Search results

My (and a lot of other people's) playstyle isn't supported by the game. That's a problem with the mechanics. Except when there's no rules hacking going on. Diplomacy is about changing attitude. Making the Pope Helpful does not convince him he's an atheist. That would be more a use for Bluff...

A caster can change his options over night. A fighter can't.

Which does squat if the caster is invisible or incorporeal, or your fighter is being chowed on by the caster's summons, or the caster used Wind Wall or Protection from Arrows. And there's still the issue of being able to hit. Actually, the higher the level, the less likely it is he is going to...

Oh, but there are. They're called AC. But first the fighter has to even hit the caster, which might be hard considering he's invisible, flying, incorporeal, behind a wall of summons, polymorphed into some uber war machine, etc. But that would mean the caster is actually using the vast and...

I was under the impression that we're talking about the casters matching the Fighter. I did mention buffs after all, and I wasn't just talking about the Cleric. I see you had something else in mind for non-Clerics.

And other casters are out of luck. What 1-3rd level spells are there that are worth persisting and will make the caster equal or better at combat/durability than a Fighter?

Of course (after asking him "Are you sure you want to do that?"). And depending on his Tumble check he might even succeed (but more likely he'll die, although at higher levels he might survive the fall). Sure, as long as he has fire immunity or high enough resistance, or enough hp to survive...

And wands. But it takes time to buff up.

Actually that's exactly what is going on. Their opinion is that the DM has absolute control. My opinion (I'm not sure about the others) is that the DM controls his world, the player controls his PC. Not allowing for a Diplomacy check, when the player chooses to use Diplomacy, is infringing on...

We didn't establish anything. It's your camp that insists that players have no say in playing their characters. That's called railroading.

The player wants to use Diplomacy. You won't let him. Ergo, railroading.

If it looks like a duck... Never said it's always bad. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

So you didn't say that you wouldn't allow a player to use Diplomacy?

I call that railroading.

I call em like I see em. Lets make a deal. I'll stop making my "accusations" when you do. Not allowing for player actions is railroading. Not really. You (or at least Ahnehnois) imply zero. If by nobody you mean Ahnehnois, then sure, nobody has gone there.

Brutal Throw.

You like railroading and using DM fiat to negate player options, I don't. That's really all there is to it.

Could you not use my post as some kinda "gotcha" argument against him? He got it wrong, but that doesn't really invalidate his point, because even just "Friendly" attitude makes the chamberlain quite helpful. He'll advise, offer limited help or advocate for you, which is more than enough. And...

Uh... everything in this thread? I mean, you call it abuse when Charm Person is used exactly like intended.

That's not actually true. Friendly - Wishes you well - Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate.