Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 6865950" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Nothing about such houserules is more encouraged in 5e than in 3rd for example. Most editions have a &quot;Rule Zero&quot; section.Houserules and homebrew settings have been around and encouraged for ages. If a DM uses a setting or houserules you don't like to the point where it ruins the game, don't play in their game. If no one likes those houserules or setting, the DM won't have a game.&nbsp;I really haven't found anything saying this. Which book is it in?&nbsp;I really haven't been following all of this thread, so I really don't know what these particular preferences of yours are. If you could spell out what these preferences that the game goes out of its way to disparage are, and how it intentionally marginalises you that would be handy, because I'm not picking up on the clues you're dropping. Which were the specific group of DMs that this was done for?&nbsp;Fighters have always been a low-complexity class. Even the Bo9S gave more complexity to the magical classes, and in 4th ed, the magical powers were also often more complex than martial ones. Such is the nature of being able to break the laws of physics: you need more complex and rule-intensive mechanics to cover all of the possibilities, because there are more possibilities.Warlords appeared in a 3.5 splatbook (as the marshal) and only in the 4th edition as a class in the PHB. They probably aren't a part of the core identity of D&amp;D yet. A lot of what they can do is folded into the Battlemaster class options, so a full separate class that expands on those may be in the pipeline, but was probably unnecessary to start with. &nbsp;How? I don't recall seeing anything in 5e that would do this that wasn't present in other editions. Even 3.5 made the point that the new classes/prestige classes/feats/spells etc in its many, many splatbooks were optional and that players required DM permission before using them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 6865950, member: 6802951"] Nothing about such houserules is more encouraged in 5e than in 3rd for example. Most editions have a "Rule Zero" section. Houserules and homebrew settings have been around and encouraged for ages. If a DM uses a setting or houserules you don't like to the point where it ruins the game, don't play in their game. If no one likes those houserules or setting, the DM won't have a game. I really haven't found anything saying this. Which book is it in? I really haven't been following all of this thread, so I really don't know what these particular preferences of yours are. If you could spell out what these preferences that the game goes out of its way to disparage are, and how it intentionally marginalises you that would be handy, because I'm not picking up on the clues you're dropping. Which were the specific group of DMs that this was done for? Fighters have always been a low-complexity class. Even the Bo9S gave more complexity to the magical classes, and in 4th ed, the magical powers were also often more complex than martial ones. Such is the nature of being able to break the laws of physics: you need more complex and rule-intensive mechanics to cover all of the possibilities, because there are more possibilities. Warlords appeared in a 3.5 splatbook (as the marshal) and only in the 4th edition as a class in the PHB. They probably aren't a part of the core identity of D&D yet. A lot of what they can do is folded into the Battlemaster class options, so a full separate class that expands on those may be in the pipeline, but was probably unnecessary to start with. How? I don't recall seeing anything in 5e that would do this that wasn't present in other editions. Even 3.5 made the point that the new classes/prestige classes/feats/spells etc in its many, many splatbooks were optional and that players required DM permission before using them. [/QUOTE]

Verification