Confirmed: Magic items and summoned monster stats in PHB

[Thaumaturge]

Having that space in the PHB makes it harder to justify the druid in the PHB II, the bard in the PHB III, and the monk in the PHB IV. If they didn't do this, you might not buy those books.

So, it couldn't have been for creative reasons that these were left out of PHB I? It had to be for monetary reasons, with the implication of monetary reasons are bad? Why couldn't they have chosen to mix things up a bit with the first base classes? Why is it difficult to believe some classes such as the bard need more time to design to be a valued party member under the new, or at least more strict, role assumptions?

Thaumaturge.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I have no trouble with the notion that you can't totally undo a part of the DM's campaign world just to prove you're more clever than he is. As I said above, that's kinda pathetic.

Again, from the sounds of things, you are too worried that, when the players respond to perceived opportunities in the game world, that they are actually trying to "show off" and "outplay" you.

Well, obviously, the players are trying to show off. They are trying to be the cool, clever, tough characters in the game world. They are trying to be movers and shakers. And there is (or should be) nothing wrong with that.

It is rather your concern that they are trying to "beat" or "outplay" you (as DM) that is questionable. That players can't win against a DM determined to make them lose is a given; that the players see an opportunity and try to make use of it, assuming that you are not out to make them lose, should be a given too. There might be a good in-game reason that their idea won't work, but that in-game reason should never exist simply to foil the PCs.


RC

 

[BryonD]

My first thought to this is "Wow...Gamers really are losers."

With all the clamoring for lowering of one bar after another, I've been thinking this a lot lately.

 

[Voss]

I think it's perfectly alright for the DM to say "sorry guys, I didn't prep for that. If that's what you insist on doing, we won't be doing any gaming this week." Not every DM wants to have to make things up on the spot just so his players can prove how clever and how much smarter than him they are.

OK, thats entirely different from how you framed it originally. Had you responded with that, I wouldn't have blinked much (though it still comes across a bit as a statement 'and so I'm going to punish you by not running a game this week'). But instead you responded with 'The DM decrees that your scheme fails', followed by some justification for same. Thats why it came across as adversarial- it was just an decree from on high, not an honest discussion with the players.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Personally, I find keeping track of supplies, ammo, and to some extent money, to be unfun. It's one area where D&D should be getting less videogame-y than it has been historically as keeping track of minutiae is something computers do a lot better than humans.

A more abstract system, never running out, or trusting the DM to say I run out at a reasonable point would to me all be preferable to the current method.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, it couldn't have been for creative reasons that these were left out of PHB I? It had to be for monetary reasons, with the implication of monetary reasons are bad? Why couldn't they have chosen to mix things up a bit with the first base classes? Why is it difficult to believe some classes such as the bard need more time to design to be a valued party member under the new, or at least more strict, role assumptions?

Sure, it could have been for creative reasons. It could be that, although they've supposedly been designing this new edition for years, that they haven't had the time to redesign certain core classes. It could be that this new edition is going to be so restrictive as to make it difficult to design new versions of old classes that work. It could be because little voices in the designers' heads told them Galactus was going to come and eat the earth if they didn't design it that way, too. Equal odds on all those things, IMHO.

Don't get me wrong; making a profit is a good thing. Making a profit by playing me for a chump, though? Not a good thing. And pushing the basic core classes of most campaign worlds off into later books in order to force you to buy the stuff you don't want in order to get them is playing the player for a chump in my book.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

On the decanter selling issue: D&D's not a financial simulator. If you try to use it for that purpose it breaks as has been demonstrated. The rules don't simulate a world very well. They are mostly to do with dungeon crawls.

The last campaign I ran, a player thought about (though ultimately didn't use) a character concept that was mostly about selling traps (which are hugely overpriced). I'd have had to tell him no. It just wouldn't work in my game which was mostly about adventure and not very much concerned with money.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It is rather your concern that they are trying to "beat" or "outplay" you (as DM) that is questionable. That players can't win against a DM determined to make them lose is a given; that the players see an opportunity and try to make use of it, assuming that you are not out to make them lose, should be a given too. There might be a good in-game reason that their idea won't work, but that in-game reason should never exist simply to foil the PCs.

If the players are trying to break the game, I see no reason why I shouldn't attempt to foil them. Trying to make a million gp on a get-rich-quick scheme is trying to break the game. They know they're not supposed to have that kind of wealth without actually earning it. I can't imagine a group who would attempt such a thing, though, precisely because if they had the idea, they'd probably say to themselves either:

No, that would never work, because it would break the game if it did (see Wall of Iron).
or
No, that would never work, because someone else would have thought of it by now.

Either of which is fine by me if it keeps my game from careening off in some direction that doesn't involve heroic adventure.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My point was that it seems from many of your posts that you are worried about what your players may want to do given the rules of the game. If your players want to play one way, and you want to GM another way, it appears to be a compatibility problem.

Nah, Celebrim and his players are in accord. His problem is the rules set he was using isn't. He wanted a complete world simulator, which D&D has never been.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Don't get me wrong; making a profit is a good thing.

I agree.

Making a profit by playing me for a chump, though? Not a good thing. And pushing the basic core classes of most campaign worlds off into later books in order to force you to buy the stuff you don't want in order to get them is playing the player for a chump in my book.

I disagree with your assumptions, but will resist the urge to continue this off topic debate.
---

I like that when I attend GenCon, I will need one book, not three to play a character regardless of the character's level, wealth, or powers. At the next Gencon, I'll need the relevant PHB and maybe the relevant Power book. Putting summons and magic items all in one place drastically reduces the strain on convention-goers. I applaud.

Thaumaturge.