Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5700242" data-attributes="member: 11300">Replace should with can and I'd find that a little more palatable. The main problem I have had with both 3e and 4e over the years is the assumption of magical items as part of character. It means I have either had to bash the ruleset into some semblance of what is needed to represent my campaign world; or as my preference with most things is to just play RAW (simpler/easier) I have to DM/GM with Magical Item assumptions that don't jive with my campaign world. If Monte's new ruleset does not have this MI assumption hard-coded into the rules, it means that I can play RAW the way I like, and you too will be able to play the way you like. Wouldn't that be a good thing rather than hard-coding a particular playstyle?Because the campaign worlds that we play in are pretty much defined by the level and flavour of magic that exists within them. If the rules determine/encourage/hard-code a particular level and flavour of magic, then the rules are pushing what defines my campaign world rather than me - and I don't really appreciate that. Again, what Monte seems to be saying is that the rules should allow a spectrum of playstyles and campaign worlds, and I am so on board with that.That is such a trite example that assumes a very particular playstyle. What if fireball-casting wizards are rare to the point where the average commoner has never seen such magic but is haunted by the tales that such things exist in the world? What if raising people from the dead simply doesn't happen except by the direct action of a deity and not by one of their priests? What if any character (player or non-player) could be killed by a simple dagger thrust into the braincase? While not a playstyle for everyone, I would like it if the rules could actively support a playstyle I enjoy (as well as yours).Why can't you just have these as abilities (even party abilities) rather than forcing them as magical items? While MIs are an effective way of doing this, it also carries a lot of baggage that does not jive with all playstyles. By decoupling MIs from the equation, you can support a greater spectrum of how people wish to play their game.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification