Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Plane Sailing" data-source="post: 4551494" data-attributes="member: 114">Definitely not my intention to mock those who think it is OK - I do apologise to anyone who has taken it that way.However, I am surprised at how far some people are prepared to take the 'say yes' principle. I'm a very 'say yes' kind of guy except when I think people are attempting to bend the rules to their advantage. In earlier editions it was widely considered 'munchkin' behaviour.In 3e there are numerous places where people are told they can theme their spells as they see fit (e.g. making magic missiles appear like flaming skulls - which made it strange that one supplement introduced spell theming feats, but that is by the by).To me, it seems that there is a difference between theming a power so it looks somewhat different and fit a personal style, to allowing a power to appear dramatically different and have an effect on creatures which logically does not appear to be within the remit of that power.I'm seeing a couple of very different styles emerging in the way I see people report playing of 4e. Some people (like me) seem to play it in a more (for the sake of a word) traditional form. Others seem to play it in a more free-form manner. I don't think either is right or wrong per se. However, some people will prefer one form and other people will prefer the other (and some don't mind which they play).Does that make my position more transparent?Cheers</blockquote>