Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 3043680" data-attributes="member: 32740">Hm...&nbsp; Hadn't thought about that at all.&nbsp; But it makes me think that the spell could easily be renamed as &quot;Spontaneously Generate Monstrous NPC&quot; and suddenly it would be obvious that the current &quot;rules&quot; for awakening things are just downright inadequate.&nbsp; Very fun, cool concept, but more complicated in the execution than it might seem.&nbsp; Sort of like Polymorph in that regard, eh?My advice?&nbsp; Deep-six the &quot;rules&quot; and go with what makes SENSE.&nbsp; Trees for example.&nbsp; If you Awaken a tree doesn't it make vastly more sense that instead of a plant with a few templates tacked onto it that you should get... an ENT?&nbsp; I mean, why go mucking about with templates at all at that point [IGNORE what the spell description says] if there already exists in the MM a creature SO CLOSE to what you've just made?&nbsp; Why try to recreate the wheel - and do so with such cumbersome tools to boot?&nbsp; Why not just call it what we all are thinking it IS anyway?&nbsp; 'Tseems to me you'd do better to just take a Treant and adjust for size as needed rather than spend one more moment trying to badly mimick one with a plant/construct.I'll take the arbitrary rulings of DM with common sense over &quot;The Rules&quot; any day.&nbsp; Heck, that's practically my battle-cry these days.&nbsp; DO NOT let the rules get in your way.&nbsp; EVER.&nbsp; In fact, that's going into my .sig.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 3043680, member: 32740"] Hm... Hadn't thought about that at all. But it makes me think that the spell could easily be renamed as "Spontaneously Generate Monstrous NPC" and suddenly it would be obvious that the current "rules" for awakening things are just downright inadequate. Very fun, cool concept, but more complicated in the execution than it might seem. Sort of like Polymorph in that regard, eh? My advice? Deep-six the "rules" and go with what makes SENSE. Trees for example. If you Awaken a tree doesn't it make vastly more sense that instead of a plant with a few templates tacked onto it that you should get... an ENT? I mean, why go mucking about with templates at all at that point [IGNORE what the spell description says] if there already exists in the MM a creature SO CLOSE to what you've just made? Why try to recreate the wheel - and do so with such cumbersome tools to boot? Why not just call it what we all are thinking it IS anyway? 'Tseems to me you'd do better to just take a Treant and adjust for size as needed rather than spend one more moment trying to badly mimick one with a plant/construct. I'll take the arbitrary rulings of DM with common sense over "The Rules" any day. Heck, that's practically my battle-cry these days. DO NOT let the rules get in your way. EVER. In fact, that's going into my .sig. [/QUOTE]

Verification