Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
If the occupational tables were presented as the option, rather than the inverse, I'd agree with this. However, I believe as presented the opposite was the case.
|
I don't see how this make any difference in a GM's ability to use whatever his preference is. I'm also not sure that either was the "rule" while the other the "option". The tables were there. The rule was "either roll on the table, or choose".
Considering that at the beginning of this thread you didn't know that occupations could be changed, it seems a bit odd for you to be playing ruleslawyer as to whether some specific component of the occupation tables was an optional rule or not.
It just seems like you're going out of your way to find a reason to be against something. Something you apparently didn't use anyway. Hence, why I'm puzzled.
Quote:
|
(I'll also note its entirely possible to use a rule that doesn't exist; if that wasn't true custom and house rules wouldn't be possible).
|
Sure. And you "can" choose not to use the random rolls. One of those is a much easier and less burdensome thing to do...