Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8517551" data-attributes="member: 7032025">And this is where even the core game does not agree, for example there are spells which are limited to specific schools even for wizards. If said schools are not available to PCs (for either or both background or power reasons, see below), the PCs will never be able to cast those spells.And I think that the core of the problem is that as usual people are talking past each other's ear. The main reason for forbidding some powers or spells to the PCs is simply balance. Some powers or effects are way to strong for PCs to wield them as they will and use them again and again during the course of a long campaign. On the other hand, they are cinematic and cool, they suit well the nature of an NPC and the fight it gives to the PC.As a DM, I don't want to be constrained to think that every single power that I give to an NPC could end up in the hands of a PC, and restrict that power technically so that, if it happens, it will not unbalance things. This is an annoying limitation, and one that 4e rightly removed from the game after 3e (stupidly) gave the players the impression that they could get their grubby little hands on everything that was intended for mostly story/coolness purpose (in particular the (in)famous pun-pun, using the really cook Sarrukh power which made total sense for a monster but which is ridiculous in the hands of a player).This is the real, basic reason. If I put a Death Knight in play, the Hellfire Orb and the Parry make for an awesome adversary, as my players experienced on Friday. But my players are reasonable people and understand this, which is why the Halfling Sorceress will never pester me to cast the Hellfire Orb and the Lizardfolk Ranger will never pester me to learn the Parry.If pushed by annoying players (as was often the case in 3e and, thankfully, never before and never after), I will come up with any background reason to justify it without any problem (just as any powergamer can easily create a background that will justify the silliness of his build, it's honestly not that hard). As I've proven with many examples, not only is it easy to do, but it's also a perfect trope of the genre not to have the right birth/connection/blood/deity whatever.Now, I can perfectly understand some DMs wanting a different relation with their players who are more in the spirit of 3e, if this is what works for them, all power to them. But what 4e restored and 5e confirmed is that the creative power of the DM does not have to be constrained by these limitations. PCs are immensely powerful but along specific paths to somewhat preserve the balance (strongly for 4e, in a more relaxed way for 5e), NPCs just reflect the openness and incredible variety of the world around them and are not constrained by these paths, and that's the end of it.So please, don't criticise DMs for using these creative possibilities, it's the intention of the game since 4e, and the fact that a game is not about player empowerment in that particular direction is not a mark of an inferior game, players might be empowered in many other aspects of the game, and the freedom that the DM gets from not being constrained by those rules might also be the mark of more creation and inventivity about story or coolness. To each his own...</blockquote>

Verification