Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8517568" data-attributes="member: 29398">If said schools are not available to PCs my first question is &quot;Why the hell not?&quot; and if the answer is for power reasons my second question would be &quot;If those spells are that unbalancing why are they even a part of the setting?&quot;.&nbsp; By the second question, I mean that if a school of wizards out there have access to these too-unbalanced spells why haven't they made better use of them by taking over the setting or whatever?&nbsp; Has the DM taken a broader view and asked what these spells in the hands of unscrupulous NPCs would have lead to in the setting over the long term?This is why a DM can't just throw this stuff in &quot;for fun&quot; without giving it some real thought.&nbsp; Everything has broader implications and affects on the setting.That said, if you don't care about the setting's ongoing believability then all this is fine.If they're too powerful for PCs to have they're too powerful for NPCs to have.&nbsp; Remember, the NPCs who have this power can and likely will also have been using it &quot;again and again&quot; all the way until they meet the PCs - and even beyond that, if the PCs lose or the NPCs flee - with whatever downstream effects that may have on the setting.Pun-pun arose because 3e gave too many powers to everyone and as a result a few broken combos slipped through the cracks.Have less powers for everyone - PC and NPC alike - and the chances of a pun-pun error drop dramatically: it's easier to check for broken combos.Also, pun-pun can't get into the hands of a player if Kobolds and other monsters can't be PCs.&nbsp; Errors upon errors, this took. <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=":)" />Your players are putting reasonableness ahead of advocating for their characters.&nbsp; A character advocate's first response would often be &quot;What would it take for me to be able to do that?&quot;, simply because what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.And there's a flip side as well: there's no such thing as PC-only powers and abilities.&nbsp; If a PC can do it, an equal NPC can do it also.I get this, but at the same time if I think an opponent can't be made worthy with the abilities available to it (and to PCs) the answer isn't to just give it more abilities willy-nilly, the answer is to add more opponents!The DM is - or should be! - constrained by the setting every bit as much as the players; and here &quot;the setting&quot; includes spells and abilities extant within that setting that are not specifically innate to a species.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8517568, member: 29398"] If said schools are not available to PCs my first question is "Why the hell not?" and if the answer is for power reasons my second question would be "If those spells are that unbalancing why are they even a part of the setting?". By the second question, I mean that if a school of wizards out there have access to these too-unbalanced spells why haven't they made better use of them by taking over the setting or whatever? Has the DM taken a broader view and asked what these spells in the hands of unscrupulous NPCs would have lead to in the setting over the long term? This is why a DM can't just throw this stuff in "for fun" without giving it some real thought. Everything has broader implications and affects on the setting. That said, if you don't care about the setting's ongoing believability then all this is fine. If they're too powerful for PCs to have they're too powerful for NPCs to have. Remember, the NPCs who have this power can and likely will also have been using it "again and again" all the way until they meet the PCs - and even beyond that, if the PCs lose or the NPCs flee - with whatever downstream effects that may have on the setting. Pun-pun arose because 3e gave too many powers to everyone and as a result a few broken combos slipped through the cracks. Have less powers for everyone - PC and NPC alike - and the chances of a pun-pun error drop dramatically: it's easier to check for broken combos. Also, pun-pun can't get into the hands of a player if Kobolds and other monsters can't be PCs. Errors upon errors, this took. :) Your players are putting reasonableness ahead of advocating for their characters. A character advocate's first response would often be "What would it take for me to be able to do that?", simply because what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. And there's a flip side as well: there's no such thing as PC-only powers and abilities. If a PC can do it, an equal NPC can do it also. I get this, but at the same time if I think an opponent can't be made worthy with the abilities available to it (and to PCs) the answer isn't to just give it more abilities willy-nilly, the answer is to add more opponents! The DM is - or should be! - constrained by the setting every bit as much as the players; and here "the setting" includes spells and abilities extant within that setting that are not specifically innate to a species. [/QUOTE]

Verification