Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 3781112" data-attributes="member: 19857">The thing is - the &quot;swift action&quot; is kind of a bad example of this because it's not just randomly interspersed throughout different books.&nbsp; It's republished in every single freaking book they've made that has an ability requiring a &quot;swift action&quot; - that entire block of text repeated every single time a designer wants to include a swift action ability in a book.&nbsp; Taking up space for those of us who already know what it is, but erring on the side of &quot;not everyone will have every book&quot;.I'm all for creating a framework that will allow updates to the game rules - if everyone knows that there's a rules upgrade that came out with the PHB II and you can either get that book or get the erratta online that's great.&nbsp; But I also think that tables need to re-assess their definition of &quot;optional&quot;.&nbsp; At our table, every rule is potentially optional.&nbsp; We're not afraid to say yes to things, but we're also not afraid to say &quot;not at our table&quot;.&nbsp; And that goes for rules in the PHB I itself - if we find a rule, a spell, a feat or whatever that interferes with our game we throw it away.&nbsp; &quot;Core&quot; should not be a synonym for &quot;required&quot; - just about everything in any of the rule books is a &quot;suggestion&quot; at best.&nbsp; No table should feel like it's being forced to implement something they don't like just because WotC put it in a book.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 3781112, member: 19857"] The thing is - the "swift action" is kind of a bad example of this because it's not just randomly interspersed throughout different books. It's republished in every single freaking book they've made that has an ability requiring a "swift action" - that entire block of text repeated every single time a designer wants to include a swift action ability in a book. Taking up space for those of us who already know what it is, but erring on the side of "not everyone will have every book". I'm all for creating a framework that will allow updates to the game rules - if everyone knows that there's a rules upgrade that came out with the PHB II and you can either get that book or get the erratta online that's great. But I also think that tables need to re-assess their definition of "optional". At our table, every rule is potentially optional. We're not afraid to say yes to things, but we're also not afraid to say "not at our table". And that goes for rules in the PHB I itself - if we find a rule, a spell, a feat or whatever that interferes with our game we throw it away. "Core" should not be a synonym for "required" - just about everything in any of the rule books is a "suggestion" at best. No table should feel like it's being forced to implement something they don't like just because WotC put it in a book. [/QUOTE]

Verification