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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7067880" data-attributes="member: 57112">I will add that I really like expanded weapon lists, as a player, I find them interesting and can add several layers of depth to combat that can be fun from time to time. I would just object to that being a part of the core game. Expanded weapons through 3PP, house-rule, indie developers on DM's Guild, or even official expansions? I'm all for that. If D&D is "all things to all people", then more options for more playstyles is inherently a good thing. But I like keeping the core simple. I rather suspect this is what was meant by "modular design"; I just think we didn't expect WotC to farm out modular design work as much as they have.In any case, the notion that the current list is broken and needs to be fixed is suspect and highly subjective at best. What it seems like people want is an opportunity to for more varied tactical options for martial characters, where there is a perceived lack of such in the core system. I would posit that that is true only for a given playstyle, one in which the rules as written define the limits of character behavior, and I would thus posit that the limiting factor is the style, not the system. Such a playstyle is in no way less valid than any other, but I think it's fair to say it's less supported by the basic principles in 5e (with its "rulings over rules" philosophy). But that then goes back to that whole "modular design" thing which fallen more on the community than we might have initially preferred. The core is streamlined, the add-ons can thus add complexity where it is desired.Requesting an expansion that could be added on to better suit your preferred playstyle is a far cry from declaring a thing broken and demanding it be "fixed", though.</blockquote>

Verification