D&D General How Often Should a PC Die in D&D 5e?

[Lanefan]

People in general don't. But friends do not put their own desires ahead of their friends. If a person quits your game because they would not play a non-evil PC, then you are better off without them. They are not a friend or a decent person.

Have to disagree here. The non-player could in fact be a great friend and a decent person who just prefers to play (or prefers to have the option to play) evil characters.

And the latter would be my own take as well: not every character I play is evil but I still want the option to be available, for the following reasons:

--- I might at some point come up with a cool idea for an evil character
--- if something in the game turns my non-evil character evil I want to be able to keep playing it as such rather than have it forced to become an NPC (I'd probably resent this more; it's my character, dammit).

 

[Chaosmancer]

I tried to ask that of @EzekielRaiden so I'll ask @Chaosmancer . Simple "Do you think a rogue thief should be able to cast any spell from a scroll as a bonus action no matter what the casting time of the spell is." It's a yea or nay answer, there is no room for compromise. I'm not going to discuss it here but I read the text, thought about it and decided that no it doesn't work. Unless the wording of the text changes, I'm not changing my mind. While that particular question has never come up [in my game], it is the kind of thing I'm simply not going to change my mind on unless there's errata.

The only answer I got from Mr. Raiden was a response asking me why I would ask such a question in all caps.

Rules of a spell scroll say it is cast using the normal casting time. Per my understanding if a spell takes 1 minute to cast, what is happening mechanically is the caster is taking the magic action every turn for one minute to cast it. Therefore, the Thief can substitute the action for a bonus action, this will allow them to either use their bonus action for one minute, leaving their action free, or they can cut the time in half by using both their action and bonus action on their turn.

This is not a yes or no answer per se, but this is my understanding of the rules.

Now that I've satisfied that, let me point out, this is not the same type of thing as discussing whether or not a player could be a cleric of Thor in the game, or if they could forge a carriage out of steel, or if they know of a noble family whose name they could use to gain entry into the Duke's ball. This is a rules question of what the rules state. Whether I am a player or a DM, I can read the rules and come to a conclusion. Nothing about my position of DM makes it possible for me to answer it. This is a fundamentally different type of question. Which is why you previously got the response you did.

 

[Oofta]

Rules of a spell scroll say it is cast using the normal casting time. Per my understanding if a spell takes 1 minute to cast, what is happening mechanically is the caster is taking the magic action every turn for one minute to cast it. Therefore, the Thief can substitute the action for a bonus action, this will allow them to either use their bonus action for one minute, leaving their action free, or they can cut the time in half by using both their action and bonus action on their turn.

This is not a yes or no answer per se, but this is my understanding of the rules.

If you say no and the player says yes, what happens?

 

[Lanefan]

You didn't "show" anything. You just said the DM should change their mind and allow a player to have an evil PC or redefine evil to mean "they have an attitude but aren't really evil".

There is a point here, though: I assume in your case it's your own definition of "evil" that counts when deciding what to allow in your game - meaning that if your definition of what's not evil is broad enough it's probably not much of an issue. But if your definition is at all narrow then I could see players declining to join the game.

 

[Oofta]

Have to disagree here. The non-player could in fact be a great friend and a decent person who just prefers to play (or prefers to have the option to play) evil characters.

And the latter would be my own take as well: not every character I play is evil but I still want the option to be available, for the following reasons:

--- I might at some point come up with a cool idea for an evil character
--- if something in the game turns my non-evil character evil I want to be able to keep playing it as such rather than have it forced to become an NPC (I'd probably resent this more; it's my character, dammit).

All of which means that I'm likely not the DM for you, which is fine. We can still discuss a variety of topics, I can explain that I simply don't care for anti-heroes (and my wife is even more "no evil" than I am) and that I care more about group cohesion than you seem to from previous posts and why. I don't think any less of you because you have a different preference than mine.

There is a point here, though: I assume in your case it's your own definition of "evil" that counts when deciding what to allow in your game - meaning that if your definition of what's not evil is broad enough it's probably not much of an issue. But if your definition is at all narrow then I could see players declining to join the game.

If there's ever any question I can explain, but yes it's ultimately my call. About the only time it's ever come up is that I don't think torture is ever acceptable, even if I once did when I was much younger.

 

[Lanefan]

I tried to ask that of @EzekielRaiden so I'll ask @Chaosmancer . Simple "Do you think a rogue thief should be able to cast any spell from a scroll as a bonus action no matter what the casting time of the spell is." It's a yea or nay answer, there is no room for compromise. I'm not going to discuss it here but I read the text, thought about it and decided that no it doesn't work. Unless the wording of the text changes, I'm not changing my mind. While that particular question has never come up [in my game], it is the kind of thing I'm simply not going to change my mind on unless there's errata.

Curious - why should the bolded make any difference?

Also, just have to throw in that there is a compromise position in that example: rule that casting from a scroll as a bonus action only works if the spell could be cast by a caster of the same (or lower) level as your Rogue level.

Example: a 6th-level Rogue could cast Fireball from a scroll but not Teleport.

 

[Lanefan]

And, as I said, I get annoyed with the argument "I put in the most work therefore my opinions are the most important". You know, you constantly say that the DM has the be the final authority on all aspects of the game... but that is literally not true.

Well, be prepared for annoyance then, as you're gonna keep hearing it.

If the meeting place isn't the DM's house, or the DM isn't scheduling the meetings... maybe someone else is the final authority on the schedule.

I've known games played at locations other than the DM's residence but have never seen a game where the DM wasn't either setting the schedule or holding full veto power; if only because while a game can still sail without one or more players, if there's no DM there's no game.

If one of the players has far more experience and understanding of the rules than everyone else, DM included.... maybe they are the final authority on rules question.

And acts as a reference for the DM, sure, but it's still the DM who makes the final call - which depending on the situation and-or table preference may or may not agree with what the rules expert just said.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Curious - why should the bolded make any difference?

i assume because they've made their decision based on the current wording of the rules, so for their decision to change the wording or details of the rules that decision is based off of would have to first change.

 

[Oofta]

Curious - why should the bolded make any difference?

If they change the wording or clarify the ability I'd reread it and reconsider my ruling.

Also, just have to throw in that there is a compromise position in that example: rule that casting from a scroll as a bonus action only works if the spell could be cast by a caster of the same (or lower) level as your Rogue level.

Example: a 6th-level Rogue could cast Fireball from a scroll but not Teleport.

I already gave my ruling. If you want to discuss it go over there , but it's already a 13th level ability to use spell scrolls anyway. Short version of why I said no is that the scroll itself doesn't have a casting time, the spell does and the feature only works if the magic item being used normally takes an action. It would work fine on a necklace of fireballs for example, because at that point you aren't casting a spell you're activating the magic item.

If you allowed any spell to be cast via scroll you could have things like hallow which normally takes 24 hours to cast as a bonus action.

 

[Lanefan]

If they change the wording or clarify the ability I'd reread it and reconsider my ruling.

As a player I'd howl if you did this - for better or worse you've made your ruling and now that ruling should be locked in for this campaign.

I already gave my ruling. If you want to discuss it go over there , but it's already a 13th level ability to use spell scrolls anyway. Short version of why I said no is that the scroll itself doesn't have a casting time, the spell does and the feature only works if the magic item being used normally takes an action. It would work fine on a necklace of fireballs for example, because at that point you aren't casting a spell you're activating the magic item.

If you allowed any spell to be cast via scroll you could have things like hallow which normally takes 24 hours to cast as a bonus action.

All fair. Maybe another part-way ruling would be that Thief casting only works on spells with casting time of a round or less?