Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="William Ronald" data-source="post: 986465" data-attributes="member: 426">Another solution for Brown Jenkin is to allow some campaign variation to the standard rules.&nbsp; For example, followers of some nature deities may have speak with plants and animals on their spell list instead of something else.&nbsp; This would be a relatively easy solution that is campaign specific and makes sense in terms of the character.&nbsp; Perhaps the characteris part of a specific order in his church which has access to these abilities.&nbsp; (One grumble I have had with clerics, which 3.0 partially solved, is that too many clerics are similar in terms of ability.&nbsp; There is a variety of religious practices within any given faith in our own world.&nbsp; A fantasy world can conceivably have religious organizations whose members have slightly different doctrines, practices, and abilities.)To me, the rules are guidelines.&nbsp; If something does not make sense in the rules based on how my world is designed, then the rules can be tweaked.&nbsp; The story is the key to the matter.&nbsp; Rules exist to help tell a good story; the story does not exist for the sake of the rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; The point of gaming to me is to have fun and tell a good story.&nbsp; I think too often people get caught up in the rules and lose sight of this.&nbsp; Of course, if someone is not enjoying a group, they might consider leaving or at least having a serious talk with one's DM.&nbsp; I do not think a redesign of the character will be too difficult.&nbsp; I do have my concerns about 3.5.&nbsp; If spell power is being weakened, then there should logically be changes in the availability of items that impact saves.&nbsp; (I know that ability enhancing items will become more expensive.)I have played since 1980, and have even used a character that started out in 1st edition (circa 1984) in D&amp;D 3.5.&nbsp; I hope to play the same character, who remains vital despite changes in editions, in D&amp;D 3.5.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="William Ronald, post: 986465, member: 426"] Another solution for Brown Jenkin is to allow some campaign variation to the standard rules. For example, followers of some nature deities may have speak with plants and animals on their spell list instead of something else. This would be a relatively easy solution that is campaign specific and makes sense in terms of the character. Perhaps the characteris part of a specific order in his church which has access to these abilities. (One grumble I have had with clerics, which 3.0 partially solved, is that too many clerics are similar in terms of ability. There is a variety of religious practices within any given faith in our own world. A fantasy world can conceivably have religious organizations whose members have slightly different doctrines, practices, and abilities.) To me, the rules are guidelines. If something does not make sense in the rules based on how my world is designed, then the rules can be tweaked. The story is the key to the matter. Rules exist to help tell a good story; the story does not exist for the sake of the rules. The point of gaming to me is to have fun and tell a good story. I think too often people get caught up in the rules and lose sight of this. Of course, if someone is not enjoying a group, they might consider leaving or at least having a serious talk with one's DM. I do not think a redesign of the character will be too difficult. I do have my concerns about 3.5. If spell power is being weakened, then there should logically be changes in the availability of items that impact saves. (I know that ability enhancing items will become more expensive.) I have played since 1980, and have even used a character that started out in 1st edition (circa 1984) in D&D 3.5. I hope to play the same character, who remains vital despite changes in editions, in D&D 3.5. [/QUOTE]

Verification