Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 8141847" data-attributes="member: 6687260">Obviously you can't be using the same baseline now that you were using five years ago because any such baseline then was based only on the adventure paths that were published at the time.So it's a baseline that is obviously shifting which makes it a not very firm foundation, and it is different now then five years ago, and could swiftly change - so it's not a very good baseline.It's questionable anyway unless they're designed around a common framework.&nbsp; Even assuming I'm playing an adventure path, what does it matter to me if spellbooks are rare in most of them if the one I'm playing in is one of the exceptions?&nbsp; Unless they're actually designined with assumptions in common the commonality is one that we form by looking at them in the aggregate (which means they don't necessarily apply to any indiviudally).&nbsp; I also think the idea that there is a common accurate understanding of what's common across the adventure paths is highly questionable.&nbsp; That would require 1) reading all of them - not just a subset which would distort your impression - and 2) reading them closely for specific features.And of course, there are still vast numbers of tables that don't use the adventure paths at all, or alter them greatly as they go.&nbsp; You simply can't use the adventure paths as a common framework in the face of all those tables - not unless you're going to preface every use with &quot;so long as you play with WOTC hardcover adventures and play them mostly as they're written&quot;, which at least indicates what subset of the D&amp;D community these assumptions have any relevance to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Don Durito, post: 8141847, member: 6687260"] Obviously you can't be using the same baseline now that you were using five years ago because any such baseline then was based only on the adventure paths that were published at the time. So it's a baseline that is obviously shifting which makes it a not very firm foundation, and it is different now then five years ago, and could swiftly change - so it's not a very good baseline. It's questionable anyway unless they're designed around a common framework. Even assuming I'm playing an adventure path, what does it matter to me if spellbooks are rare in most of them if the one I'm playing in is one of the exceptions? Unless they're actually designined with assumptions in common the commonality is one that we form by looking at them in the aggregate (which means they don't necessarily apply to any indiviudally). I also think the idea that there is a common accurate understanding of what's common across the adventure paths is highly questionable. That would require 1) reading all of them - not just a subset which would distort your impression - and 2) reading them closely for specific features. And of course, there are still vast numbers of tables that don't use the adventure paths at all, or alter them greatly as they go. You simply can't use the adventure paths as a common framework in the face of all those tables - not unless you're going to preface every use with "so long as you play with WOTC hardcover adventures and play them mostly as they're written", which at least indicates what subset of the D&D community these assumptions have any relevance to. [/QUOTE]

Verification