Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7100573" data-attributes="member: 2525">You're doing it again - repeated your argument (for which I already responded to) rather than addressing my response to your argument."D&D's setting" is irrelevant, as are "5e wotc adventures", relative to what I was saying.  Neither assumes feats for example.YOUR setting - the one you control as DM, and not anyone else's.  YOU chose to have feats in that setting - not WOTC, not past D&D settings, it's you who made that choice.  Feats, by your own admission, tend to favor three types of weapons: 1) polearms, 2) two-handed weapons, and 3) longbows.  We both know which three feats I am referring to when I list those, and you and I have discussed those three feats for years, and we both agree they are the three most powerful combat feats, right?So given your setting has people who do substantially (and I mean very substantially) more damage to foes when they use one of those three weapons, why wouldn't IN YOUR SETTING (not WOTCs settings, and not their adventures, but your setting which uses feats) have those three types of weapons come up more often as magic items? You know, given it would be logical for such a setting that magic users who craft magic weapons would choose the weapons which come up most often for being effective at dealing death with said weapons?I get you run published adventures and settings and then use choose to use the feats option, but I am replying to you saying you wouldn't choose to help players out with such weapons and they'd be rare magic items.  That's not WOTC saying that or making that choice, it was you.  So why would you say that, given you're the one who adapted WOTC materials with an optional feat system and then chose to not modify that setting to account for the feats you added to that world? It's not a matter of helping the players out - it's a matter of your setting not being very internally consistent anymore once you modified it to include feats but didn't modify it to include magic items which account for the feats modification. But that part is pure metagaming and has nothing to do with setting. If you wanted your setting to reflect that you shouldn't have modified it to include feats in the first place, and should certainly inform your players of your decision to not make that logical modification concerning magic items as well before they choose those feats (rather than complaining about them being power gamers who have bad expectations about magic items which you created for them when you opted to include the feats they're choosing).  As it is, you modified it to include feats, didn't modify it to include the logical ramifications of those feats in terms of magic weapons, and then offered the weak excuse of "Oh the published adventures don't have those weapons, they're more rare in this world because...reasons." Even though the "reasons" no longer make sense when you modify that setting with feats.That's some crappy DM'ing right there.  If you modify a setting, then don't fall back on the excuse of "the adventure was published that way." So modify the adventure to adapt to your setting modifications!</blockquote>

Verification