Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5960670" data-attributes="member: 70707">It's a lot harder to break a pile of sheet metal and bolts, than a Ferrari.&nbsp; But that's only because the bar of what we would call &quot;not broken&quot; is much higher with a Ferrari, than a pile of metal.&nbsp; Reduce the Ferrari to a pile of metal, and we'd call that a broken Ferrari.4E is only easy to break because it actually works well in the first place.&nbsp; That is a virtue, not a flaw.It is vastly simpler for a DM to include inherent bonuses in place of assumed item progression bonuses (especially when the rules suggest it!), than to create balanced encounters from scratch (or from a fundamentally broken system that doesn't account for magic items).&nbsp; There's really no comparison here.Also, if we're going back to AD&amp;D, talking about what the &quot;players are going to make sure they have&quot; doesn't track.&nbsp; Before 3.X, players had almost no agency in what items they got.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5960670, member: 70707"] It's a lot harder to break a pile of sheet metal and bolts, than a Ferrari. But that's only because the bar of what we would call "not broken" is much higher with a Ferrari, than a pile of metal. Reduce the Ferrari to a pile of metal, and we'd call that a broken Ferrari. 4E is only easy to break because it actually works well in the first place. That is a virtue, not a flaw. It is vastly simpler for a DM to include inherent bonuses in place of assumed item progression bonuses (especially when the rules suggest it!), than to create balanced encounters from scratch (or from a fundamentally broken system that doesn't account for magic items). There's really no comparison here. Also, if we're going back to AD&D, talking about what the "players are going to make sure they have" doesn't track. Before 3.X, players had almost no agency in what items they got. [/QUOTE]

Verification