Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4641473" data-attributes="member: 467">I think it is in general easier to ignore elements than it is to add them.  I certainly don't advocate creating a  system which requires players to spend their "Combat Effectiveness" resources on their "Rulership Effectiveness" or their "Running a Guild Effectiveness". This was one of 3E's problems: PC creation offered a great number of options to support a great number of playstyles, but since they all came from the same pool of character development resources, a great deal of power disparity appeared very quickly in a "mixed" party. Rather, I think modular subsystems are the way to go with this kind of thing and, again, I hope to see the DMG 2 include it (after all, what else is it going to have besides more traps and revised Skill Challenge rules?).The reason I would have liked to have seen those elements included in the Core is simply one of preference: I think D&D, while not a "universal" game, has always supported a wide variety of possible playstyles within the broad genre of "fantasy adventure" and including these somewhat disparate, even contradictory elements is clear indication to the reader that the game still is just that.Again, it's unfortunate that these things aren't in the core, but with regular "Core" additions, there is plenty of room for growth.  I just hope the PHB, DMG and MM 2's aren't just more defenders, brutes and traps.</blockquote>