Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="M_Natas" data-source="post: 9482169" data-attributes="member: 7025918">But you already say it is problematic. You already said yourself, because of the actor feat, now you have to house rule the adjudication of any "mimic speech" a character tries without the feat differently, namley with disadvantage or another penalty.You wouldn't have to do that if the actor feat in its current form wouldn't close of the Arnesonian Space. You created a new rule in order to enable characters to do "mimic speech" without the actor feat.Without the actor feat in the game we would have the general rule for action resolution.Character tries to mimic speech, do a Charisma (performance) check.With the actor feat in the game it now gets more complicated:Does character have actor feat? No? Okay, he can't mimic speech, unless we create a house rule now, that he can do that with disadvantage.What you did, is adding a new rule to game:"If a feature gives a character the ability to do X (by X being a mundane ability that a character realistically could do), a Character without that feature can only does X with disadvantage."So, you added a new rule, to fix the problem.The problem is, you now broke the flow of the rules.In 5e in general you have General Rules and specific rules beat general rules. They override general rules. So the flow is always, read the general rule, and then read the specific rule. That's all you need.But now with your new house rule, you go from general rule, to specific rule and back to a general rule, in order to fix the specific rule.That adds mental load and is unnecessary complicated. It is way easier to fix the Actor Feat, then to implement a general rule that forces you to reference all the specific rules.</blockquote>

Verification