Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 9130840" data-attributes="member: 1465">In theory, I would say that player characters options can go in the PHB, and more general game options to the DMG.The alternative methods for generating ability scores are balanced against each other. Feats are balanced against ASI. Multiclassing is supposedly balanced with single-classing. Even when the DM allows them, not every PC will use them. It sounds OK for me to show them to the players.I am less positive about stuff like encumbrance, using passive checks or group checks, playing on a grid... these are stuff that affects everyone at the table, they are not individual options. I think they would be best hidden in the DMG (while OTOH could let those couple of evil characters options go to the PHB). Unfortunately, the PHB was published months before the DMG, so they probably didn't want to delay certain stuff, in addition to maybe just tying to meet gamers expectations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 9130840, member: 1465"] In theory, I would say that player characters options can go in the PHB, and more general game options to the DMG. The alternative methods for generating ability scores are balanced against each other. Feats are balanced against ASI. Multiclassing is supposedly balanced with single-classing. Even when the DM allows them, not every PC will use them. It sounds OK for me to show them to the players. I am less positive about stuff like encumbrance, using passive checks or group checks, playing on a grid... these are stuff that affects everyone at the table, they are not individual options. I think they would be best hidden in the DMG (while OTOH could let those couple of evil characters options go to the PHB). Unfortunately, the PHB was published months before the DMG, so they probably didn't want to delay certain stuff, in addition to maybe just tying to meet gamers expectations. [/QUOTE]

Verification