Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imban" data-source="post: 4886453" data-attributes="member: 29206">Whatever, dude. The original post was clearly &quot;since NPCs don't have to resemble PCs at all, they can just do whatever the DM wants them to, regardless of whether or not a PC can do anything like it!&quot;, but even if you don't think it was, I don't really care. If you think furthermore that it's 100% A-OK for NPC wizards to have those abilities that are forever denied to PCs, then we have a disagreement, but this is utterly irrelevant to anything.&nbsp;Because he probably won't come up to me, he'll just write it on his sheet without telling me, and then point at the book if I take an issue with it. And at that point, I might not be able to carry the argument past &quot;This is my viking hat&quot;, especially if I'm allowing another PC to take a cross-racial mark for what I feel is a good or at least vaguely interesting reason.No, because I houserule to discourage abusing a mechanic to min-max all the time, especially in 3e. For instance, I houserule that you can't use Shivering Touch ever, because the game becomes terrible if you can. I just am usually of the opinion that if you want to make a min-maxed character, you have to deal with the restrictions and flavor that your choices impose on you. This removes that flavor imposition.I think it's a step back, especially because I can't even houserule it. If I say cross-racial marks are banned, then people will expect them to actually be banned. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imban, post: 4886453, member: 29206"] Whatever, dude. The original post was clearly "since NPCs don't have to resemble PCs at all, they can just do whatever the DM wants them to, regardless of whether or not a PC can do anything like it!", but even if you don't think it was, I don't really care. If you think furthermore that it's 100% A-OK for NPC wizards to have those abilities that are forever denied to PCs, then we have a disagreement, but this is utterly irrelevant to anything. Because he probably won't come up to me, he'll just write it on his sheet without telling me, and then point at the book if I take an issue with it. And at that point, I might not be able to carry the argument past "This is my viking hat", especially if I'm allowing another PC to take a cross-racial mark for what I feel is a good or at least vaguely interesting reason. No, because I houserule to discourage abusing a mechanic to min-max all the time, especially in 3e. For instance, I houserule that you can't use Shivering Touch ever, because the game becomes terrible if you can. I just am usually of the opinion that if you want to make a min-maxed character, you have to deal with the restrictions and flavor that your choices impose on you. This removes that flavor imposition. I think it's a step back, especially because I can't even houserule it. If I say cross-racial marks are banned, then people will expect them to [B]actually be banned[/B]. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification