Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tia Nadiezja" data-source="post: 7727307" data-attributes="member: 6778763">I'm not saying they don't have evidence that people like the rule. Of course people like the rule! There's people here insulting me and misgendering me just to defend it. I'm saying they don't have evidence that this rule works better in the wild than just letting people make the characters they want to make. We know they don't have that evidence because we would be able to see them gathering that evidence.And I don't care how people play in their home groups. I don't even care how they play in Adventurer's League. I do care that we have gotten a grand total of two player-focused rules supplements since this edition launched, and the way that AL has chosen to restrict character creation forced the reprinting of information from the first in the second. THAT is what I care about. AL, being D&D's organized play system, cannot exist without impacting people's home games as well. And the fact that AL has picked a terrible way to restrict the characters people in it can create and play has now wasted pagecount and time in a book I'm very much looking forward to, in order to do the D&D equivalent of "keeping things in Standard" in Magic. It's annoying to open a pack of Ixalan and get a copy of a card I've already got four copies of from each of the last four blocks, and it's BEYOND annoying to see the already-slow production of player-focused rules content for 5e get clogged up with reprints to feed AL's pointless, restrictionist philosophy.Someone pointed out earlier in the thread that PHB+1 does ridiculous things like cut Aasimar off from Paladin subclasses that feel particularly suited to the race. Bladesingers can't use Elf racial feats. This is absurd. And now its absurdity is infecting my play, at home, away from AL, costing me content that I ought to get in a book I'm paying for.And they have no actual evidence that restrictionism works better in the wild in this edition, because they have not tested it.</blockquote>

Verification