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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grydan" data-source="post: 6123952" data-attributes="member: 79401">Many campaigns do let the players decide what monsters to face and what (relatively speaking) the DCs of challenges are. I mean, isn't that pretty much what a sandbox campaign is? The DM lets the players know what's out there, and they go where they're interested in going, regardless of whether that means fighting the Astonishingly Wimpy Gumdrop Elves at Candy Mountain where all of the challenges are easy, or trying to arm-wrestle Cthulhu in the darkness beyond the stars with one arm tied behind their back. And a good many campaigns are run by DMs who take player requests into account: the players want to fight purple dragons? Well what do you know, there's a bunch of purple dragons just over that next hill!Weapon and armour restrictions have mechanical impact. There's mechanical trade-offs: classes that get lesser armour get some other benefit to compensate. Either that, or there are certainly past editions where there is no mechanical difference between weapons, your weapon does d6 however you choose to describe it.In any rules set where the Paladin is objectively more powerful than say, the Fighter, and the supposed trade-off is role-play restrictions, then yes, there's a potential conflict of interest in allowing the player to decide when they've broken those restrictions. In any rules set where they're meant to be choice of equal value, a paladin played against type isn't more powerful than a fighter, any more than one played to type. So there's no conflict of interest: the only people playing a paladin are people who want to be paladins. Not because it's the way to gain extra power, at the cost of the trade-off restrictions, but because they like paladins. And people who like paladins? I'm pretty sure we can trust them to play their paladins as paladins. And if they don't, well, they're not getting any benefit for it, so it's up to the people at the table to decide whether or not that's something they can tolerate or not.</blockquote>

Verification