Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 6995724" data-attributes="member: 5038">I can't speak for 3.5 or 4e, but with regards to 3.0, I blame players and many of the DMs. The PHB had rule:0 telliing them to talk with the DM about changes and the sidebar telling players that DMs could even prohibit taking certain starting skills based on background.&nbsp; Meanwhile, the DMG told the DM that he or she was in charge of how the game was played at the table including which rules are used or changed, what supplements are included, etc...&nbsp; The DMG even included numerous variants to help DMs tailor their games.&nbsp; Hell, even early 3.5 Dragon issues had articles like the on by Andy Collins on prestige classes told DMs that, if they are going to allow prestige classes, to carefully consider allowing only those prestige classes that fit the campaign world or theme and gave guidelines to help in that consideration&nbsp; (note: he would take an alternative view in a web article much later in 3.5 when the official position from WOTC seemed changed, in my opinion,&nbsp; to allow whatever your player wants (I suppose this is good for book sales))Now, I do wish that Jonathan Tweet's explanation of setting DCs and the skill system from an early 3.0 issue of the Dragon had been included in the DMG and many of the Skill DCs from the PHB had been moved into.&nbsp; Upon reading the article early on, I never felt beholden to the skill DCs in the PHB when DMing. I set skill DCs to what I felt was appropriate and, per the DM's best friend (DMG), based DCs upon how difficult on felt it would be under normal circumstances and then modified by the DC or roll to fit the current circumstances</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greg K, post: 6995724, member: 5038"] I can't speak for 3.5 or 4e, but with regards to 3.0, I blame players and many of the DMs. The PHB had rule:0 telliing them to talk with the DM about changes and the sidebar telling players that DMs could even prohibit taking certain starting skills based on background. Meanwhile, the DMG told the DM that he or she was in charge of how the game was played at the table including which rules are used or changed, what supplements are included, etc... The DMG even included numerous variants to help DMs tailor their games. Hell, even early 3.5 Dragon issues had articles like the on by Andy Collins on prestige classes told DMs that, if they are going to allow prestige classes, to carefully consider allowing only those prestige classes that fit the campaign world or theme and gave guidelines to help in that consideration (note: he would take an alternative view in a web article much later in 3.5 when the official position from WOTC seemed changed, in my opinion, to allow whatever your player wants (I suppose this is good for book sales)) Now, I do wish that Jonathan Tweet's explanation of setting DCs and the skill system from an early 3.0 issue of the Dragon had been included in the DMG and many of the Skill DCs from the PHB had been moved into. Upon reading the article early on, I never felt beholden to the skill DCs in the PHB when DMing. I set skill DCs to what I felt was appropriate and, per the DM's best friend (DMG), based DCs upon how difficult on felt it would be under normal circumstances and then modified by the DC or roll to fit the current circumstances [/QUOTE]

Verification