Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5740598" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Ah, but the topics have changed. When it comes to my group, houseruling is more acceptable than reskinning most of the time. Earlier, houseruling was not acceptable in the context of game design.The thing with houseruling not being very palatable in game design is that it's saying, "if you don't like the rules, change the rules." In a discussion on how to design the game, that's not helpful. In the context of what's acceptable to my group (or your group), we can speak of houseruling and reskinning as solutions in an entirely different context. The former is theoretically future game design, while the latter is a particular group's preferences to current game design.No, the Fighter doesn't cast any spells. Saying he does is breaking rules (again, though, it's not massive from a rules standpoint).By this token, you could have a Strength of 18 and be 5'10" and 130 pounds. You'll look pretty scrawny, but be strong. Why not use the already existing rules to model this?I still hold that a "wizard" that uses Fighter mechanics is breaking the rules. So, I can't agree with your assessment here. Maybe it's best to agree to disagree on this point?Even for their group? I mean, I shouldn't insist that your group does, but I don't see how you could reasonably say that my group should accept your preferences some of the time, either.It's really a social contract issue, as I've previously mentioned. Depending on what the players want to get out of the game, they're going to have different priorities, and different preferences or deal-breakers. That's just the way it is.I think once you use your first Rage people will figure it out, yeah? Also, people shouldn't be looking at your sheet in your opinion. This is yet another social contract issue that will vary greatly from table to table, and your view on it is by no means universal.Well, those two sentences mean very different things. Saying, "your druid should always be nature-oriented" is exceptionally different from "you can only do something if it's in a book somewhere saying you can." You know what I mean?And, once again, if you think that it's too restrictive, that's cool. Again, it's a social contract thing, and it'll vary from group to group.Oh, this is definitely true (in spirit, at least... I'm actually hazy on the mechanical details of the system). But, your cleric is an "OK defender" instead of a good defender, and only a "conditional striker" instead of a good striker. See the obvious objection I'll have?Well, if you doing so ruffles the feathers of the group, shouldn't you be willing to change it? I mean, it's about fun for everyone, right? So, if a particular group has a mindset that makes what you're doing be a fun dampener, shouldn't it be okay to point that out?I get what your personal views on this are, but to think that they should somehow be universal is to deny the massive variances in play style for all gamers out there. Ideally, yeah, every group you play in will match up with your play style, but I cannot for a second support the idea that every group should embrace your style or be labeled "too restrictive", as you indicated earlier about class fluff (and possibly on this issue). It's just too OneTrueWay for me. Sorry.As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification