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="Desdichado" data-source="post: 1843137" data-attributes="member: 2205">Carpe, I still have a few stumbling blocks to get over though.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">What is "right" is best decided by the group using the rules.  Just because the rules are used more or less as is doesn't mean that the rules are "right", it simply means that they're usable.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I don't believe that most groups use the rules exactly as presented anyway; I've yet to ever play in any group in any edition of any RPG that didn't have some houserules.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Your theory relies on all of the players to actually design the rules, which they don't do; they simply use them.  The initial PHB design team was three individuals; Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams and Monte Cook.  The 3.5 changes were primarily done by Andy Collins, I believe (although I don't have the 3.5 PHB so I'm not sure what the credits say.)  Now, to be fair, they had a fairly thorough group of playtesters, as far as I know, but your theory of group accuracy is significantly, if not completely, diminished by the fact that the rules are not agreed upon by the entire population of players, the players just take them and use them and have little (if any) impact on the output.  It's interesting to note that in general the 3.5 changes were not changes that the player base had been clamoring for; I think the only changes that can reasonably pass muster there are the improved Ranger class, and a handful of spells like Haste and Harm, whereas the rest are often affectionately (or not) often referred to as the "Andy Collins Houserules" edition.  In other words, 3.5 does not really reflect the design principles you espouse.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Now granted, your other part, about the unforeseen consequences of a houserule that gets out of hand, is still valid, and presumably 3e was initially playtested sufficiently to root out most of those issues.  Interestingly enough, though, I hear a lot more complaints about aspects of the rules as written (3e ranger, haste, harm, etc.) than I do about any house rule issues.  I think this is a theoretical problem rather than a real one.</li> </ol></blockquote>

Verification