Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6473516" data-attributes="member: 92511">That may be what they expect, but the first [block of text] they read when they sit down with the 5e PHB and turn to the [chapter?] page about Multi-classing (or Feats), will state (quite clearly) that multi-classing and feats are to-be-approved-by-the-DM options. So, as presumably intelligent human beings capable of reading comprehension and adapting to their environment, they will then have the information and capacity to alter their expectations and note a difference to their experience of what has been [in other PHB's] before.I do not feel that all that much is "a set of assumptions." The classes, sure. A player could reasonably assume that every class is permitted. Abilities are a given, but method of creation (as always) has options. Races? Half of them are called out as "Uncommon" and I'm not sure [don't recall the wording right now and not bothering to look it up] if it specifically calls out that DMs may/may not permit certain races in their games/settings or not.  But it [the PHB] seems set up that the reader should understand, these "Uncommon" races are not to be automatically assumed as available. The traits/flaws/bonds bit and Alignment seem very "eh. Use 'em, come up with your own, or don't." Backgrounds, in general...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> are a nice new bit of crunch and fluff but strike me as entirely optional. Not using BG's in your game is not going to substantially change/ruin/weaken your PCs. They just kinda give the players a "jump off" point to think about the character as a person with a life before play and create some kind previous history. They really don't strike me as assumed. Spells, well, as always are fairly up in the air as to what will and won't be in from game-to-game, simply based on player choices, let alone if a DM wants to get into the nitty-gritty of saying "that/this spell doesn't exist/isn't allowed/hasn't been seen in a thousand years."I agree that it sounds like the bevy of "modular rules options" that has been toted has not met the mark many were envisioning. I, personally, would have expected most optional/modular stuff to be in the DMG, not the PHB. But the few optional things in the PHB sets a nice tone, to/for me, I think, of "This is a new edition. Don't assume/expect everything is as it was before" Haven't seen a DMG yet, but from how folks are talking about it here, it sounds like you are correct that it "fell short" to some expectations and there is a lot of stuff missing that folks were "waiting for" in terms of pure crunch/rules options.I'll undoubtedly have much more to say about it next week after I get my hands on an actual DMG [IhopeIhopeIhope...c'mon Krampus! Papa needs a new DMG -and MM].Also, just my opinion. Wouldn't want anyone feeling I was being insulting or coming off as a know-it-all or anything.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel    :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" /></blockquote>

Verification