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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rob626" data-source="post: 4236249" data-attributes="member: 58916">"I don't see why that can't be done in any edition. In AD&D, C&C, or 3e, I just grab an orc, slap whatever AC and HP I want on him, give him +3 to hit, just cause and roll with it. Nobody cares that I didn't follow some blueprint. They just care whether or not it was an interesting encounter."  - JRRNeiklot<sorry, the quote feature has me stumped>You are absolutely correct up to a point.  In 1st and 2nd ed this was exactly what dm's did and the players agreed that this was not only good but was proper.  The faith in the dm was strong and the dm rewarded that trust by making interesting encounters and tweaking as needed, even in the middle of combat, should the need arise.  There was much rejoicing.And then the evil 3.x arrived and began squashing puppies and forcing dm's to kowtow to the god Balance and his twin Fairness.  There was gnashing of teeth by dm's and the players felt empowered but did not count the cost.  No longer was there trust that the dm could and would tailor an encounter by knowing his players and their characters' abilities.  No, it became a contest between player and dm.  Who can create the craziest power combinations and get around the intent of the rules?Slavish adherance to a set of arbitrary rules was encouraged, lauded, even demanded by players everywhere.  Should the dm simply create a monster based on what an appropriate hp/ac/attack/powers set would look like then he was accused of breaking the contract between players and gm.  Much fingerpointing and sulking, gm's and players alike, ensued.The point of this tirade was this: in earlier editions the gestalt creation method worked.  In 3.x that method was deemed unfair and a breach of trust.  I am happy to be moving back towards the gestalt method.And Lizard, your original post put things succinctly and, if I may be so bold, beautifully.  Well done.</blockquote>

Verification