Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Humanophile" data-source="post: 1401608" data-attributes="member: 1049">Heh.&nbsp; 3.x gave us everything we asked for.&nbsp; And now we bitch about it.I will grant this.&nbsp; Arbitrary restrictions and &quot;hands off, it's mine!&quot; powers do tend to add to flavor, albeit at the cost that players tend to want said restrictions removed or said powers opened up to others.&nbsp; Certain powers and abilities tend to &quot;feel&quot; right, even if they're horribly balanced (&quot;shouldn't my elf get bonus skills and feats, since he's been around so long?&quot;), which adds to &quot;soul&quot; while driving a great many players up a wall.&nbsp; We asked for balance and wide-open options, and some flavor has to be lost in the balance.I do also have to call myself more a fan of earlier art and writing than 3e's; although the chapter opening art in 3e has an immersive feel, pretty much everything else...&nbsp; well, has been discussed before.&nbsp; Yes, it's nice to have standardized language, and there are some more &quot;soulful&quot; books put out by other publishers that drive me up a wall with vague wording, but those books do tend to evoke plot hooks and character ideas far better than the current D&amp;D crop.&nbsp; Probably because in those books, the rules follow the world, and devil take anyone who points out why it's less fun to play as a result.I do wonder what would happen if someone put out a book that sidestepped all the things that make D&amp;D &quot;flavorless&quot; now; keep in mind that the two places where restrictions are added for flavor reasons alone - multiclassing for monks and paladins - are probably the most house-ruled things in the game.&nbsp; If WOTC ever decided to put out a book where evocative prose beat out clear (if legal-esque) language, where pointless restrictions were added &quot;for flavor&quot;, and full of unblanaced rules that &quot;fit the setting&quot;, I'm curious how feverent the crusade against them would grow.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Humanophile, post: 1401608, member: 1049"] Heh. 3.x gave us everything we asked for. And now we bitch about it. I will grant this. Arbitrary restrictions and "hands off, it's mine!" powers do tend to add to flavor, albeit at the cost that players tend to want said restrictions removed or said powers opened up to others. Certain powers and abilities tend to "feel" right, even if they're horribly balanced ("shouldn't my elf get bonus skills and feats, since he's been around so long?"), which adds to "soul" while driving a great many players up a wall. We asked for balance and wide-open options, and some flavor has to be lost in the balance. I do also have to call myself more a fan of earlier art and writing than 3e's; although the chapter opening art in 3e has an immersive feel, pretty much everything else... well, has been discussed before. Yes, it's nice to have standardized language, and there are some more "soulful" books put out by other publishers that drive me up a wall with vague wording, but those books do tend to evoke plot hooks and character ideas far better than the current D&D crop. Probably because in those books, the rules follow the world, and devil take anyone who points out why it's less fun to play as a result. I do wonder what would happen if someone put out a book that sidestepped all the things that make D&D "flavorless" now; keep in mind that the two places where restrictions are added for flavor reasons alone - multiclassing for monks and paladins - are probably the most house-ruled things in the game. If WOTC ever decided to put out a book where evocative prose beat out clear (if legal-esque) language, where pointless restrictions were added "for flavor", and full of unblanaced rules that "fit the setting", I'm curious how feverent the crusade against them would grow. [/QUOTE]

Verification