Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8287259" data-attributes="member: 42582">Of course it will be part of successful play. You wouldn't use it for unsuccessful play!But it's not a manifestation of the skill of Gygax's skilled play. It's a way of circumventing fiction - in this case, certain corridors, rooms, etc - to cut to where one wants to go in the dungeon.A potion of etherealness is similar in many respects.EDIT: Here's a way of using Passwall that would be full-blooded "skilled play" in Gygax's sense:* The players know that there is a doorless, windowless etc room behind a wall (henceforth "the prison room"); * The players have an unbeatable threat (eg a really tough golem) to deal with; * Recognising they can't beat the threat in straight up combat, the wizard uses Passwall to create a way through to the prison room, the fighter then manoeuvres/pushes the threat into the prison room, and the Passwall is then dispelled or Wall of Stone is used to seal the prison room or something similar is done to trap the threat.The above could also be done in Rolemaster. In RM the spells would all require a check to avoid failure (a difference from D&D) but that is just a difference in when the systems require checks in order to establish that some change to the fiction is allowed (analogous to how D&D requires STR checks to open doors); it doesn't change the basics of the playing of the fiction.What would dilute the claim to skilled play in the RM case is that RM doesn't require memorisation of spells and so the players don't have to make clever choices about spell loadout and then make clever choices about what to do with a finite list of loaded spells. It seems relevant to 5e's support for skilled play that it is also much more liberal in its spell memorisation rules. (Though not quite as liberal as RM.)</blockquote>

Verification