But something has been lost, and it could be called encouraged customization.
I think the example in earlier printings was a Balrog (among the expurgated Tolkien references). The encouragement was precisely in the absence of rules discouraging customization. Oh, and of course:Men & Magic said:Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.
The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures said:We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you?
Why have us do any more of your imagining for you? The great division in D&D's evolution was between those who agreed with that view and those who disagreed -- as Man in the Funny Hat observed.
Stuntman's remarks and advice, I think, convey a sensible appraisal both of the design goals of 4e and of what remains the way to design a good new character class.
Last edited: