Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 6186965" data-attributes="member: 25619">In my friend's campaign (where he's the DM), we update our 4e characters with his Character Builder account, and it seems all the options are turned on, though none of us are sure.&nbsp; We really only think about it when it's time to level up -- we don't do &quot;builds&quot;.In the campaigns I run (where I'm the DM), people update their 3.5e characters with my PHB's or their own books.&nbsp; Most stick to the PHB out of convenience.&nbsp; Some use d20srd.org (which is mostly the same as a PHB, perhaps a bit more), or the Netbook of Feats, or other 3.5e books.For the NBOF, any feats need to get approved by me before use, with criteria being the balance rating it's been given and whether the feat makes sense to me (could logically exist in the campaign) -- though this sounds restrictive, in practice no one has ever asked for a feat I had to say &quot;no&quot; to.For the other WOTC rule books of 3.5e -- PHB II, DMG, DMG II, Unarcaned Arcana, and splatbooks -- I've gone through and declared several rules &quot;in&quot;, and everything else is out by default, unless someone wants it, requests it, and I think it's OK.If a player has a character concept that's not easily accommodated in the rules, I'll work with them to make rules that fit the campaign universe and the character concept.&nbsp; For example, I came up with a variant Ranger class that doesn't have animal companion, spellcasting, and favored enemy, but is more of a scout or ranger lower-case -- a wilderness warrior who is good at doing reconnaissance.&nbsp; it fit better with both of our conceptions of what Ranger should mean, so it's an alternative class now in my games.In general, it seems a whole lot simpler for everyone for the rules to be simple and short, with additions &quot;as needed&quot;.&nbsp; We don't really believe in &quot;builds&quot; as a goal of the game -- we just want to play.I think for 3.5e/Pathfinder and earlier, the philosophy was the initial PHB had everything you reasonably needed for D&amp;D, and the splatbooks were just expansion.&nbsp; Whereas for 4e, it seems like the initial PHB was purposefully understocked, to make the splatbooks nearly mandatory for a complete game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="haakon1, post: 6186965, member: 25619"] In my friend's campaign (where he's the DM), we update our 4e characters with his Character Builder account, and it seems all the options are turned on, though none of us are sure. We really only think about it when it's time to level up -- we don't do "builds". In the campaigns I run (where I'm the DM), people update their 3.5e characters with my PHB's or their own books. Most stick to the PHB out of convenience. Some use d20srd.org (which is mostly the same as a PHB, perhaps a bit more), or the Netbook of Feats, or other 3.5e books. For the NBOF, any feats need to get approved by me before use, with criteria being the balance rating it's been given and whether the feat makes sense to me (could logically exist in the campaign) -- though this sounds restrictive, in practice no one has ever asked for a feat I had to say "no" to. For the other WOTC rule books of 3.5e -- PHB II, DMG, DMG II, Unarcaned Arcana, and splatbooks -- I've gone through and declared several rules "in", and everything else is out by default, unless someone wants it, requests it, and I think it's OK. If a player has a character concept that's not easily accommodated in the rules, I'll work with them to make rules that fit the campaign universe and the character concept. For example, I came up with a variant Ranger class that doesn't have animal companion, spellcasting, and favored enemy, but is more of a scout or ranger lower-case -- a wilderness warrior who is good at doing reconnaissance. it fit better with both of our conceptions of what Ranger should mean, so it's an alternative class now in my games. In general, it seems a whole lot simpler for everyone for the rules to be simple and short, with additions "as needed". We don't really believe in "builds" as a goal of the game -- we just want to play. I think for 3.5e/Pathfinder and earlier, the philosophy was the initial PHB had everything you reasonably needed for D&D, and the splatbooks were just expansion. Whereas for 4e, it seems like the initial PHB was purposefully understocked, to make the splatbooks nearly mandatory for a complete game. [/QUOTE]

Verification