Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
D & D and/or Pathfinder, the effects of selective spell exclusions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6859019" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Precisely. Planar Binding should be on your list of potentially game world breaking spells; not teleport. Not that I necessarily agree that Lantern Archons can be induced to run the fantasy equivalent of an Amazon delivery service for you, or that you'd necessarily ever have that many 9th+ level spell casters to run such a system, but that you better be prepared for that eventuality once the PC's start trying to organize the world.</p><p></p><p>And again, I should emphasize that if you banned or nerfed both Planar Binding and Teleport, in general the net result would be no real change in the setting. This is because you almost never see a setting where the spells are put to their full potential on a regular basis and the logic of the setting is built around that idea. Instead, most settings are loosely built as 'the real world' where 'magic is also real' and the implications of 'magic is also real' is almost never well thought out. So the real task is working out what the world would be like if you kept those spells as is; not working out the effects of selectively removing them. The implication of a particular spell is almost never a part of a setting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's certainly reasonable that sorcerous bloodlines could end up being the nobility of a particular world. For example, in the real world, part of the claim of the Merovingian kings of France to the throne was based <em>on having a sea serpent for an ancestor</em>. I kid you not. In the quasi-pagan world they lived in, being able to claim super-natural parentage was seen as a net positive thing that proved the specialness or nobility of your blood, rather than condemned you as a potentially inhuman monster. And there is nothing wrong with having that as a culture or dominate culture in your homebrew world. If it isn't the case, as it isn't in my campaign world, then you need to have some significant historical and cosmological features explaining why almost everyone universally sees having super-natural parentage, even though it might grant some cool superpowers, to be a bad thing. Because if you don't have that, then the nation that exalts these mighty beings rather than tries to oppress them is inevitably going to win out in the long run.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6859019, member: 4937"] Precisely. Planar Binding should be on your list of potentially game world breaking spells; not teleport. Not that I necessarily agree that Lantern Archons can be induced to run the fantasy equivalent of an Amazon delivery service for you, or that you'd necessarily ever have that many 9th+ level spell casters to run such a system, but that you better be prepared for that eventuality once the PC's start trying to organize the world. And again, I should emphasize that if you banned or nerfed both Planar Binding and Teleport, in general the net result would be no real change in the setting. This is because you almost never see a setting where the spells are put to their full potential on a regular basis and the logic of the setting is built around that idea. Instead, most settings are loosely built as 'the real world' where 'magic is also real' and the implications of 'magic is also real' is almost never well thought out. So the real task is working out what the world would be like if you kept those spells as is; not working out the effects of selectively removing them. The implication of a particular spell is almost never a part of a setting. It's certainly reasonable that sorcerous bloodlines could end up being the nobility of a particular world. For example, in the real world, part of the claim of the Merovingian kings of France to the throne was based [I]on having a sea serpent for an ancestor[/I]. I kid you not. In the quasi-pagan world they lived in, being able to claim super-natural parentage was seen as a net positive thing that proved the specialness or nobility of your blood, rather than condemned you as a potentially inhuman monster. And there is nothing wrong with having that as a culture or dominate culture in your homebrew world. If it isn't the case, as it isn't in my campaign world, then you need to have some significant historical and cosmological features explaining why almost everyone universally sees having super-natural parentage, even though it might grant some cool superpowers, to be a bad thing. Because if you don't have that, then the nation that exalts these mighty beings rather than tries to oppress them is inevitably going to win out in the long run. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
D & D and/or Pathfinder, the effects of selective spell exclusions
Top