Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wally" data-source="post: 4332755" data-attributes="member: 3578">I think the problem is that whenever someone hears a rule or just a suggestion on the rules, they try to find to most extreme version either way and see if it works for them.If I had a party that was specifically fighting against northern barbarians (pretty generic) and these barbarians are mostly using axes of varying sizes, then maybe I could believe a one off moment where someone finds a different weapon.&nbsp; I don't think I could see a plethora of exotic swords or polearms in a land that doesn't make them, but does that make me a bad DM if I am not allowing the character who runs with the scythe to find a new better one every few levels, just for him, since nobody else in the land uses them?It is easy to always come up with an example that works for your view, but look at it from a different direction.I loved the weird magic items.&nbsp; Some of them I took from ideas of others off this web site, did it make the game boring for my players to find a frying pan that heats up when food is placed within?&nbsp; No, but it isn't something that they would ever have asked for or maybe even bought.&nbsp; It did add flavor and a little fun to the game though.Yes, it wasn't a randomly rolled magic item.I had a player, while playing 3.0, specifically ask for a dancing shield for his greatsword wielding fighter.&nbsp; I told him that he would have to come up with something in game for it. That made it more difficult as I have never had a dancing shield previously in game.&nbsp; He couldn't figure out a good way to do it, and it didn't happen.&nbsp; You guys could argue that I was just being the bastard DM for not letting the player get what he wanted (as it seems to me that 4e is geared that way), or you could say that I was more inclined to expect a character to not min-max so much and try to find an alternate way to stay alive without coming up with yet another magic item that would protect him.&nbsp; Which way is really correct?-wally</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wally, post: 4332755, member: 3578"] I think the problem is that whenever someone hears a rule or just a suggestion on the rules, they try to find to most extreme version either way and see if it works for them. If I had a party that was specifically fighting against northern barbarians (pretty generic) and these barbarians are mostly using axes of varying sizes, then maybe I could believe a one off moment where someone finds a different weapon. I don't think I could see a plethora of exotic swords or polearms in a land that doesn't make them, but does that make me a bad DM if I am not allowing the character who runs with the scythe to find a new better one every few levels, just for him, since nobody else in the land uses them? It is easy to always come up with an example that works for your view, but look at it from a different direction. I loved the weird magic items. Some of them I took from ideas of others off this web site, did it make the game boring for my players to find a frying pan that heats up when food is placed within? No, but it isn't something that they would ever have asked for or maybe even bought. It did add flavor and a little fun to the game though. Yes, it wasn't a randomly rolled magic item. I had a player, while playing 3.0, specifically ask for a dancing shield for his greatsword wielding fighter. I told him that he would have to come up with something in game for it. That made it more difficult as I have never had a dancing shield previously in game. He couldn't figure out a good way to do it, and it didn't happen. You guys could argue that I was just being the bastard DM for not letting the player get what he wanted (as it seems to me that 4e is geared that way), or you could say that I was more inclined to expect a character to not min-max so much and try to find an alternate way to stay alive without coming up with yet another magic item that would protect him. Which way is really correct? -wally [/QUOTE]

Verification