Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="catsclaw227" data-source="post: 4700075" data-attributes="member: 14197">RAWOne of my biggest complaints with 3.x was the implied supposition that the RAW took precedence over a DM judgment call and that it was more important that everything follow RAW.I often times mentioned in my games that sometimes the NPC won't use the same &quot;rules&quot; as players, in that they won't always have the same spells, sometimes they will use an item or effect that isn't identifiable nor available to the PCs.&nbsp;&nbsp; It allowed me to better &quot;go with the flow&quot; in game and make adjustments on the fly if necessary. I didn't always want to be beholden to the RAW, yet didn't want to have to prepare a 10 page set of rules that I would then STILL be bound by.Player skill vs. PC skillI like to give more weight to player skill than assumed in 3.x, but I generally put them on the same playing field.&nbsp; I would give bonuses and penalties to situations when they needed to make a roll, and would often listen to what they do and make a judgement instead of rely on skills.&nbsp; That said, if a player was having his 8 int PC make intelligent decisions about how to handle a situation, or a player starts to wax philosophically with his 8wis 10cha PC, I would call shenanigans.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not just player skill, it also has to be PC skill as well, otherwise we would find all the social skills get dumped by smart, charismatic players.BalanceRegarding balance?&nbsp; I like it.&nbsp; I didn't like that a player could choose a class or race combination that would cripple his PC and it was considered NORMAL.&nbsp; I am not talking about a player that chooses to do this with the full knowledge of the ruleset, but more a new person that has no idea and finds that their PC sucks most of the time while others reign supreme.Lack of balance isn't old school.&nbsp; It's just bad design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="catsclaw227, post: 4700075, member: 14197"] [B]RAW[/B] One of my biggest complaints with 3.x was the implied supposition that the RAW took precedence over a DM judgment call and that it was more important that everything follow RAW. I often times mentioned in my games that sometimes the NPC won't use the same "rules" as players, in that they won't always have the same spells, sometimes they will use an item or effect that isn't identifiable nor available to the PCs. It allowed me to better "go with the flow" in game and make adjustments on the fly if necessary. I didn't always want to be beholden to the RAW, yet didn't want to have to prepare a 10 page set of rules that I would then STILL be bound by. [B]Player skill vs. PC skill[/B] I like to give more weight to player skill than assumed in 3.x, but I generally put them on the same playing field. I would give bonuses and penalties to situations when they needed to make a roll, and would often listen to what they do and make a judgement instead of rely on skills. That said, if a player was having his 8 int PC make intelligent decisions about how to handle a situation, or a player starts to wax philosophically with his 8wis 10cha PC, I would call shenanigans. It's not just player skill, it also has to be PC skill as well, otherwise we would find all the social skills get dumped by smart, charismatic players. [B]Balance[/B] Regarding balance? I like it. I didn't like that a player could choose a class or race combination that would cripple his PC and it was considered NORMAL. I am not talking about a player that chooses to do this with the full knowledge of the ruleset, but more a new person that has no idea and finds that their PC sucks most of the time while others reign supreme. Lack of balance isn't old school. It's just bad design. [/QUOTE]

Verification