Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 4010649" data-attributes="member: 29398">Yuck.&nbsp; Just...yuck, on so many levels.It arbitrarily cuts into my ability to design new items for my game.It arbitrarily makes one type of item far more significant than the others.&nbsp; I've always been a fan of pretty much any magic property being enchantable into any type of item, providing someone's willing to build it...which includes &quot;weak&quot; or oddball rings.It goes against one of the stated design goals of 4e, that a PC progresses smoothly through the levels and that each level-bump is much the same; here, an arbitrary (and unnecessary) distinction is being shoehorned in between levels 10 and 11, and levels 20 and 21.&nbsp; Hero-paragon-whatever should be *guidelines*, not hard-and-fast rules.I'm quite surprised the vote isn't much higher for &quot;no&quot;, though it's not the best-worded of polls and due to this there's probably some backlash votes for 'yes'.Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 4010649, member: 29398"] Yuck. Just...yuck, on so many levels. It arbitrarily cuts into my ability to design new items for my game. It arbitrarily makes one type of item far more significant than the others. I've always been a fan of pretty much any magic property being enchantable into any type of item, providing someone's willing to build it...which includes "weak" or oddball rings. It goes against one of the stated design goals of 4e, that a PC progresses smoothly through the levels and that each level-bump is much the same; here, an arbitrary (and unnecessary) distinction is being shoehorned in between levels 10 and 11, and levels 20 and 21. Hero-paragon-whatever should be *guidelines*, not hard-and-fast rules. I'm quite surprised the vote isn't much higher for "no", though it's not the best-worded of polls and due to this there's probably some backlash votes for 'yes'. Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification