AV allows magic item power creep. Am I overlooking something?

[Danceofmasks]

Caliban has a point here ..

If the DM decides to ban AV or whatever, it's still a D&D game.
If the DM decides to rip out half the stuff from the PHB, the game can then be reasonably described as "not really D&D"

So while core isn't really a 4e term, the concept is valid.

Heck, I'm happy to run games where all PHB crunch is strictly rules-as-written, whilst some stuff from other books needs approval.
'cos @#$%! but AV is broken.

 

[Regicide]

Caliban has a point here ..

If the DM decides to ban AV or whatever, it's still a D&D game.
If the DM decides to rip out half the stuff from the PHB, the game can then be reasonably described as "not really D&D"

So a party without half the classes, say a warlock, wizard, ranger or paladin wouldn't be considered D&D?

Some people argue that no matter what you do to 4E "not really D&D".

 

[Danceofmasks]

Way to misrepresent my point.
The classes make up how many pages in the PHB?

 

[Lord Sessadore]

So a party without half the classes, say a warlock, wizard, ranger or paladin wouldn't be considered D&D?

Some people argue that no matter what you do to 4E "not really D&D".

A party without those classes is not the same thing as those classes being unavailable.

Now, totally reworking the combat system, the power system, cutting half of the available powers for each class, and, say, reintroducing a Vancian casting system instead of rituals ... one could easily argue that it isn't 4e anymore. Whether or not it's not D&D ... that's a different question.

But it doesn't matter. If a DM wants to ban this or that, that's his and his players' business. It does not substantially affect the outcome of this discussion - which is about the rules written in the Adventurer's Vault. We can all say what we would do as a DM, or what our ideal DM would do, but that is beside the point, and not really worth arguing about in this thread.

 

[Mistwell]

*sigh* Nitpicking is the death of reasoned debate.

OK, forget I wrote the word "core". The DM doesn't have to allow anything, from any book published by WOTC or anyone else.

Happy now?

First, I a not nitpicking. And combined with your "cool-aid" comment, it sure seems like you are putting down anyone you disagree with. Can we please discuss the issue and not your opinion of people's motives?

Second, your new comment does not make it all "happy" now, since it is a different point than the one you made. You corrected someone when they said it was a house rule to rule out AV, claiming it was not a house rule because it was a supplement and not core.

Now your point is "the DM doesn't have to allow anything in any book", which is true, but seems to concede the point that it IS a house rule. I mean, I assume you would agree that it is a house rule to ban, for example, fighters from your game, which is a rule found in a book (PHB)?

 

[Caliban]

First, I a not nitpicking. And combined with your "cool-aid" comment, it sure seems like you are putting down anyone you disagree with. Can we please discuss the issue and not your opinion of people's motives?

You chose to pick a single work out of my post and obsess over it, rather than address the point I was making. That's nitpicking in my book.

And the kool-aid comment was a very obvious joke, but next time I'll make sure to include a big emoticon so that you can tell.

As for your other points... I really don't care. Believe what you want.

 

[Mistwell]

You chose to pick a single work out of my post and obsess over it, rather than address the point I was making. That's nitpicking in my book.

And the kool-aid comment was a very obvious joke, but next time I'll make sure to include a big emoticon so that you can tell.

As for your other points... I really don't care. Believe what you want.

I was not just picking out one word, nor "obsessing over it" (and there you go again with assessing my motives rather than the point) and my "other points" explained and demonstrated that. What does this have to do with what I believe?

Seriously Caliban, how does your final point (a DM can ignore any rule in any book) in any way match your initial point (banning a supplement book is not a house rule)?

 

[Danceofmasks]

I'd be interested to know where you two stand on my DM's ruling:
"To be fair to all classes, I'm not allowing Martial Power until the other ~ Power books are available."

'cos isn't it a little unfair when some classes get a splatbook and others don't?

 

[keterys]

Sounds like the best incentive to have an all Martial (and soon Martial and Arcane) party ever

 

[CapnZapp]

I think it's important to note that this is not actually true. Nothing in the AV is core rules, it's a supplement book. It's completely up to the DM whether or not anything from the AV is allowed.

Saying something isn't core means nothing. If it has WotC's stamp of approval on it the only argument a DM can make for not allowing something is because "they don't want it." That DM is going to end up without players.

While I agree "core" means very little in practice, I vehemently disagree with the (implied) notion here: "a DM who doesn't allow players to pick stuff freely from all official WotC books will end up without players."

Anyone knows just allowing everything will lead to overpowered stuff and ridiculous combos. And the DM can't just avoid responsibility for introducing this by saying "well, it's WotC's fault if anything's unbalanced, not mine."

It is the DM who allowed that stuff in, either explicitly or implicitly, and it is the DM who is responsible for this decision. (Although good responsible players will of course help him or her out).

Threatening your DM with leaving just because you can't automatically get all the goodies in WotC's latest splatbook is immature and very poor form indeed. Not to mention buying WotC's marketing spiel hook and sink! Sheesh...