Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Particle_Man" data-source="post: 5723039" data-attributes="member: 892">Regardless of whether it is arbitrary or not, regardless of whether it fixes a great injustice or not, the question I have is whether, assuming the house rule is in place, the game would be worse.&nbsp; I've run into games with house rules I considered unnecessary and arbitrary but which didn't affect my game enjoyment, as I saw them as neutral changes rather than negative ones.&nbsp; Is there anything about the OP house rule in your eyes that makes it actually negative, rather than merely unnecessary?As to your last point, remember this is spellcaster vs. spellcaster, so reducing the effect of one spell to make another type of spell less likely to fail doesn't change that, either way, spellcasters rule the world in D&amp;D.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Particle_Man, post: 5723039, member: 892"] Regardless of whether it is arbitrary or not, regardless of whether it fixes a great injustice or not, the question I have is whether, assuming the house rule is in place, the game would be worse. I've run into games with house rules I considered unnecessary and arbitrary but which didn't affect my game enjoyment, as I saw them as neutral changes rather than negative ones. Is there anything about the OP house rule in your eyes that makes it actually negative, rather than merely unnecessary? As to your last point, remember this is spellcaster vs. spellcaster, so reducing the effect of one spell to make another type of spell less likely to fail doesn't change that, either way, spellcasters rule the world in D&D. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification