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="fanboy2000" data-source="post: 4934005" data-attributes="member: 19998">This is on page 1This on page 26I'm glad you decided to start describing what you feel is homogenous about 4e in this thread. While you had been through it a 100 times in the past two years, I had not. I've just recently started reading these boards regularly, (because now I'm DMing a game) so I was unaware of your position and how it differed from Rem's. I was wondering how, and if, they differ.I hesitate to ask this because I've afraid the response will be that that you've answered this a million times and that I either see it or I don't and that's ok because I'm me and you're you, but how am I required to bring the homogeneity with me when I make a change?That said, I think that you're reply is somewhat out of sync with statement you quoted. You may be right that 4e's math pervades any house rules, but Hussar was specifically addressing the side argument of PC builds. If a Player just wants is a rogue who can wield a short bow with the same competence she wields a hand crossbow, I, as the DM, can simply house rule that the short bow is useable with all her ranged rogue powers and leave it at that. By contrast, if another Player playing 3e wants to play a straight fighter with max ranks in diplomacy and bluff as a class skill, I as the DM, can simply say to him "that is fine, you can take diplomacy and bluff as class skills."Such rulings by DMs are possible in every RPG I've ever played, whatever the underlying mechanics are.</blockquote>

Verification