Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8117098" data-attributes="member: 6855114">Agreed that a lot of UA was a rehearse from old articles of Dragon Magazine. As for using only some of the rules in it. I/We did too only picked what was good. Yet, As I said, I was and still is very active in the RPG community of my area. A lot, and I really mean a lot, of people I have met were considering the UA as the epitome of AD&D book. If you were not allowing fully it, you were not playing the game as it was meant to be. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f914.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure    :unsure:"  data-smilie="24"data-shortname=":unsure:" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />Why do you think that I am so cold on the Tasha's book of ...? I see it as an other UA of 1ed. Not fully playtested materials that have been rushed out. This time it was not for financial reasons but to appease some of the accusation WotC has been receiving.And again, the "It is an official book!" syndrome was already in existence at the time. I was one of the rare ones that hold his ground and said no. Yet, some players of the community were accusing me of not playing the game as it was supposed to be exactly for the reason I mentionned above. It was an official book after all. I was really glad when second edition came around. But got disheartened very fast with the amount of material that was getting out. Too fast for my little pockets...Hell, even in Toronto and Montreal, you were supposed to play with that damn book. It did have some good things. But most of the book had not been tested enough and it showed.Yeah, same round here. But the high dex rangers that I saw were not at my table (I got, maybe three?). It was in other tables that I saw lots of them. I was not allowing the UA rolling method. Paladins, Monk and Rangers were very rare at my table. I never felt the need to restrict Paladins because they were overpowered. This is simply because cavaliers were simply not allowed (or any of the classes in UA). I only used the new demi-humans limitations (and I lowered a lot of the side requirement to get a bit higher. 19 strength, 18 in intelligence and wisdom to get a, elf to 12th level? Really?) These classes requirement were already hard to achieve.But still, many were using the UA because it was an official book. The "official book" syndrome is really a thing. Yes with people that have been at your table for a long time, a DM can get away with not allowing some of the stuff. But the game is as much theirs as it is their players' too. We're in this for everyone's enjoyment.</blockquote>

Verification