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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5200489" data-attributes="member: 61155">Here's the thing. In 4E, I'm able to run a campaign where the default assumption is that anything goes. If it is found in a 4E product, they can use it. They can go out any buy whatever items are appropriate, use whatever feats and paragon paths they want, they can plunder DDI to their heart's content, and in the end, I can sit down at the table, and nothing gamebreaking is going to surprise me.  I couldn't really do that in 3.5. Not all sourcebooks were created equal, nor dragon articles. Certain combinations of items, feats, prestige classes... were problematic. There was a general agreement to avoid anything too ridiculous in the core rules, and that anything outside of those was off-limits. But it was a bit of a headache when a player would ask if they could use something interesting they discovered somewhere, and I would have to sit down and analyze it myself to see if it would be fine within the game.  I really, really like not having to do that anymore.  I mean, I get what you miss - having some exceptional items to surprise PCs with, having unforgivably lethal traps and monsters to really fill them with fear - I get it. I could probably even get behind an optional book that delved into some of that, but was very up front about it being at the DM's discretion only.  Of course, I'm also of the opinion you could probably capture most of the flavor and ability of these things without needing to go outside the core rules at all - so I'd be a fan of seeing more along those lines, too.  But I really don't want stuff in the main rulebooks that a DM has to veto. I don't want to deal with that hassle. I'm already frustrated at the few problem childs that have cropped up in 4E, like Expertise. But they are few and far between, and isolated enough to easily remove or add at my leisure.  Even hybrids are welcome in how easily they fit into the rules. Sure, it has a comment about being careful how you use them - but more to try and steer PCs away from inferior choices. Most characters aren't going to stumble into a ranger/warlock whose stats are spread unacceptably thin - but the potential is there more than with standard characters, thus the warning.  I really don't see it as the same thing. "Use at your own risk" is a useful warning, but also a dangerous one - it doesn't always work. And even when it does, it can put a burden on the DM to make that call. I can entirely understand wanting that option there, but my own experience, like Scribble's, has benefited from it not being present in the game.</blockquote>

Verification