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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7759283" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I’m really not interested in rehashing this topic that was bashed out extensively when 4e was still the current edition, but I’ll to try to explain the significance as best I can in brief. In 4e, a player is assumed to have access to the full scope of options published for 4e, excepting stuff like dragonmarks and options that don’t exist in a given world. The devs worked hard to keep the game balanced so that this expectation could remain reasonable, and they succeeded. Even the “lemons” were only bad in optimized games, next to the best builds, and the “best” builds still weren’t broken. The DM or group can opt out, but the different baseline assumption changes player perception of their own agency during character creation, and is something that was very important to many 4e groups. In every other edition, only the core options in the PHB are assumed to be available unless specified otherwise. In 5e, even some PHB options are more “opt-in”. In the end, it’s a matter of what players can generally assume is part of the game unless the DM tells them otherwise. Why? I’ve never seen a group IRL go by the Core+1 guideline, and every group I saw in 4e had all or nearly all options “on” in most games. (Again, excepting things that are very setting specific, or that contradict house rules, like feat taxes in games that homebrew the bonuses into the assumed math, etc)</blockquote>

Verification