Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 5064690" data-attributes="member: 23619">This isn't about me. It's about me questioning your ideas. Equitable isn't about everyone having the same stuff but having the same value. The lack of equitability is not that you're not giving everyone the same things, its that you're not compensating everyone else for what you give a certain player. If you give one player something (for nothing), that player then becomes more powerful than every other player because that one now has more resources, and thus options and choices, to draw upon than other characters that aren't given something of a similar value. If you give a skill monkey all kinds of tools for free, then you should give the less skilled something to balance that out. Same with weapons, armor, or any other gear or loot. No one wants to play the runt and forcing players to do so typically causes resentment toward the DM (you) and toward the DM's pet, which instantly turns the game into a punishment or a chore rather than a fun game. Then what's the point of your rule if a player can just talk you out of it? Why have that rule in the first place? Do you think players like their DMs to limit their options? Or perhaps you like making players feel like a kid begging a parent for some candy they see in a store?Wow! That's the most retarded thing I've read here (in a while, anyway!). The boy in the Eragorn(?) books started out as a peasant. The hobbits in the Lord of the Rings were weed smokin peasants. More than a few 'heroes' in Dragonlance or the Forgotten Realms started out as peasants. And there have been plenty of movies to provide examples also. What's silly is you making a statement like that.Never said anything about fairness. Equal opportunity may be a better term. That's the reason there is a list in the DMG of wealth by level. After 1st level, you can have any number of characters of a given level but those characters--being of the same level--are going to have the same monetary value of resources available to them. A fighter may spend a disproportionate amount of that value on weapons and armor, while a wizard would spend much of it on scrolls, wands and such, but they would all have roughly the same amount of resources. You're wanting to arbitrarily limit certain players based on your idea of who has what. That does nothing to increase the enjoyment of the game for ALL players, only those that are lucky enough to be in your favor. And if peasants don't adventure, neither do thieves, because they're in jail for months or years for crimes they commit, if they are not just executed. And those thieves likely wouldn't survive for long on prison rations, unsanitary conditions of medieval prisons or be in any condition to go adventuring. Warriors would be pressed into service by local law enforcement or military and those that refused would be branded as criminals and face the same punishment as rogues. So that covers barbarians, bards, fighters, monks, rangers and rogues. Druids would be hunted down by clerics and forced to convert their faith or be killed and clerics would be too busy to adventure because they were converting the unfaithful, holding mass, or molesting altar boys. Sorcerers would be hunted down and burned at the stake, or just executed by clerics for practicing witchcraft and wizards would likely be non-existent in a medieval society because the clerics would not allow sorcery to be taught in any school. That leaves only paladins to go around adventuring. And they didn't adventure so much as they went out and murdered whatever they found that didn't agree with their sense of morals or mesh or acquiesce to their religious beliefs. So, if peasants didn't adventure, then what class would? Noble isn't a class and they are too busy learning etiquette and how to run businesses or kingdoms to go off on adventures. And those second and third sons weren't going to get away from their duties while their eldest brother was being groomed to take over. And if there aren't any classes to go adventuring, let me further reduce your options by stating that women DEFINITELY didn't go adventuring. They stayed at home making babies, they were traded off to husbands by greedy fathers, they took vows and lived in a convent, they were barmaids whoring themselves out for extra coin, they were hookers selling themselves and catching every disease they could to keep from starving or they were murdered when they were born for not being a boy. And, for the record, 'modern American fairness' is what has made America the biggest and best country in the world. Over here we give everyone the same chance for success or failure, independent of any background or trait that anyone could discriminate against. Whether they succeed or fail is up to that person, but the chance is to be had here by all who come here or are born here. Ah, but that's not at all what you posted before. You pick the equipment, you pick the 'heirlooms', players were limited to one weapon, etc. Not only did you not address most of the points I made (despite your quotes), you attempted to deflect onto some perceived, ill-defined notion of fairness that you think I possess, and now you're changing things so that the players just run things by you. Totally different from your post that I commented on.</blockquote>

Verification