NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8646494" data-attributes="member: 6704184">You're using percentages differently from the person I replied to. They were suggesting that wotc wasn't operating at even 75%, as if they were being lazy or uncreative. Percentage of the player base that like a thing is an entirely separate discussion of percentages. And considering how popular many new ideas have been in 5e, your "the majority will never want to innovate" line is flatly false.Citation needed.Sure, if some of those runes are in the PHB as part of the core system. If they're instead in Tasslehoff's Pockets of Everything, and you release a subclass that uses them in The Gatewatch Guide To The Planes, you've no made the second book require the first, rather than only requiring the PHB.Bonus feats tied to backgrounds are already a thing. If a group wants to use runes but not feats, they don't need to allow feats in general to allow bonus level 1 feats tied to a story element.See above.The only way this ideas works is if they are treated entirely as magic items, or are somehow new proficiencies that aren't more powerful than existing tool proficiencies. So, adding to an existing system.Maybe as part of an "implement proficiencies" expansion that runs alongside weapon proficiencies, giving access to a "spell attack" themed to a given implement, but that would be a huge departure from how the game currently works, and would probably, again, need to be self contained in one book.But why would you? That's a hyper-limited "setting". I think they're more likely to seed First World stuff in the spelljammer book than set a whole book there.Perhaps you haven't gotten around to reading "Small Gods"? I was replying directly to your comment about the gods.</blockquote>

Verification