Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2574907" data-attributes="member: 22779">I would agree with that with the following slight change:I am against house rules that do not include a fair bit of contemplation of the ramifications of those changes.  Using something like Arcana Evolved includes a huge amount of work done by the game designer to take into account how the changes affect the core rules.  A lot of effort is expended making sure that rule conflicts are minimized.I have no problems with house rules per se.  I do have a problem with house rules being made without taking a larger picture view first.  The example of the elimination of being flat footed is a good one.  Taking out flat footed greatly lessens the effect of many feats and class features.  Add into the mix the idea of swift actions which can be taken on other people's turns, and you get a larger problem.  Granted, swift actions are themselves, an additional rule beyond the core, but, the point still remains.A house rule which nerfs a character build for no reason other than the DM feels it should is bad.  It doesn't matter if my build is a "first strike combat monkey" or not.  Why is being a first strike combat monkey a bad thing?  As if being that is any worse than a tank fighter or a twink elf archer.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />   It's a build, same as any other and has the same chances for being a memorable character as any other.</blockquote>

Verification