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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8131878" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I think that is a decidedly uncharitable reading of what was said, particularly given the context of the foregoing discussion. Yes, if isolated from the rest of the conversation, this would be a bald universal claim. However, in context, the discussion had been "you can always implement homebrew so why does it matter?" and the answer--which is entirely reasonable--is "a lot of places REFUSE to implement even the smallest amount of homebrew, so official-option status actually has significant utility."I agree with your point: it is not true that all possible rule-change proposals are better as official optional rules. However, even in context, the point is...a little pedantic, I hope you can agree. Further, it doesn't really have any impact on whether Spell Versatility specifically is bad as an official optional rule, which is kind of the whole point of the discussion.Sure, but if you expected such charity in reading your response, I would argue it behooves you to give such charitable readings in return. I admit, however, that I only skimmed the immediate context of your post (having flitted through the thread to check what the initial, allegedly-fallacious claim was). As a result of your post's brevity and that skimming, I failed to pick up on the subtleties of the argument--it came across as just a flat equating of Spell Versatility with your extreme example, rather than critiquing only the smaller universal claim as noted above.So, if you'll permit me to restate Acererak's point without the objectionable universal claim:When there is an issue (or at least a perceived issue) with the game, an official optional rule to address it is superior to a pure homebrew solution, in the sense that there are a significant number of groups which will outright refuse homebrew solutions or treat homebrew solutions with extreme and nigh-insurmountable skepticism, yet which will treat official optional rules as perfectly cromulent with little more than cursory criticism.As an example, I have designed some homebrew options that I would like to playtest in actual 5e games to see if they are overpowered. At least half of the DMs I have approached have simply said "no," and of those who have been at least open to the idea, the majority have requested significant changes even before play begins. I admit this is simply personal experience; moreover, homebrew character options (in this case, a prestige class, a couple feats, and half a dozen spells) may well receive greater skepticism than a single overall rules tweak--especially since I have been clear in every case that I am looking to playtest this stuff. But the skepticism is quite real, and without hard data on the subject, we have to default to the simple fact that homebrew does get skepticism of a kind that official rules simply don't, optional or otherwise.</blockquote>

Verification