he can bluff, perform or gets a good save vs charm. He intimidates well, because that is a property a strong fighter eventually should have, no matter if he wins a beauty contest. [/QUOTE]

Verification