Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5432764" data-attributes="member: 957">I'd say that 3.5 didn't assume you needed it expressly stated to get the point.&nbsp; If you are saying the point isn't there, then that is how you see it and that's no issue to me.I think you are missing my point.&nbsp; As far as I am concerned reskinning the thieves tools into a different form that functions in the precise same manner as thieves tools is still 100% within RAW.If you say you campaign has no elves, but it does have forest people, who happen to have exactly the same mechanics as elves, you have not left RAW.I allowed arcane spellcasters to use &quot;arcane blasters&quot; of a sort that were simple, cheap magical rods.&nbsp; And arcane spellcaster could use a move action to &quot;charge&quot; it.&nbsp; They could then fire a single blast for 1d8 damage as a normal ranged attack.&nbsp; Mechanically it was exactly a light crossbow.&nbsp; *horrors* not RAW......Actually you saidYou were talking about mechanics being divorced from flavor and how that gave you options 3E didn't.&nbsp;&nbsp; The whole RAW argument came later as an attempt to change the subject.Again, I 100% agree that if your DM sucks, the players are SOL.&nbsp; That doesn't really contribute to a comparison of systems.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sticking to the rules is fine, foolishly misinterpreting the intent and spirit of the rules is another, and far more fitting to the point of discussion.As to 4E, I think I'll take other people's word over yours.&nbsp; It is easy to see how 4E would &quot;not require&quot; it and yet give a bonus and work out exactly the same mathematically as &quot;requiring&quot; it and yet letting you try without at a penalty.And you are either missing or avoiding the point that the example you gave DID require an implement.&nbsp; The fact that you reskinned the implement is completely irrelevant to the mechanics.I didn't claim it is more open.&nbsp; YOU said 4E was better, my point was equivalence.&nbsp; Thanks for agreeing.Again, if you describe the flavor that way, you can do that in 3E.&nbsp; Now, you HAVE made an important change here because there is no implement at all.&nbsp; I'd probably want a feat or something for that.&nbsp; Or just have the player agree to always to the penalty.&nbsp; Which would also be fine.&nbsp; And it also may end up be mechanically equivalent to foregoing the implement bonus of the 4E side.&nbsp;Or is a good enough DM to work with it intelligently.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5432764, member: 957"] I'd say that 3.5 didn't assume you needed it [u]expressly[/u] stated to get the point. If you are saying the point isn't there, then that is how you see it and that's no issue to me. I think you are missing my point. As far as I am concerned reskinning the thieves tools into a different form that functions in the precise same manner as thieves tools is still 100% within RAW. If you say you campaign has no elves, but it does have forest people, who happen to have exactly the same mechanics as elves, you have not left RAW. I allowed arcane spellcasters to use "arcane blasters" of a sort that were simple, cheap magical rods. And arcane spellcaster could use a move action to "charge" it. They could then fire a single blast for 1d8 damage as a normal ranged attack. Mechanically it was exactly a light crossbow. *horrors* not RAW...... Actually you said You were talking about mechanics being divorced from flavor and how that gave you options 3E didn't. The whole RAW argument came later as an attempt to change the subject. Again, I 100% agree that if your DM sucks, the players are SOL. That doesn't really contribute to a comparison of systems. Sticking to the rules is fine, foolishly misinterpreting the intent and spirit of the rules is another, and far more fitting to the point of discussion. As to 4E, I think I'll take other people's word over yours. It is easy to see how 4E would "not require" it and yet give a bonus and work out exactly the same mathematically as "requiring" it and yet letting you try without at a penalty. And you are either missing or avoiding the point that the example you gave DID require an implement. The fact that you reskinned the implement is completely irrelevant to the mechanics. I didn't claim it is more open. YOU said 4E was better, my point was equivalence. Thanks for agreeing. Again, if you describe the flavor that way, you can do that in 3E. Now, you HAVE made an important change here because there is no implement at all. I'd probably want a feat or something for that. Or just have the player agree to always to the penalty. Which would also be fine. And it also may end up be mechanically equivalent to foregoing the implement bonus of the 4E side. Or is a good enough DM to work with it intelligently. [/QUOTE]

Verification