Options, not Restrictions? Is that supposed to be a good thing?

[Ranger REG]

I'm in favor of "options, not restriction."

That would then leave the Dungeon Master as the ultimate authority to decide which options is acceptable in his game, and which is not.

Kinda like how the federal and state government regarding the law. Each state in addition to comply with the federal law, can establish and enforce their own state law, with greater restriction than the federal government.

That's how it should work. Let the DM decide.

Which is why I think they should re-iterate the power of the DM ... in the Player's Handbook, and not hide the fact in small prints.

 

[Desdichado]

Hardhead, quite frankly, if you didn't say SS was a munchkin/powergame book, then I guess I'm completely at a loss as to what you're initial post was about. And if you're saying in general you like SS, then I'm also completely at a loss as to what you're posts in the other thread are about.

In which case, I suppose you can ignore everything I've said.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Wasn't "options, not restriction" the slogan they used back when 3e first appeared? I'm getting a strong deja vu feeling.

 

[MGibster]

I mean, I'm all for options, but I'm also all for restrictions, too. Restrictions keep the game balance. You put restrictions on things to keep them from being abused by munchkins/powergamers/min-maxers/whatevery you call them.

I am far more in favor of options then I am in fear of min-maxers. I find the d20 system, as presented in most games, to be very restrictive when it comes to the type of character you can make. This is especially true of D&D.

I'd like to see the new motto be "Options, and restrictions."

- Z a c h

I think we can let the DM decide on what restrictions he wants in his campaign.

Marc

 

[Hardhead]

Hardhead, quite frankly, if you didn't say SS was a munchkin/powergame book, then I guess I'm completely at a loss as to what you're initial post was about. And if you're saying in general you like SS, then I'm also completely at a loss as to what you're posts in the other thread are about. In which case, I suppose you can ignore everything I've said.

Just this: I like options, but those options need to be balanced.

A "option," should not be blatantly way more powerful than something already balanced. Idealy, they wouldn't be more powerful at all. Options are good, so long as the new options are balanced.


- Z a c h

 

[med stud]

[...]If you dont choose a combat focused class you're going to be pretty well below average, and even if you do you'll be a total social outcast. [...]

If you create an inferior character on purpose, of course it wont be worth more then ECL 1, but if you create an optimal half ogre warrior it will be tougher then fighters one level above.

And its not sure that half ogres are social outcasts. It depends on the setting and the DM, and therefore it cant be a reason to lower ECL by 1.

 

[Bob Aberton]

Eh, Hardhead...

That's kinda what everyone's been saying for the entire lifetime of this thread.

You realize then, this is a pointless thread, a meaningless thread? It has _no_ purpose whatsoever.

Gah. A waste of forum space that could have been better devoted to arguments over Haste and/or how frontloaded the ranger is...

 

[Desdichado]

Oh, well I think we all agree on that. I don't think less options is the solution, though, just better options.

 

[Wayside]

So their character dies, and the next one is smarter. It's Darwinism in action.

In the spirit of chiming in only to correct someone on a completely irrelevant point while contributing nothing of substance to the discussion, that wouldn't really have anything to do with Darwinism now would it?

 

[Graf]

About half the people posting have said something like: But a DM can ignore/disallow/rewrite the offending rule.
If that's the case then why aren't you playing 2e? Why buy books at all if you have to re-write the rules yourself all the time?
Are you really arguing in favor of unbalanced rules?

A rule is basically a way to define an event or action. This nessessarily involves limits: Character X can jump from here to here in this situation (but they can't jump further).

I'm with Hardhead. If I pay for a book I don't want it laced with things that I, an average hobbyist, can tell are unbalanced from a skim through.
WotC publishing stuff like this really does push it out into the mainstream. Stuff like the Half-ogre, the Arcane Trickster puts 3rd party publishers in a terrible position. If you don't put stuff out that's as powerful as WotC stuff then people will won't buy your books. But if you do then you're just making the products worse. (example here, see my comments on the bottem )
The above assumes that poeple who think that my 2nd level character is more heroic if his strength is 22 instead of 20 are the ones who drive the market for a lot of products. I can do without that kind of herofication.

I don't think it's as dire as HH seems to though. 3.5 is a direct strike on some of the areas that have seen the most balance issues (certain spells, PrCs, magic items).
For that matter a few companies seem to be in an upswing with products getting tighter, clearer and more balanced.

[edits: HTML issues... link]