Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thecasualoblivion" data-source="post: 4981049" data-attributes="member: 59096">Habla Ingles much?What part of "not a specific reference", "assumption", and most importantly "expectation by many players that this system assumption will be respected" do you fail to understand?We'll try it again, for the 3rd graders this time:One of the major things 3E added was building characters and monsters using the same rules. This was a major feature of 3E, and denying this is rather ludicrous. The rules presented for creating enemies sets down a very specific system for generating and advancing enemies, and the enemies WotC provided all follow these rules. While not specifically stated that you HAD to follow these rules, these were the rules presented. Consequently, many players expected DMs to follow these rules, and were familiar enough with these rules to notice when the DM stops following them.My whole point(which you ignore) is that many players expect the DM to follow these rules, since they are in fact the rules, and will get upset of the DM sets them aside arbitrarily. I never said you can't ignore this aspect of 3E. I ignored this aspect of 3E. What you can't do is expect every player to accept this without consultation.Unless you have personally spoke to everyone who has ever played 3.5E, I don't see where your argument is coming from.</blockquote>