D&D 5E Would you marry a party member for +2 AC?

[jgsugden]

This spell is intended to be a fun little nod to address real world concerns with a little game TLC.

If you find yourself in a game where this seriously gets abused, it is likely not that important as there are greater abuses to be had out there... However, I stand by my idea of Black Widow Drow Priestesses that marry and then sacrifice weekly. That uses the mechanics in an abusive, yet flavorful, way that could add to a campaign.

I also really enjoy the thought of difficulties on the wedding night due to additional AC on certain explicit "attack rolls".

"No, it isn't that I had too much to drink.... I just can't manage to get it ... to ... go ... nope. This seemed easier at the bachelor party!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It supports the flavor of a cleric as a community priest, would totally exist in a world of magic, and answers a lot of questions I had about how low level magic is supposed to work (how else are you supposed to be able to create holy water anyway). I not only allowed it in my game I pointed it out to my players (their characters had been dating in game since the campaign started and so marriage seemed like a natural next step).

Well...it’s the benefit of the spell that creates the problem, and TBH, it doesn’t really fit in with the role of a community priest. (IMHO, of course.)

A wedding blessing from a community priest might ward off disease or illness. It might work like a version of fast healing, so minor injuries are more quickly recovered from. It might increase fertility. It could give a charisma boost- possibly targeting only the newlyweds. It could give “aid another” bonuses, again, only between the marrieds. All of these things make sense for day-to-day living for any marriage, especially in the honeymoon period.

But a 7 day AC boost? A combat benefit for 2 (or more) beings entering into holy matrimony? That is flat out designed for the combat min/maxers.*



* or those who married someone with a tendency to throw pots, pans and knives.

 

[MechaPilot]

You don't know need to marry a party member, you can be use the Noble background with the servant trait alternate trait, but instead of 3 servants, it's three future wives/husbands!

That's a cool idea for an alternate background trait. I might steal that for one of the polygamous cultures in my setting.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Meh. Ceremony is, well, a ceremony. It involves oaths sworn before whichever god is being asked to bless the union. Lying in your oaths or violating the sanctity of the ceremony is unlikely to go over well.

 

[Sunseeker]

Meh. Ceremony is, well, a ceremony. It involves oaths sworn before whichever god is being asked to bless the union. Lying in your oaths or violating the sanctity of the ceremony is unlikely to go over well.

A lot of DMs say this about a lot of spells. "Oh that wouldn't work because *story reasons* or *setting reasons*." Those reason though? They aren't in the spell. There's no element of this spell that says "If you're faking it it doesn't count." or "Santa will know you've been naughty." That's all on the DM. One DM might say "No no, only Disney-level true love counts." Other DMs might treat the spell like a Las Vegas Elvis. Other Dms might have takes somewhere in the middle. But the spell itself doesn't address any of that. It says "here's the spell, go forth and be married."

 

[Arilyn]

A lot of DMs say this about a lot of spells. "Oh that wouldn't work because *story reasons* or *setting reasons*." Those reason though? They aren't in the spell. There's no element of this spell that says "If you're faking it it doesn't count." or "Santa will know you've been naughty." That's all on the DM. One DM might say "No no, only Disney-level true love counts." Other DMs might treat the spell like a Las Vegas Elvis. Other Dms might have takes somewhere in the middle. But the spell itself doesn't address any of that. It says "here's the spell, go forth and be married."

I think that any GM with an iota of common sense will be able to manage the spell logically. If not, there's probably bigger problems in the campaign. We don't need every possible abuse and eventuality covered, as even the crunchiest of systems has a lot of latitude. Players generally know when they're being abusive, and the GM is well within his rights to curtail silliness.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think that any GM with an iota of common sense will be able to manage the spell logically. If not, there's probably bigger problems in the campaign. We don't need every possible abuse and eventuality covered, as even the crunchiest of systems has a lot of latitude. Players generally know when they're being abusive, and the GM is well within his rights to curtail silliness.

Obviously non-PHB books are up to DM discretion but we wouldn't need to cover much, just a line about "Consult with your DM before using this spell." Otherwise I'm anticipating a lot of marriages right before a dungeon.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Obviously non-PHB books are up to DM discretion but we wouldn't need to cover much, just a line about "Consult with your DM before using this spell." Otherwise I'm anticipating a lot of marriages right before a dungeon.

“I now pronounce you, Fighter and Bard! You may...ummm....”

 

[Bacon Bits]

A lot of DMs say this about a lot of spells. "Oh that wouldn't work because *story reasons* or *setting reasons*." Those reason though? They aren't in the spell. There's no element of this spell that says "If you're faking it it doesn't count." or "Santa will know you've been naughty." That's all on the DM. One DM might say "No no, only Disney-level true love counts." Other DMs might treat the spell like a Las Vegas Elvis. Other Dms might have takes somewhere in the middle. But the spell itself doesn't address any of that. It says "here's the spell, go forth and be married."

Of course it's all on the DM. That's what the DM is for. The rules are there as a guide to the DM, and the rules generally don't bother with things that are or should be self-evident. Just like the rules don't tell you that an axe can chop down a tree, or that you need to eat, drink, and sleep every day, or that being dead means you don't get to act anymore (the rules say how you can die, but never say anything at all about what a dead character can or can't do). The DM isn't there in case the rules don't know what to do. The rules are there in case the DM doesn't know what to do.

Obviously non-PHB books are up to DM discretion but we wouldn't need to cover much, just a line about "Consult with your DM before using this spell." Otherwise I'm anticipating a lot of marriages right before a dungeon.

It doesn't say that because it's not just a general rule, it's the foundation of the game. It's in XGtE's introduction on p5, or the PHB introduction p6, or the DMG introduction p5. The section of the PHB that describes it is literally entitled "How To Play." It's so basic to the structure of the game that it's spelled out in nearly every book. There's a reason that it was once called Rule 0.

 

[jgsugden]

A lot of DMs say this about a lot of spells. "Oh that wouldn't work because *story reasons* or *setting reasons*." Those reason though? They aren't in the spell. There's no element of this spell that says "If you're faking it it doesn't count." or "Santa will know you've been naughty." That's all on the DM. One DM might say "No no, only Disney-level true love counts." Other DMs might treat the spell like a Las Vegas Elvis. Other Dms might have takes somewhere in the middle. But the spell itself doesn't address any of that. It says "here's the spell, go forth and be married."

As other spoint out, the spell is not the only text in the book.

Regardless of the text, the story reasons are what drives an RPG and set the RPG apart from a mere board game. They are the core of D&D.