Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aria Silverhands" data-source="post: 4224033" data-attributes="member: 66086">It's a flaw.&nbsp; It's a flaw because of player perception.&nbsp; Which below is more appealing to you?&quot;No, you can't sell your items like that.&nbsp; No you can't disenchant.&nbsp; No you can't pay for ressurections.&quot;-or-&quot;Yes, you can disenchant your magic items and use the shards and essence to perform a ritual to create another enchantment.&nbsp; Yes you can play a gnome.&quot;Saying yes, is a more positive perception.&nbsp; It's easier to say yes.&nbsp; It's ridiculous to be forced to create a list of things to say no to for your games.&nbsp; WotC could have done better by making the wording ambiguous, constantly reinforcing that it is up to DM's what's allowed instead of constantly writing it as if you can do it this way... unless the DM says otherwise.That was covered in previous editions.&nbsp; The DM merely adds the +2 magic bonus behind the scenes until the character figures it out.&nbsp; I don't have a problem with telling players the magical bonus of the weapon, if it's an obviously magical weapon, but triggered effects and the like shouldn't be allowed until something specific triggers it.&nbsp; Like the right command word or identifying the item.It's my setting and I'm the DM.&nbsp; WotC should have written the rules to be a little less &quot;THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY&quot; and more ambiguous, making sure people new to rp gaming learn that it's the DM's rules that matter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aria Silverhands, post: 4224033, member: 66086"] It's a flaw. It's a flaw because of player perception. Which below is more appealing to you? "No, you can't sell your items like that. No you can't disenchant. No you can't pay for ressurections." -or- "Yes, you can disenchant your magic items and use the shards and essence to perform a ritual to create another enchantment. Yes you can play a gnome." Saying yes, is a more positive perception. It's easier to say yes. It's ridiculous to be forced to create a list of things to say no to for your games. WotC could have done better by making the wording ambiguous, constantly reinforcing that it is up to DM's what's allowed instead of constantly writing it as if you can do it this way... [b]unless the DM says otherwise[/b]. That was covered in previous editions. The DM merely adds the +2 magic bonus behind the scenes until the character figures it out. I don't have a problem with telling players the magical bonus of the weapon, if it's an obviously magical weapon, but triggered effects and the like shouldn't be allowed until something specific triggers it. Like the right command word or identifying the item. It's my setting and I'm the DM. WotC should have written the rules to be a little less "THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY" and more ambiguous, making sure people new to rp gaming learn that it's the DM's rules that matter. [/QUOTE]

Verification