TlalocPendragon's page

I know it's probably getting repetitive at this point, but just to put it all to rest. There are going to be 3 Versions of these Remaster Books, yeah?

The Regular Covers: Available through the Online Store, The Subscription Service, and in LGS's.

The Special Edition (Leather-bound) Covers: Available through the Online Store, The Special Edition Subscription Service, and in LGS's.

And these Sketch Special Editions: Primarily Available in LGS's, some might be sold online while supplies last, but unavailable in any Subscription Service.

Is that correct?

I think we should avoid making balancing decisions based on the playstyles of people we don't want to play with anyway, and that includes weird hypothetical rules lawyers who use bad-faith accusations of bigotry to get an extra +2 to Constitution. That guy you made up sounds pretty unpleasant, and I will not be playing with him.

As a counterpoint, the benefit to making this a default rule is that GMs who genuinely do have ugly sketchy takes like "lizardfolk should be biologically stupider" will feel pressured to accept the new rules without making a fuss. It cuts both ways!

Yeah. That's totally fair.

GMs get criticized for their house rules all the time.

If you want to houserule character generation to make options more restrictive for your players you can, but you're opening yourself up for players being unhappy about that, which is fine for them too.

It's not criticism in general I'm concerned about. It's the type/quality of the criticism, and the accusations that type of criticism could lead to.

To be blunt, I'm concerned about GM's being called racist for deciding they want to use the older rules rather than the new ones, and the weight those rules are given by being a default alternative, rather than an optional one.

Especially if you're running an online game with relative strangers, you're likely to get some of the small percentage of Power Gamers and Rules Lawyers who will stop at nothing to get the stat bonuses they want, or will refuse to accept a modification of what is presented as the base rules, and anyone with that mindset and no morals will find it very easy to throw serious accusations around in order to bully a GM into changing things for them due to how linked with actual real world issues the changes are.

But you can still just say that's not how it works at your table and problem solved.

While I agree the change in general is a decent one for addressing concerns around Bio-Essentialism. I feel like, unless they handle the Errata as a new optional rule, this quote of yours won't be the case. I worry that GM's who try to say that that isn't how it works at their table will be exposing themselves to unfair criticism for their choice, potentially facing unfair accusations.

It's easy to say "Just ignore the ruling if you don't like it." But when the ruling is implicitly tied to real world issues, ignoring that ruling can cause you to fall under fire for supporting the wrong side of the real world issue it was meant to address.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Alternatively I don't understand the part about spontaneous casters (same in nature, occultism etc). It seems to allow to only learn a spell and add or swap it with another one when you level up. But isn't this already what's happening when a sorcerer levels up ?

When you level up you can add / swap in spells that you have access to. "Learning" an uncommon, rare, or unique spell means you'll have access when you level up, which otherwise you probably wouldn't.

So (GM's discretion) you need to actually put work into finding the spells you want in game? That's interesting, makes me think of possible homebrew worlds tailored to High or Low magic settings. Maybe some "Common" or "Rare" spells are rarer or more common in your world. Or Spells could have different Rarity for different Classes, a Sorcerer might have access to certain "Rare" fire spells sooner if they're descended from Dragons.