D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[The Sigil]

Perhaps I am misreading, but I think the tone of the replies in favor of "players should be allowed to play anything they want" seem to come mostly from the place of "the player is the customer" and "the customer is always right" - and also "I want to play the game in X manner, if I can't play in that manner, that's rude to me." The common thread here is that it's a player saying, "what I want matters!" Of course what a given player wants matters!

Similarly, the tone of replies in favor of "the DM should be allowed to say 'no'" seems to come from a place of "the DM does the most work" or "the DM is providing the scarce commodity" and therefore "the DM is always right" and also "I want to DM a game in X manner, if I can't DM in that manner that's rude to me." The common thread here is that it's a DM saying, "what I want matters!" Of course what the DM wants matters!

There's a third set of replies that look at the group dynamic and say, "the group has agreed to X" and "what the group wants matters!" Well, if what each player wants matters and what the DM wants matters, of COURSE what the group wants matters!

To some degree, all three are correct, and all are reasonable statements.

• What an individual player (usually "me") wants matters.
• What a DM (usually "me") wants matters.
• What a group wants matters.

We think to ourselves this is what we're arguing for. However, in the case of arguing whether something is allowed, what we're NOT doing is finishing those statements. We're really arguing the following points:

• What an individual player (usually "me") wants matters MOST.
• What a DM (usually "me") wants matters MOST.
• What a group wants matters MOST.

I suspect we can all agree on "what a group wants matters MOST" is correct on its face as it is the fundamental basis of being part of a community. If you are in a group, and you want the group to do X but everyone else in the group does not want to do X, it is generally considered selfish to continue to push for X. You should find another group that does want to do X instead of forcing a bunch of people that do not want to do X to do it.

Those who will say "what a DM wants matters MOST" may be able to call upon justification they think is reasonable - for example, they might speak to the "economics" of the DM offering the scarce commodity, point out that the DM doing the most work so their opinion should carry the most weight, etc. But when trying to undercut these arguments, for example, arguing that a player can assist with creating backstory to take the load off the DM, that is true, this is not really addressing the fundamental issue - the belief that "what a DM wants matters MOST." I do happen to think that taking an honest look at group dynamics of an RPG table does indicate that the DM's preferences ARE more important than the preferences of a SINGLE player (a group of people can go down one player and continue to run a game just fine; it is much more difficult to go down one DM and continue to run a game) though the DM still can't buck from the group (a group that doesn't want to do what their DM wants to do will result in a table with a DM and no players - you also can't run a game here).

Finally, I think those who say "what an individual player wants matters MOST" are simply wrong on facts. As noted above, if the DM walks away, you don't have a game. If the group except the DM walks away, you don't have a game. If one player walks away, you probably do have a game.

Based on that reality, I think the real answer to this question is as follows:

• What the group wants is the most important thing and must be satisfied or there will be no game.
• What the DM wants is the second-most important thing and must be satisfied or there will be no game.
• What an individual player wants is important, but is LESS important than what the group wants and is less important than what the DM wants because if the player is not satisfied, you can still have a game.

This isn't an "Ego Trip" on the part of a DM, or a DM "being a jerk" or a DM "spoiling your fun" - it's based on the dynamics of what is needed for a game to exist. When a player finds themselves at odds with a DM about something, the decision is often "appealed" to the group (which is usually what players do, complaining that the DM is ruining their fun) in an attempt to get the group to pressure the DM into reversing the DM's decision, but this has the chance to leave a bad taste in the DM's mouth and lead the DM to quit... which results in no game. The other players usually recognize this and generally do not like to be appealed to as the appeal process now means that they either have to side with the player and risk creating an adversarial dynamic between the group and the DM, probably damaging or destroying the game (in the short term, the DM may quit, in the long term, a DM who responds in kind to the adversarial dynamic is likely to ruin the fun for the players anyway), or side with the DM and risk creating an adversarial dynamic between the group and the player.

In other words, when a player attempts to appeal a DM's decision to the group, it is usually a no-win situation for everyone involved (ironically, including the player making the appeal), which is why there is a strong negative reaction to the player that wants to insist he be allowed to do something that the DM has prohibited. The player, who usually doesn't get the answer they want, by the way, also has a strong negative reaction to being denied.

We're kind of seeing the above dynamic being played out in this thread, with strong negative reactions by both sides.

Now, the following is an observation, not an attempt to prove my point (because using this to attempt to prove my point would be an Appeal to Authority fallacy): I've been playing (and DM'ing) for about 40 years now, and have seen many players and DMs disagree about whether or not to allow certain things. In most situations, this ended one of five ways:

• The DM didn't really have a problem with the player's request. There was no real conflict here and the player was allowed to do what they wanted. Sometimes the campaigns went well, sometimes they didn't, but I didn't see any issues specific to the request since there was no real conflict.
• The player backed down and let the DM's word be final. I have seen this happen many times and in each case, the group dynamic was not strained, and the campaign went on and all had a good time, including the player whose request was denied.
• The DM had a problem with the request but backed down and let the player do what they wanted anyway without an appeal to the group. In every case it turned out that player had a severe case of "main character syndrome" and quickly alienated the rest of the players - the campaigns dissolved within a few sessions and everyone else (DM, other players) were resentful toward that player and did not invite the player back for future campaigns.
• The DM had a problem with the request and did not back down but the player appealed to the group and won. In most cases, it turned out the player had a case of "main character syndrome" that alienated the rest of the players, but in every case, the campaigns dissolved within a few sessions as the DM either was not enthusiastic about running the game or became adversarial (since most dissolved before it could be determined whether the player had "main character syndrome" I can't say that "main character syndrome" was always the problem). Everyone left with a bad taste in their mouths.
• The player did not back down, appealed to the group and lost. The player left the group soon after, but the campaign chugged along just fine without the player.

I can think of was one exception to the above but it was with a group of experienced players that took turns acting as the DM for about a month at a time (so not a normal game). In this case, "appeal to the group" when the DM du jour and a player disagreed was a natural dynamic as everyone shared DM duties - and a DM stuck with a decision he didn't like was soon back in a "player chair" and didn't have to continue dealing with a decision he didn't agree with until his next short one-month term came around 6 months later. Most experienced DMs can deal with running something they aren't fond of for 3 or 4 sessions.

So based on the anecdotal evidence I have seen, I would suggest that you can certainly ask a DM "can I do this thing" and if he doesn't have a real problem with it, there's generally no issue. However, if you find yourself at odds with a DM who tells you, "no, you can't do that" the outcomes are as follows:

• Humbly accept the ruling and continue in the game. You are very likely to have a good time anyway.
• Insist you be allowed to do it anyway, appealing to the group if necessary. You will soon have no campaign (either the campaign will fold or you will appeal, lose, and be asked to leave the group) and also run the risk of alienating most of the people at the table.

Based on the possible final outcomes that bubble out of the above choices, it seems to me that unless you are in a truly remarkable situation (as mentioned above, an example would be a group of very experienced players where everyone takes it in turn to DM for a month or so making the DM role a shared responsibility) the best course of action for the long term health of the campaign as a player is to humbly accept the ruling and move on, and the best course of action for the long term health of the campaign as a DM to take is to stand your ground and refuse the player's request - as every time I've seen something else tried over the past 40 years and over a dozen gaming groups (not just D&D but multiple TTRPGs), it has always led to the quick death of the campaign at hand and often resulted in bad feelings among the players - just a negative experience all around.

(Again, if you don't really have a problem with the request, don't stand your ground as a DM just to be ornery or out of a need to assert your authority or to "be right", but if you feel you have a good reason to deny a request (mechanically, world lore, etc.), stick to your guns as if you don't stick to your guns, the campaign will almost certainly end quickly and may result in bad feelings among the players. If you do stick to your guns, the campaign will have the "normal" chance of continuing or ending quickly (some really good campaigns die quickly - campaign length is not indicative of quality), and you may lose a player - and that player may have bad feelings - but the rest of the table will probably not be negatively affected.)

 

[Oofta]

Perhaps I am misreading, but I think the tone of the replies in favor of "players should be allowed to play anything they want" seem to come mostly from the place of "the player is the customer" and "the customer is always right" - and also "I want to play the game in X manner, if I can't play in that manner, that's rude to me." The common thread here is that it's a player saying, "what I want matters!" Of course what a given player wants matters!

Similarly, the tone of replies in favor of "the DM should be allowed to say 'no'" seems to come from a place of "the DM does the most work" or "the DM is providing the scarce commodity" and therefore "the DM is always right" and also "I want to DM a game in X manner, if I can't DM in that manner that's rude to me." The common thread here is that it's a DM saying, "what I want matters!" Of course what the DM wants matters!

There's a third set of replies that look at the group dynamic and say, "the group has agreed to X" and "what the group wants matters!" Well, if what each player wants matters and what the DM wants matters, of COURSE what the group wants matters!

To some degree, all three are correct, and all are reasonable statements.

• What an individual player (usually "me") wants matters.
• What a DM (usually "me") wants matters.
• What a group wants matters.

We think to ourselves this is what we're arguing for. However, in the case of arguing whether something is allowed, what we're NOT doing is finishing those statements. We're really arguing the following points:

• What an individual player (usually "me") wants matters MOST.
• What a DM (usually "me") wants matters MOST.
• What a group wants matters MOST.

I suspect we can all agree on "what a group wants matters MOST" is correct on its face as it is the fundamental basis of being part of a community. If you are in a group, and you want the group to do X but everyone else in the group does not want to do X, it is generally considered selfish to continue to push for X. You should find another group that does want to do X instead of forcing a bunch of people that do not want to do X to do it.

Those who will say "what a DM wants matters MOST" may be able to call upon justification they think is reasonable - for example, they might speak to the "economics" of the DM offering the scarce commodity, point out that the DM doing the most work so their opinion should carry the most weight, etc. But when trying to undercut these arguments, for example, arguing that a player can assist with creating backstory to take the load off the DM, that is true, this is not really addressing the fundamental issue - the belief that "what a DM wants matters MOST." I do happen to think that taking an honest look at group dynamics of an RPG table does indicate that the DM's preferences ARE more important than the preferences of a SINGLE player (a group of people can go down one player and continue to run a game just fine; it is much more difficult to go down one DM and continue to run a game) though the DM still can't buck from the group (a group that doesn't want to do what their DM wants to do will result in a table with a DM and no players - you also can't run a game here).

Finally, I think those who say "what an individual player wants matters MOST" are simply wrong on facts. As noted above, if the DM walks away, you don't have a game. If the group except the DM walks away, you don't have a game. If one player walks away, you probably do have a game.

Based on that reality, I think the real answer to this question is as follows:

• What the group wants is the most important thing and must be satisfied or there will be no game.
• What the DM wants is the second-most important thing and must be satisfied or there will be no game.
• What an individual player wants is important, but is LESS important than what the group wants and is less important than what the DM wants because if the player is not satisfied, you can still have a game.

This isn't an "Ego Trip" on the part of a DM, or a DM "being a jerk" or a DM "spoiling your fun" - it's based on the dynamics of what is needed for a game to exist. When a player finds themselves at odds with a DM about something, the decision is often "appealed" to the group (which is usually what players do, complaining that the DM is ruining their fun) in an attempt to get the group to pressure the DM into reversing the DM's decision, but this has the chance to leave a bad taste in the DM's mouth and lead the DM to quit... which results in no game. The other players usually recognize this and generally do not like to be appealed to as the appeal process now means that they either have to side with the player and risk creating an adversarial dynamic between the group and the DM, probably damaging or destroying the game (in the short term, the DM may quit, in the long term, a DM who responds in kind to the adversarial dynamic is likely to ruin the fun for the players anyway), or side with the DM and risk creating an adversarial dynamic between the group and the player.

In other words, when a player attempts to appeal a DM's decision to the group, it is usually a no-win situation for everyone involved (ironically, including the player making the appeal), which is why there is a strong negative reaction to the player that wants to insist he be allowed to do something that the DM has prohibited. The player, who usually doesn't get the answer they want, by the way, also has a strong negative reaction to being denied.

We're kind of seeing the above dynamic being played out in this thread, with strong negative reactions by both sides.

Now, the following is an observation, not an attempt to prove my point (because using this to attempt to prove my point would be an Appeal to Authority fallacy): I've been playing (and DM'ing) for about 40 years now, and have seen many players and DMs disagree about whether or not to allow certain things. In most situations, this ended one of five ways:

• The DM didn't really have a problem with the player's request. There was no real conflict here and the player was allowed to do what they wanted. Sometimes the campaigns went well, sometimes they didn't, but I didn't see any issues specific to the request since there was no real conflict.
• The player backed down and let the DM's word be final. I have seen this happen many times and in each case, the group dynamic was not strained, and the campaign went on and all had a good time, including the player whose request was denied.
• The DM had a problem with the request but backed down and let the player do what they wanted anyway without an appeal to the group. In every case it turned out that player had a severe case of "main character syndrome" and quickly alienated the rest of the players - the campaigns dissolved within a few sessions and everyone else (DM, other players) were resentful toward that player and did not invite the player back for future campaigns.
• The DM had a problem with the request and did not back down but the player appealed to the group and won. In most cases, it turned out the player had a case of "main character syndrome" that alienated the rest of the players, but in every case, the campaigns dissolved within a few sessions as the DM either was not enthusiastic about running the game or became adversarial (since most dissolved before it could be determined whether the player had "main character syndrome" I can't say that "main character syndrome" was always the problem). Everyone left with a bad taste in their mouths.
• The player did not back down, appealed to the group and lost. The player left the group soon after, but the campaign chugged along just fine without the player.

I can think of was one exception to the above but it was with a group of experienced players that took turns acting as the DM for about a month at a time (so not a normal game). In this case, "appeal to the group" when the DM du jour and a player disagreed was a natural dynamic as everyone shared DM duties - and a DM stuck with a decision he didn't like was soon back in a "player chair" and didn't have to continue dealing with a decision he didn't agree with until his next short one-month term came around 6 months later. Most experienced DMs can deal with running something they aren't fond of for 3 or 4 sessions.

So based on the anecdotal evidence I have seen, I would suggest that you can certainly ask a DM "can I do this thing" and if he doesn't have a real problem with it, there's generally no issue. However, if you find yourself at odds with a DM who tells you, "no, you can't do that" the outcomes are as follows:

• Humbly accept the ruling and continue in the game. You are very likely to have a good time anyway.
• Insist you be allowed to do it anyway, appealing to the group if necessary. You will soon have no campaign (either the campaign will fold or you will appeal, lose, and be asked to leave the group) and also run the risk of alienating most of the people at the table.

Based on the possible final outcomes that bubble out of the above choices, it seems to me that unless you are in a truly remarkable situation (as mentioned above, an example would be a group of very experienced players where everyone takes it in turn to DM for a month or so making the DM role a shared responsibility) the best course of action for the long term health of the campaign as a player is to humbly accept the ruling and move on, and the best course of action for the long term health of the campaign as a DM to take is to stand your ground and refuse the player's request - as every time I've seen something else tried over the past 40 years and over a dozen gaming groups (not just D&D but multiple TTRPGs), it has always led to the quick death of the campaign at hand and often resulted in bad feelings among the players - just a negative experience all around.

(Again, if you don't really have a problem with the request, don't stand your ground as a DM just to be ornery or out of a need to assert your authority or to "be right", but if you feel you have a good reason to deny a request (mechanically, world lore, etc.), stick to your guns as if you don't stick to your guns, the campaign will almost certainly end quickly and may result in bad feelings among the players. If you do stick to your guns, the campaign will have the "normal" chance of continuing or ending quickly (some really good campaigns die quickly - campaign length is not indicative of quality), and you may lose a player - and that player may have bad feelings - but the rest of the table will probably not be negatively affected.)

A point you allude in an example to is the main reason I think the DM should make the final call on this stuff (making the calls on rules is slightly different). If the DM isn't enthusiastic about running a game, it won't be a good game. Maybe a DM is enthusiastic because they spent a lot of money buying a sourcebook and they want to use it. Maybe the DM is enthusiastic because they enjoy world building. Maybe they're enthusiastic because they're using a setting based on a favorite book, TV series or movie. But if the DM ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

That and I don't think a mismatch of DM and player desires, even when it leads to the player leaving, is not necessarily a bad thing. No DM can be right for every player, no player can be right for every DM.

 

[nevin]

Funny thing is I've never seen anyone talk about players that refuse to accept what other players come up with. I've had the players at my table just tell the new player "no we aren't playing with that character". That's happened more than me telling players what they can't play. It's not just DM's that have an idea of what they game should be like. Players have thier own lines and that all needs to get hammered out at the table and even if "The player is the customer" is where you are coming from, sometimes the best thing to do when you and the customer don't agree is to explain to the customer that they'd be better off buying from someone else.

 

[CleverNickName]

In other words, when a player attempts to appeal a DM's decision to the group, it is usually a no-win situation for everyone involved (ironically, including the player making the appeal), which is why there is a strong negative reaction to the player that wants to insist he be allowed to do something that the DM has prohibited. The player, who usually doesn't get the answer they want, by the way, also has a strong negative reaction to being denied.

We're kind of seeing the above dynamic being played out in this thread, with strong negative reactions by both sides.

This is the most even-keeled summary in the thread so far. It is a complicated (and emotionally-charged) topic, but you break it down nicely.

Now, the following is an observation, not an attempt to prove my point (because using this to attempt to prove my point would be an Appeal to Authority fallacy): I've been playing (and DM'ing) for about 40 years now, and have seen many players and DMs disagree about whether or not to allow certain things. In most situations, this ended one of five ways:

• The DM didn't really have a problem with the player's request. There was no real conflict here and the player was allowed to do what they wanted. Sometimes the campaigns went well, sometimes they didn't, but I didn't see any issues specific to the request since there was no real conflict.
• The player backed down and let the DM's word be final. I have seen this happen many times and in each case, the group dynamic was not strained, and the campaign went on and all had a good time, including the player whose request was denied.
• The DM had a problem with the request but backed down and let the player do what they wanted anyway without an appeal to the group. In every case it turned out that player had a severe case of "main character syndrome" and quickly alienated the rest of the players - the campaigns dissolved within a few sessions and everyone else (DM, other players) were resentful toward that player and did not invite the player back for future campaigns.
• The DM had a problem with the request and did not back down but the player appealed to the group and won. In most cases, it turned out the player had a case of "main character syndrome" that alienated the rest of the players, but in every case, the campaigns dissolved within a few sessions as the DM either was not enthusiastic about running the game or became adversarial (since most dissolved before it could be determined whether the player had "main character syndrome" I can't say that "main character syndrome" was always the problem). Everyone left with a bad taste in their mouths. I've never experienced this one personally, but it sounds miserable. I'm fortunate because I'm not the only dedicated DM in the group--we all take turns sitting in the DM Chair--so if this issue came up I'd just step down and let the player making all of the appeals run the game instead.
• The player did not back down, appealed to the group and lost. The player left the group soon after, but the campaign chugged along just fine without the player. This only happened once, and it was both funny and sad. The player (a new guy, had only been to a handful of sessions) tried so hard to get everyone to turn against me, even used the phrase "come on guys, we can take control of this campaign!" My longtime players roasted him, saying things like "does he think this is a democracy?" and "worst coup ever." When my spouse started humming "Do You Hear The People Sing" from Les Miserables and everyone else joined in, he finally backed down. He hung around for a few gaming sessions after that, but it was pretty clear he was looking for a group with a different vibe.

Heh, interesting: I've been playing D&D for almost as long as you have (I've only been DMing for 36 years), and my list is nearly identical to yours. My comments and exceptions are in green.

Based on the possible final outcomes that bubble out of the above choices, it seems to me that unless you are in a truly remarkable situation (as mentioned above, an example would be a group of very experienced players where everyone takes it in turn to DM for a month or so making the DM role a shared responsibility) the best course of action for the long term health of the campaign as a player is to humbly accept the ruling and move on, and the best course of action for the long term health of the campaign as a DM to take is to stand your ground and refuse the player's request - as every time I've seen something else tried over the past 40 years and over a dozen gaming groups (not just D&D but multiple TTRPGs), it has always led to the quick death of the campaign at hand and often resulted in bad feelings among the players - just a negative experience all around.

I agree, especially since you included that qualifier ("unless you are in a truly remarkable situation.") Your DM not letting you play a warforged gunslinger in Middle Earth isn't a "remarkable situation," it's an expected one.

 

[ECMO3]

Barrelnancy lol. Martials got buffed a lot eg just bonus action jump.

Jump is not an action at all in 5E, it is movement.

I love barrelmancy, I think that is actually supported in the 5E rule set, although not in the 5E adventures because the barrels of smpoekpowder themselves don't exist in an appreciable quantity.

If the barrels are there though, the rules would support you blowing them up I think.

Copious amounts of magic items as well.

But not enough places to wear them. In 5E I can wear 2 cloaks and 10 rings simultaneosly!

 

[cbwjm]

Well I'll you don't tend to meet the players deserve anything types. I've only encountered maybe 1 and they didn't join as I said no to Raven Queen as a deity (( Midgard ancient Egypt themed game. Spotlighted Deities were the Mot Egypt ones, acceptable ones were any other Midgard deity).

Not this was a few years back and I had just bought Midgard. $300 buck to ship it here. After paying that I wanted to use it.

Was that from the kick-starter? I remember spending quite a bit on it as well, the difference is that I haven't used it, or at least not much of it. Think I used some spells from the book.

 

[ECMO3]

You're not just whistling Dixie, my friend. One of the things I really like about BG3 is all the choices I have not only with what I do but how I do it. How many D&D computer games have we had where some of the minor spells like Charm Person actually did any good? But the inclusion of slavery in D&D is something of a hot topic these days with some vehemently opposed to it in any form. And in BG3 we have slavery and the PCs can make some horrendous decisions regarding the treatment of those people. If such things were options in a campaign released by WotC today, it would be controversial.

I think this is ture, but I also think this kind of player agency fails in games with multiple players. It is a rare group of PCs in fantasy RPGs that want to mass murder women and children.

In all my time playing 5E, I played in one group that was morally ambivalent and managed to complete a campaign intact. We were Zhentarim in the Princes of the Appocalypse campaign and we had some evil and some neutral PCs. We did let a town get blown up by the antagonists, but we didn't blow up. We just did not go out of our way to stop it when we found out about it. We didn't torture, enslave, rape people or mass murder anyone except the evil cultists. This was the most "evil" group I have played with through a whole campaign. In session 0 we also decided we would not be good heroes but would be working for the "good" of the company and our own advancement in it.

Playing in another homebrew campaign at level 3 a month ago we had a necromancer who cast acid splash on a captured pirate who was unconscious to intimidate other pirates, then we had a PC "neutral" Monk with a 10 charisma break a pirates finger trying to interrogate him. This latter thing annoyed me only because I have a 19 Charisma, expertise in persuasion and the Friends spell which would have been much more effective. In any case, although my character is a good Fey Lost Tiefling Bard, she wasn't about to get into a fight over this. But the good Monk in the party and the good Paladin did get into a fight over it and it devolved in Player V Player and damaging spells started getting thrown around. The DM had to call time out and 2 players ended up leaving the group over it.

 

[cbwjm]

I love barrelmancy, I think that is actually supported in the 5E rule set, although not in the 5E adventures because the barrels of smpoekpowder themselves don't exist in an appreciable quantity.

If the barrels are there though, the rules would support you blowing them up I think.

When I first stated BG3 I had no idea some barrels can explode, it would have meant I could won an encounter instead of having to restart the game due to a save game loop trapping me in the encounter.

 

[ECMO3]

One thing that really annoys me as a player is the other player who knows the mechanics but is constantly trying to get the DM to bend them to make up for what I would call character build decisions/deficiencies.

For example I was playing a Rogue and was using cunning action a lot and the Warlock in the party asked the DM if he could change the rules so he could dash or hide as a bonus action too. Then later in game he asked the DM if he could get back a spell slot in the middle of the fight because he had no slots and wanted to cast a spell and then in a middle of another fight he asked if he could call on his patron and cast a spell he didn't know.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Not at all. I'm asking if you need to ultimately get what you want from the DM every time? If you want to play a dragonborn and the GM doesn't allow them in their campaign (to use an example I know you're fond of), does the discussion have to end with you playing a dragonborn or you walking, every time? Or can it go one way or the other depending on the situation and keep both sides sanguine enough to play?

The whole point of compromise is that both sides get something they can live with. And the first step in that is having a dialogue about what they actually want.

The DM really hates dragons for some reason, dragons don’t exist in the setting? If the reason I want to play a dragonborn is the cool mechanics, maybe I can use the mechanics of the dragonborn and just play a human circus performer who can breathe fire once per short rest. No more or less ridiculous than a wizard, right?

The DM hates the dragonborn mechanics with a passion. If I happen to think dragons are cool but don’t care about the mechanics, than my character can be a dragonborn (mechanically a lizardfolk) sorcerer and take the dragon breath spell to breath fire.