Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7462885" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!I don't think the rules require the DM and Player to make the training an aspect of the narrative. That's the problem. Well, one of them. What is more annoying is that MC is listed as OPTIONAL, yet AL uses it. Same goes for Feats. But that's another thread.This is &quot;fluff&quot; and &quot;DM/Player style&quot;...not the rules for MC. Oh, sure, ANYTHING can be &quot;retroactively applied/assumed&quot;. I don't like that. I don't want to see a player suddenly say &quot;I added a level of Wizard. I guess my Fighter was hitting the libraries, and taking night-class at the Wizard Academe or something&quot;...because that is simply not what &quot;happened&quot; during the X number of sessions. It's the same as if the DM said &quot;Oh, yeah, you guys did destroy the Bad Evil Dude's castle and burn down all the surrounding farms supporting it. But I guess he was just rebuilding it and stuff over the last couple months&quot;...when the PC's never left the town that is within sight of the hill where the Bad Evil Dude's castle was...and now his new one is. It's lame, it's cheezy, and it's rubs me in so many wrong ways.I don't think your individual class-skills hold water though, for this debate anyway. A Sorcerer did/does have &quot;sorcerer points&quot; at level 1...he just doesn't know how to use them yet; he's still learning how. The Rogue, the same thing...he just didn't quite &quot;grasp&quot; how to do this or just wasn't good enough at it. A class doesn't just &quot;poof!&quot; in knowledge of his abilities...he just isn't experienced enough to use the correctly or at all. Hence...XP and Levels.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 7462885, member: 45197"] Hiya! I don't think the rules require the DM and Player to make the training an aspect of the narrative. That's the problem. Well, one of them. What is more annoying is that MC is listed as OPTIONAL, yet AL uses it. Same goes for Feats. But that's another thread. This is "fluff" and "DM/Player style"...not the rules for MC. Oh, sure, ANYTHING can be "retroactively applied/assumed". I don't like that. I don't want to see a player suddenly say "I added a level of Wizard. I guess my Fighter was hitting the libraries, and taking night-class at the Wizard Academe or something"...because that is simply not what "happened" during the X number of sessions. It's the same as if the DM said "Oh, yeah, you guys did destroy the Bad Evil Dude's castle and burn down all the surrounding farms supporting it. But I guess he was just rebuilding it and stuff over the last couple months"...when the PC's never left the town that is within sight of the hill where the Bad Evil Dude's castle was...and now his new one is. It's lame, it's cheezy, and it's rubs me in so many wrong ways. I don't think your individual class-skills hold water though, for this debate anyway. A Sorcerer did/does have "sorcerer points" at level 1...he just doesn't know how to use them yet; he's still learning how. The Rogue, the same thing...he just didn't quite "grasp" how to do this or just wasn't good enough at it. A class doesn't just "poof!" in knowledge of his abilities...he just isn't experienced enough to use the correctly or at all. Hence...XP and Levels. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification