Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Redthistle" data-source="post: 6494864" data-attributes="member: 6778305">I respectfully disagree. The Basic rules are designed to be simple enough to be played out of the box by people who have never played before, and the PHB expands consistently from that.Like a lot of players, for me DnD 5e is a breath of fresh air after decades of increasingly complex sets of rules in many RPGs. Do I want more options for my game? Yes, but not to the extent that your suggestion encompasses, and I'll work out anything not in the RAW with my gaming group in selecting our house rules.None of us got everything we wanted from the DnD Next play-testing, but I feel the results are fairly decent, and future releases may even deliver options akin to your proposal. Likely, others may feel as you do and grab your ideas and run with them.That being said, there are things you've stated above that I like, and you've definitely provided food for thought. Expanding the attributes reminds me of the Player's Options sourcebook from 2e, that broke out each of the attributes into 2 sub-attributes, and I recall liking what they had done with that. Thanks!RT</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Redthistle, post: 6494864, member: 6778305"] I respectfully disagree. The Basic rules are designed to be simple enough to be played out of the box by people who have never played before, and the PHB expands consistently from that. Like a lot of players, for me DnD 5e is a breath of fresh air after decades of increasingly complex sets of rules in many RPGs. Do I want more options for my game? Yes, but not to the extent that your suggestion encompasses, and I'll work out anything not in the RAW with my gaming group in selecting our house rules. None of us got everything we wanted from the DnD Next play-testing, but I feel the results are fairly decent, and future releases may even deliver options akin to your proposal. Likely, others may feel as you do and grab your ideas and run with them. That being said, there are things you've stated above that I like, and you've definitely provided food for thought. Expanding the attributes reminds me of the Player's Options sourcebook from 2e, that broke out each of the attributes into 2 sub-attributes, and I recall liking what they had done with that. Thanks! RT [/QUOTE]

Verification