Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8573959" data-attributes="member: 16814">That's some very weak ground to stand on.  If the GM is starving XP, there's serious issues with play.  GP is something the GM can do, but, again, it's very noticeable and against the expectations of play.  If we're going to say "but I had a tool I could use if only I ignored the expectations of play" we can do that, but this is something being directly contested as not allowed on the 5e side.  The insistence is that we need to compare 3.x with violations of the expectations of play only against 5e with all expectations firmly held.  It's no a tenable argument.And wizards got to choose spells at level up.  Sure, a GM could starve them of additional spell opportunities, but we're back to targeting PCs in violation of expectations of play.The expectation in 4e is that the GM would assign treasure with player inputs, though.  You're violating expectations of play to claim authorities again.In 5e, players cannot create magic items AT ALL without the GM creating the method for doing so.  You're pointing to magic item creation rules under caveated expectations of play for control in prior editions while totally ignoring that magic item creation is explicitly up to the GM in 5e as the baseline expectation of play!</blockquote>