Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8044414" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Fair point, at least based on how I hastily formulated it. But let me elaborate.My observation is that there are basically three attitudes toward this:1) People who just want to immerse in the setting and are not super fussed with optimisations. They just make the characters they like conceptually and like getting thematically appropriate capabilities. They have no issue with the rules.2) Optimisers. They like exploring the rules and finding the strongest builds. They like finding things that synergise. They will go trough the races, classes and feats and choose most optimal combinations. They do not have a problem with the rules.3) People who would really like to do 1 but have strong impulses to do 2. They want the rules to be changed.Now I actually get the category 3 intellectually. I'd like to think that I have pretty good eye for noticing 'optimal' and it might be tempting to go for it. And in certain sense it might make sense to change rules to lessen the conflict. I often introduce small balance path house rules to fix small discrepancies. But when we are talking about jettisoning half of the rules of races making them samey and bland to solve a thing that basically is a player issue, I can't support that.</blockquote>