Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8147911" data-attributes="member: 12731">I'm not killing anything.I'm being open with the social conventions in my game.&quot;Sure I can give you a Griffon or other cool thing that would be costly or impossible to gain if we go strictly by the RAW. I just want to make sure we're on the same page as regards how you voluntarily limit your usage of this gift to not upstage the other players. As long as you do this I wow not to kill it off during reasonable usage. But if you use a Griffon to dominate combat or short-circuit challenges then I might be inclined to take off my silk gloves.&quot;The point is that you're entering an unwritten contract here. As long as the unwritten contract isn't broken (such as by me finding discontent among the other players &quot;why does he a get a flying mount while I must spend my best spell slots on Fly...?&quot;) no mounts will get killed.If the player wants to minmax he's better off sticking with the RAW options. If the player can't trust his GM he should stick to... not the RAW, he's better off playing computer games.I don't have to hand out Griffons just to see that generosity short-circuit spells and items and whole sections of the scenario after all.The &quot;punish your players&quot; angle is all wrong and I hope it's just a misinterpretation of my post. I was just observing that levels mean so much that you never need to worry about overpowered mounts (the way you're led to believe if you read the rules), since if push comes to shove, you can always shoot down any mount the players can afford to purchase.It doesn't mean you will shoot them down or that you should. It means you can if you must = it's not a case of handing out a magic item you can then never remove if you find out it overpowers play, where you need to think long and hard BEFORE handing it out.I'm saying you can just translate creature level = item level = gold price. As long as the player realize it's a social convention and not some RAW option free for him to abuse and minmax.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8147911, member: 12731"] I'm not killing anything. I'm being open with the social conventions in my game. "Sure I can give you a Griffon or other cool thing that would be costly or impossible to gain if we go strictly by the RAW. I just want to make sure we're on the same page as regards how you voluntarily limit your usage of this gift to not upstage the other players. As long as you do this I wow not to kill it off during reasonable usage. But if you use a Griffon to dominate combat or short-circuit challenges then I might be inclined to take off my silk gloves." The point is that you're entering an unwritten contract here. As long as the unwritten contract isn't broken (such as by me finding discontent among the other players "why does he a get a flying mount while I must spend my best spell slots on Fly...?") no mounts will get killed. If the player wants to minmax he's better off sticking with the RAW options. If the player can't trust his GM he should stick to... not the RAW, he's better off playing computer games. I don't have to hand out Griffons just to see that generosity short-circuit spells and items and whole sections of the scenario after all. The "punish your players" angle is all wrong and I hope it's just a misinterpretation of my post. I was just observing that levels mean so much that you never need to worry about overpowered mounts (the way you're led to believe if you read the rules), since if push comes to shove, you can always shoot down any mount the players can afford to purchase. It doesn't mean you will shoot them down or that you should. It means you [I]can if you must[/I] = it's not a case of handing out a magic item you can then never remove if you find out it overpowers play, where you need to think long and hard BEFORE handing it out. I'm saying you can just translate creature level = item level = gold price. As long as the player realize it's a social convention and not some RAW option free for him to abuse and minmax. [/QUOTE]

Verification