NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 3767001" data-attributes="member: 1757">Or just make the wizards higher level than the fighters in your world."Perfect balance" may be a chimera, but to throw out the idea of balance entirely because perfect balance is impossible to achieve without congruence of character options is taking epistemological relativism to its worst extreme. Things certainly can be better balanced or more imbalanced, and there isn't always a flavor "sacrifice" in doing so. More to the point, this "creative spellcasting" argument has little to nothing to do with balance, and everything to do with gameplay. The ability to use a spell in a non-standard way that is anticipated by the rules and common sense is fine; however, the example used by the OP, and similar examples presented by others in this thread, are not so. They're essentially replacing the spell's core mechanic with a bunch of ad hoc rules, except that these rules are being proposed by the player, which is worse because they lead to a break in the game in which player and DM argue over how the spell should work "according to the laws of physics," "in real life," or whatever. I had these sorts of arguments in my game all the time in 1e/2e (to the point where we actually gave the most even-keeled player a "silly argument gavel" used to shut them down and get on with the game), and I have absolutely NO inclination to go back to having them.In short, clearly-written rules for spells that limit the spells to explicit effects are good for gameplay. You want to play it differently? Fine. Go through the spell list and add whatever wonky "science-based" special effects you like. But for core gameplay for a ruleset being used by thousands of gaming groups, I'd rather simple, concise, and properly circumscribed, thank you.</blockquote>

Verification