Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7752426" data-attributes="member: 996">Ouch.&nbsp; Anti-house-rule might as well be anti-5e.&nbsp; You're really not getting the most out of it if you're trying to stick to some kind of half-imagined 'RAW.'&nbsp; Players need to trust the DM to make good rulings for 5e to work, it's 1e's true heir, in that sense.&nbsp;Calling a game &quot;gamist&quot; shouldn't be an insult - it's a sign of how toxic the edition war was to our community that it's become so.But, wish lists were not taken to an extreme, at all, in 4e, actually.&nbsp; They were a suggested mechanism the DM could use, or not, as he saw fit.&nbsp; And though 4e had make/buy, you sold at 20%, so if the DM didn't give you the item you wanted, you'd have quite the job saving up enough for it...But, as with 3.x, wealth/level was a pretty serious thing, so you would, eventually, be able to get it with pocket change.I do like 5e's take:&nbsp; not assuming items in the baseline, at all.&nbsp; No wealth/level.&nbsp; No make/buy.&nbsp;&nbsp; Players should have not only no wish list but no expectation of any items, at all - so you're free to give out only so many items as keep the campaign interesting. Arguably you don't &quot;need&quot; attunment if you're never going to give out a third magic item, ever, but, IDK, it's a nice idea, conceptually, as well as acting to limit anyone one character using too many items. &nbsp;Nod.&nbsp; Wealth/level &amp; make/buy seemed like good ideas, but they turned items into game-wrecking CharOp resources.&nbsp; 4e 'fixed' that by balancing items and making them subordinate to other build resources (Class, Paths, Destinies, etc), about on par with feats, really - all of which can be summed up as &quot;Oh, a magic item? meh.&quot;If you're going to have magic items that feel 'really magical' like back in the day, then the no-item expectation and attunement limitations of 5e are not a bad idea, at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7752426, member: 996"] Ouch. Anti-house-rule might as well be anti-5e. You're really not getting the most out of it if you're trying to stick to some kind of half-imagined 'RAW.' Players need to trust the DM to make good rulings for 5e to work, it's 1e's true heir, in that sense. Calling a game "gamist" shouldn't be an insult - it's a sign of how toxic the edition war was to our community that it's become so. But, wish lists were not taken to an extreme, at all, in 4e, actually. They were a suggested mechanism the DM could use, or not, as he saw fit. And though 4e had make/buy, you sold at 20%, so if the DM didn't give you the item you wanted, you'd have quite the job saving up enough for it... But, as with 3.x, wealth/level was a pretty serious thing, so you would, eventually, be able to get it with pocket change. I do like 5e's take: not assuming items in the baseline, at all. No wealth/level. No make/buy. Players should have not only no wish list but no expectation of any items, at all - so you're free to give out only so many items as keep the campaign interesting. Arguably you don't "need" attunment if you're never going to give out a third magic item, ever, but, IDK, it's a nice idea, conceptually, as well as acting to limit anyone one character using too many items. Nod. Wealth/level & make/buy seemed like good ideas, but they turned items into game-wrecking CharOp resources. 4e 'fixed' that by balancing items and making them subordinate to other build resources (Class, Paths, Destinies, etc), about on par with feats, really - all of which can be summed up as "Oh, a magic item? meh." If you're going to have magic items that feel 'really magical' like back in the day, then the no-item expectation and attunement limitations of 5e are not a bad idea, at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification