Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 7804232" data-attributes="member: 32740">Players can learn D&D without reading everything if everything is explained to them enough times and in enough detail that it sinks in.  Players can continue to play D&D knowing only enough to play their ONE PC.  More players is good and we should all game on and be happy.  BUT, if a player wants to learn it faster, without other players opinions and house rules getting in the way, and if they want to learn the WHOLE game and not just enough to get by, then YES, they need to accept that they have to read hundreds of pages of rules and learn stuff about it that they may never need or care about.  YES, this is a barrier to entry, but that is NOT going to change unless you're going to play 3 booklet OD&D or Holmes Basic.  NO, I am not saying, "Thou Shalt Not Play Without Thou Hast Memorized the PH and DMG and Passed Master Level Exams to Earn Thy Geek Accreditation."If you want to learn not just enough to get by, not just enough to run one PC, not just what the guy in the chair next to you tells you the rules are (whether he's right or wrong - and some percentage will invariably be wrong [again - hundreds of pages...]) then you read the rules (ALL the rules, even if you don't memorize them) if you want to learn THE GAME, and not just enough to play a session or three.No DM worth gaming with will require a player to read all the rules and pass a test.  AL participants would not expect to hand-hold someone through everything, but if they're decent people who are interested in getting a new player up to speed, then I WOULD expect them to take time from the slot to lend some assistance without being overbearing.  But if that player takes a solid interest and wants to make D&D their new hobby, DANG TOOTIN that player better be buying a PH and reading the whole thing and learning the game, and that means reading hundreds of pages and investing more time than just at a table during a session.Not what I'm saying at all.  If you have a DM who wants to be obnoxious about FORBIDDING the change of a feat early in a campaign because... whatever dumbarse reasons they have, then you can still get around that by simply creating a new PC.  Is a DM going to forbid you from creating a new PC?  If so there are FAR bigger issues involved.  But if a DM WILL let you create a new PC, there's no sensible justification to deny changing your mind (in a reasonable time frame) about a choice of feats because you haven't yet "mastered" the game.I'm saying you don't need rules for the player as leverage to force the DM's hand in this.  You need advice to the DM to Not Be A Richard.  Apparently you need that in the DMG if a DM can't figure out how on their own.Not sure why you need to try so hard to misread and misrepresent a fairly simple point.  No - it's not a "best practice."  It's a demonstration that re-choosing a feat early in a campaign because you don't yet have the working knowledge as a player to NOT choose lame feats should not be a problem.  If it is a problem it's because a DM forbids making that change.  That DM is a DM not worth gaming with - IN MY OPINION.  This would be how a newb gets around a DM being an obstinate crank and driving new people away from the game.I'll stand by my assertion - and I didn't say "no DM ever", I said "no DM worth gaming with".  Do you think a new player, heck ANY player, is better served by a DM who will allow a change of feats because it is discovered too late that the feat sucks, or a DM whose invariable rule says, "You chose it.  You eat it."?  I might take the latter IF we were talking about a table of all experienced players who should know better.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were talking about the circumstance of a player new enough to the game to NOT inherently know better, who HASN'T yet read all the rules and passed The Sacred Tests of Advanced Gamer Knowledge.We don't need rules that say, "Players are allowed to respec characters at points X, Y, or Z."  We need DM's who know when not to be slaves to the rules, or force players to be slaves to rules.  Rules don't run games of D&D.  DM's run games of D&D.  Therefore, if there is to be changes to the rule books, it would be advice to DM's about reasonable thresholds for respec'ing PC's while still learning the game.</blockquote>

Verification