Lord Sessadore
Explorer
I used to be in favor of houseruling problematic things. But now, looking at all the potential houserules for new players to comb through, and for character approvers to remember, I'm with those who'd rather ban than change. I just don't think it's worth the hassle of codifying and remembering all those little changes, with so many people involved.
I think there are some things that could use a banning - like reckless weapons. I'm OK with a power or a feat that lets you get a little spike of awesome (I'll be visiting the Sacrifice to Caiphon thread momentarily, don't worry), but things like reckless weapons that purely increase your awesome across the board I don't like - especially when they play into the hands of classes that are already the most awesome at whatever they emphasize.
Say what you will, it's not much fun being consistently overshadowed by one of your fellow players; especially if you have two characters of the same class, or even role, and one is clearly better at what they're both supposed to be doing. 4e is a team game, and so I think we need to look at team dynamics. If we let things get to the point where a party says "Oh no! Not him!" when one class of a certain role leaves the party, but can't be bothered when another class of the same role leaves, I think there's a problem.
I don't think we're at that point, but we should avoid getting there. Battlerage vigor, in my opinion, is an example of an element that could have that effect. I don't want people thinking this: "Who wants that regular sword & board or two-handed fighter in the party when you could have a battlerager with 1.5 times as much durability?!"
If you don't care, then you don't care. If the mechanics is just a way of resolving those random aspects of the game, and you don't care how things get done as long as they get done, that's fine. But there are a lot of people who care how well their character is doing in the team, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that (probably because I'm one of those people - if I'm not doing well, I'm not helping as much as I could be).
Oh yes, and this is of course all my humble opinion. Take with a grain of salt.
I think there are some things that could use a banning - like reckless weapons. I'm OK with a power or a feat that lets you get a little spike of awesome (I'll be visiting the Sacrifice to Caiphon thread momentarily, don't worry), but things like reckless weapons that purely increase your awesome across the board I don't like - especially when they play into the hands of classes that are already the most awesome at whatever they emphasize.
Say what you will, it's not much fun being consistently overshadowed by one of your fellow players; especially if you have two characters of the same class, or even role, and one is clearly better at what they're both supposed to be doing. 4e is a team game, and so I think we need to look at team dynamics. If we let things get to the point where a party says "Oh no! Not him!" when one class of a certain role leaves the party, but can't be bothered when another class of the same role leaves, I think there's a problem.
I don't think we're at that point, but we should avoid getting there. Battlerage vigor, in my opinion, is an example of an element that could have that effect. I don't want people thinking this: "Who wants that regular sword & board or two-handed fighter in the party when you could have a battlerager with 1.5 times as much durability?!"
If you don't care, then you don't care. If the mechanics is just a way of resolving those random aspects of the game, and you don't care how things get done as long as they get done, that's fine. But there are a lot of people who care how well their character is doing in the team, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that (probably because I'm one of those people - if I'm not doing well, I'm not helping as much as I could be).
Oh yes, and this is of course all my humble opinion. Take with a grain of salt.
Last edited: