Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Forrester" data-source="post: 290453" data-attributes="member: 1279">The last thread I was involved in with Psion, I actually agreed with him, and let me tell you, it caused me great pain <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. Luckily, now that he's posted this, we can get back to normal. I must say that I vehemently disagree, wishy-washy though his post might be. Okay, maybe it's not "vehement" disagreement. But I have a big problem with this: Since when did munchkinism become defensible simply because some thought is involved? Let's face it -- most people who play 3E have an IQ of at least 115, and often much higher. It's not exactly rocket science to put "Most creatures don't have Sonic Resistance"and"Energy Substitution allows me to change a type of energy damage to Sonic damage" together. This is about the level of deciding to play a Grey Elf if you're going to play a wizard, or taking Spell Prodigy if it's allowed, or becoming a Barb1/FighterX instead of a Fighter/X+1. Psion said that he likes it when his players use their noggin's. I like it when the CHARACTERS use their noggin's. Yes, I think there's a noteworthy distinction. To be fair to Psion (dammit), I will acknowledge that he is making a distinction between campaign-spanning problems and those that (may) affect a relatively small facet of the campaign. I would imagine that if he thought the party was regularly facing devils and demons and those with elemental resistances and/or weaknesses (as I imagine many high-level parties do), that he'd think Energy Substitution might be as big a problem as a twinky Grey Elf with Spellcasting Prodigy. No? This raises a bigger issue, though. I don't believe it's the GM's job to assume that splatbook content should by default be acceptable, and that a reluctance to use the spells and feats therein should be looked down upon as naysaying. In fact, depending on the campaign, I think the same applies to the core rules. Monte can bite me -- it's WAY too easy to Scry in 3E, way too easy to dig up information on whatever you want dug up. Running an intrigue-based campaign is just about impossible. Saying that the GM (and the players) should be happy with other goals ("Just because you know who did it doesn't mean you don't still have to catch them") is a cop-out, and I don't see anything wrong with just changing 3E spells to make it tougher for PCs and non-PCs alike to find out everything about everyone.</blockquote>

Verification