Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8573421" data-attributes="member: 16814">I keep hearing you say powerful and diverse, but I'm not seeing it.  I'm just seeing different. The complaint was that the GM has less ability to control the game because they introduced bounded accuracy so that the GM can't give out + weapons to "balance" play.  I pointed out that the GM has plenty of power to control the game -- magic items where +3 isn't a big deal doesn't mean that the GM has less authority or that players have more ability to control the game.  That's silly.  Trying to argue that this authority is Calvinball is also silly.  There's a place between your "much less power" and "Calvinball" where 5e actually fits in without bad faith play and the GM has loads of authority and power in that place.No, you've made a mistake of category.  The +/-2 didn't allow the same thing that advantage/disadvantage does -- you could not get the same effect from +/- 2 as you can dis/advantage.  Nor does dis/advantage do what +/-2 does.  These are different things, both useful and powerful, and you can't claim dis/advantage is weaker because it's actually doing something completely different.  Adding that tool is powerful, and never available before.  It's not meant as a form/fit/function replacement of +/-2, but rather a complete replacement of capability.As far as 1e, that was introduced by someone else.  3.x certainly didn't have GM control over magic items as you suggest as a balancing factor -- it was a requirement of the math.  A GM that didn't provide sufficient magic items was doing it wrong by the expectations of the game.  I fail to understand how that can be put forth as a GM balancing tool.</blockquote>

Verification