It's also quite informative; some of the people who defend 3.X as a "totally not broken and unbalanced game" are actually not using the rules as written or intented.This entire golem argument is lol.
You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?It's also quite informative; some of the people who defend 3.X as a "totally not broken and unbalanced game" are actually not using the rules as written or intented.
You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?
And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?
It's also quite informative; some of the people who defend 3.X as a "totally not broken and unbalanced game" are actually not using the rules as written or intented.
You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?
And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?
You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?
And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?
Because the word "rule" is really a misnomer. They're guidelines. They're a starting point. They're a paradigm you use to create a fantasy reality, not the parameters of a competition.If rules are written with the express intent that they won't be used as written, what's the point of using written rulesets in the first place? Why not go freeform and be done with it?
I don't think anyone's saying that. My problem with 4e is not the presence of material I can't use (as 3e and 2e and various other games I like have plenty of that). It's the absence of anything I can use.Defending mechanics based on the fact that you can change the mechanics is fine to be honest. We all change mechanics. What blows me away is that people apply that thinking to earlier editions but 4e must be run by RAW and only by RAW and nothing but RAW without a single moment of introspection.
It's intended for use, but also intended for interpretation. In the unlikely event that a character overpowers the others consistently, the DM is given broad authority to fix that by any means necessary. If the game is not fun, everyone at the table is empowered to change things.I, erm... I don't follow this logic. I mean, obviously, WotC isn't stamping out houserules and probably doesn't expect you to use the whole system by RAW, or rather, care if you don't, but they do write rules for the purpose of being used.
Sure, maybe they don't expect you to use the whole system, but I'd say that every single rule they write was intended for use (even if not for everyone to use). Else, why write it?
It's intended for use, but also intended for interpretation. In the unlikely event that a character overpowers the others consistently, the DM is given broad authority to fix that by any means necessary. If the game is not fun, everyone at the table is empowered to change things.