Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8727536" data-attributes="member: 22779">I can see this.&nbsp; The difference between groups can be really stark depending on what parts of the rules you are using.&nbsp; A no-feat, no magic item game would be a VERY different animal to a full feat, lots of item game.&nbsp; Granted, this part has always been true.&nbsp; Go back to 1e and compare group experience where one DM was really, really stingy with magic items to a group, like mine, that played a lot of modules (most of which absolutely dripped with magic items) and those two groups might as well be playing different games.I think the issue isn't so much about the design as the lack of transparency.&nbsp; It's been pretty revealed in play what the differences and pitfalls become between groups, but, on paper, you wouldn't really know how much of an effect feats or magic items (or even specific magic items) will have.&nbsp; Give a fighter a flaming sword and you effectively double that characters damage output.&nbsp; Given them a +1 sword and it probably won't have too much of an impact.And then you can flip it around too.&nbsp; I had a DM who absolutely would not allow my Forge Priest to have a magic weapon at 1st level. Was totally against the idea as too powerful.&nbsp; So, it became a simple +1 non-magical weapon - a sort of high quality thing.&nbsp; It made a difference in exactly 1 encounter across 12 levels.&nbsp; And never minding that a cleric's cantrips are better than weapon attacks anyway, meaning that every cleric in play comes with magic weapons built in.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />&nbsp; More clarity in the DMG discussing impacts of the mechanics would not be amiss.&nbsp; LOTS of sidebars please.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8727536, member: 22779"] I can see this. The difference between groups can be really stark depending on what parts of the rules you are using. A no-feat, no magic item game would be a VERY different animal to a full feat, lots of item game. Granted, this part has always been true. Go back to 1e and compare group experience where one DM was really, really stingy with magic items to a group, like mine, that played a lot of modules (most of which absolutely dripped with magic items) and those two groups might as well be playing different games. I think the issue isn't so much about the design as the lack of transparency. It's been pretty revealed in play what the differences and pitfalls become between groups, but, on paper, you wouldn't really know how much of an effect feats or magic items (or even specific magic items) will have. Give a fighter a flaming sword and you effectively double that characters damage output. Given them a +1 sword and it probably won't have too much of an impact. And then you can flip it around too. I had a DM who absolutely would not allow my Forge Priest to have a magic weapon at 1st level. Was totally against the idea as too powerful. So, it became a simple +1 non-magical weapon - a sort of high quality thing. It made a difference in exactly 1 encounter across 12 levels. And never minding that a cleric's cantrips are better than weapon attacks anyway, meaning that every cleric in play comes with magic weapons built in. :erm: More clarity in the DMG discussing impacts of the mechanics would not be amiss. LOTS of sidebars please. [/QUOTE]

Verification