Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6890640" data-attributes="member: 996">The former, given the fact that 5e is specifically designed to be modular and provide many options for the DM.  The idea that a segment of the fanbase 'not wanting something in the game' - that is, actively want it excluded so others will not have it as an option - is nonsense when the game is designed to provide options, not dictate OneTrueWay to play.  If 60% want PrCs, and some fraction of the remaining 20% don't want them to even have them as an option, that minority opinion is irrelevant.  Don't want to use an obscure module buried in a non-core supplement, don't use it.  "Not alienating your customers" has been used as an excuse for open discrimination in the past.  It's not a valid rationalization.  It is at odds with the spirit in which 5e was conceived.  Removing something from the game is /both/ depriving the people who wanted it of having that thing, /and/ imposing on them the mode of play possible without it.  Including it does not impose /anything/ upon those who don't want it, they simply don't use it.  Remember, at this late stage, anything and everything added to the game is necessarily opt-in optional.  Nor is it depriving them of anything.  False. 5e is modular in design, the standard game is out, anything added will be strictly opt-in optional and will not be imposed on anyone.Spell points are hardly inoccuous, in the past, they were a notoriously broken variant.  Lasers are genre-busting, as well.  'Imposing' those things would have been intolerable to some players.  But they weren't imposed, they're optional.  Just like PrCs, psionics, new feats or new classes would be.  How?  There's an option for psionics sitting in UA right now?  Anyone who doesn't like it, isn't using it.  Killing a few trees to put it between the covers of some supplement won't change that.  3e was a game with a completely different publication model and attitude from 5e's - and a completely different zeitgeist in the community at the time.  Yeah, RAW and officialness were all-important in the 3e era, and the official RAW game was always changing, while some DMs ciricled their wagons around the Core and played only that.  The idea you could just and pick and choose - or horrors of Oberoni  - selectively change the rule, was not broadly accepted.  In 5e, the game is intentionally developed to be modular, to use DM rulings over 'official' RAW, and to be highly customizable. 5e gives DMs the opportunity to run in the style they like, and 5e players the opportunity to sort themselves into groups who play under DMs with a compatible style.  No one will be 'forced' to use anything new added to the game. Now, what AL adopts as their standard might reasonably be subject to such concerns, since it is closer to a one-size-fits-all proposition.</blockquote>

Verification