Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Trickstergod" data-source="post: 3452890" data-attributes="member: 10825">Rules that say "This is roughly equal" when things aren't roughly equal...are bad rules. That's currently what Level Adjustment is. And the best sort of rules need minimal house ruling. No, it doesn't serve the majority of D&D gamers the best. It serves a small portion of DM's who can't say no best. The majority of D&D gamers won't be harmed in the slightest by a minotaur and human being on roughly equal footing at X level and beyond. The "core bias" mostly serves to hurt those who want to do something different. Which, inevitably, most everybody wants to. And those who want to Keep It Simple, Stupid as well as new folk to the game aren't hurt by having equitable power, either. If anything, the bias - again - hurts. Because to the average new guy who wants to play, say, an ogre, they're going to be completely unaware of the power disparity until they actually play. Whereas a group that wants to keep things simple by not allowing monster PCs doesn't have to worry one whit about a relatively balanced Level Adjustment for most beasties. It's a non-issue.And any DM that refuses to say no and relies on the rules to back up their preferred flavor of game deserves to have Pun-Pun unleashed upon them. Striving for equity of a sort is nearly always a good thing. It only hurts when a DM can't just say no. A player should look at their character from the perspective of setting and concept; players shouldn't bemoan that playing their character concept is going to screw them over.</blockquote>

Verification