Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 965579" data-attributes="member: 5">As noted above, I'm going to try things out as revised before I pass judgment on them.  The problem with house rules is that they generally don't hold up well and need additional house rules to fix what they unbalance.  I wouldn't make any adjustments until I can see how it works as revised and know better what might be the best way to judiciously fix it, if at all.I'm not sure I completely grasp what you've posted, though.  Perhaps you could repost and clarify.  I think you may have left a few words out during writing it.I think we know who they *will* pander to regardless of who they *should* pander to, and I am not making an assumption that they are not one and the same nor convinced it is a matter of pandering, rather than balancing the rules for its own sake.I take it you consider yourself a member of the second group, so let me ask, "How much have you tinkered with the 3.0 rules as written?"One of the things the designers need to consider is that almost everyone tinkers with the rules to some extent, whether individually, as a third-party pub, or by adding material from WotC subsequent to the core rules.  Ultimately they strive, if I am not mistaken, to set the base in such a way that no matter from which way stuff is piled on it, it remains untoppled.For my own part, I am almost so strictly a core rules guy that people wonder why I even bother with additional rules discussion.  It's what I use to create my materials for CMG and you will find little to no CMG material that would overturn a core rule.  This is why the revisions discussion holds interest for me ... in the end I will have to work with whatever becomes the new "core rules"...</blockquote>

Verification