Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5716979" data-attributes="member: 82106">Frankly I have no idea Kzach. If you go back to previous editions where there were magazine articles and 'splat' books (like 1e UA) that were basically game-breakingly different in power level than the core material and which you likely had no heads up about at all without having a copy of the book, AND the rules were not all that transparent, it made some kind of sense.Nowadays? It is really just ahem waving. Look at the player's sheet, EVERYTHING they can do is there spelled out in black and white clear as day, and you can pretty well extrapolate from what's there to what will happen at the table. There are very few surprises. The worst that your going to run into is some guy coming in with a PC that is fairly innocent at level one and can be seriously cheesed out later on down the line. Even if you have every book though you won't necessarily know that right off, and I don't care what subset of 4e you restrict people to they can still optimize and the result is still pretty similar. So, objectively? There's rather little point to banning stuff or bossing players about styles of character they should be using. Personally I'm pretty turned off by that kind of behavior just in general and don't bother to waste my time on games like that unless there's something mighty compelling about it or there is some really specific reason why some material should be left out of a given game because of genre conventions or something like that. Presumably in those cases the players know about it going in and they've bought into the concept. I guess I can see where you might pick up into an ongoing game and find out they don't use certain stuff after the fact. That wouldn't classify as a hate issue though, just different tastes or goals.Anyway, table rules are pretty much the prerogative of the house, so it is hardly ever worth complaining about them.</blockquote>

Verification