Bracers of Striking & weapon adjustment spells
- Thread starter Brekki
- Start date
- Status
eviloverlord
First Post
Caliban, I just want to know how reconcile these two statements.
"I will always choose to play the game as I believe it was meant to be played (especially when the intent is obvious, as it is in this case), and choose not to take every opportunity to use the imperfect language of the authors to make my characters more powerful than intended."
"There is only one ruling that I disgree with that affects my dwarf. I guarantee that it doesn't work that way in my home game. But I'm not the campaign DM in Living Greyhawk, and the campaign DM's have decided that you can cast scrolls in armor. Since I was taking the wizard level's anyway, it would be stupid not to use the ruling."
I'm confused by the incongruity of these two statements. You say you always choose to play the game as you believe it was meant to be played, yet you readily rely on a ruling that benefits your character even though you disagree with the ruling.
Before you post any replies to the effect that I'm easily confused or the like, please be considerate and post a honest reply to my query.
Thanks.
"I will always choose to play the game as I believe it was meant to be played (especially when the intent is obvious, as it is in this case), and choose not to take every opportunity to use the imperfect language of the authors to make my characters more powerful than intended."
"There is only one ruling that I disgree with that affects my dwarf. I guarantee that it doesn't work that way in my home game. But I'm not the campaign DM in Living Greyhawk, and the campaign DM's have decided that you can cast scrolls in armor. Since I was taking the wizard level's anyway, it would be stupid not to use the ruling."
I'm confused by the incongruity of these two statements. You say you always choose to play the game as you believe it was meant to be played, yet you readily rely on a ruling that benefits your character even though you disagree with the ruling.
Before you post any replies to the effect that I'm easily confused or the like, please be considerate and post a honest reply to my query.
Thanks.
eviloverlord said:
In my first statement I referring to when I have a choice or influence on how things are ruled (as when I'm running or playing in a home game, or making rules interpretations for the Nyrond Triad in Living Greyhawk).
In the second I'm referring to the fact that in Living Greyhawk there are certain areas of the rules that I have no choice in how they are ruled or implemented. That would the the rulings handed down from the Campaign Administrators, and any ruling found in the D&D FAQ. Even if I personally disagree with a ruling in the D&D FAQ, it is considered an official house rule in Living Greyhawk.
As a Judge/DM it is my responsibility to enforce the campaign specific rules as well as the core rules.
As a player, the intent of the Campaign DM's overrules the intent of the Core Rules (just as a DM in a campaign can house rule anything he disagrees with - and as I have done in my home game in certain areas). Living Campaigns don't use all the core rules, and have several campaign specific house rules.
Thus, even though it is not a ruling I would make were it my choice, it is a ruling that is enforced in the campaign, and it would be foolish of me not to use it, as that is the way the campaign DM's want it to work.
Last edited:
Antikinesis
First Post
Okay, I can't let that one pass. Sorry, I'm not the person you're addressing, and I do not presume to speak for Caliban, but this is just too much.eviloverlord said:
The first quote is obviously made in regards to filling the role of DM. The second is (also obviously) as a player. The incongruity you're commenting on is in the difference in how the two different DM's oversee their games.
I doubt you have to cause to worry about being blasted by Caliban... I don't always agree with him, but he's a class act, always willing to help, until someone provokes him.
The one you have to tiptoe around is Not-Sean. I see this is your first post; if you look around the boards a bit, you will find MANY instances of Not-Sean flaming some undeserving poster. (I am assuming that you're not Not-Sean, posing as a new poster. Would not-Not-Sean be Sean? Heh... I'm confusing myself.
)How's that "Wand of Permanence" working out, Not-Sean?
-AK
Antikinesis
First Post
kreynolds said:
Your word's fine by me.
I'll retract and apologize for that portion of my attempt to besmirch your good name.
-AK
eviloverlord
First Post
Caliban,
Sorry, but I still believe that the two statements cannot be reconciled. I do understand your point of view that the two statements are mutually exclusive because of the differing degrees to which you have control over the rules.
However, if you disagree with a certain ruling as you say, you can choose to forego the opportunity to make your character more powerful than intended by the rules. This is the disconnect I am seeing. Is the DM forcing your character to use scrolls while in armor? If not, then there is a choice on your part. I might add that it's a smart choice on your part to use the ruling. Nonetheless, it goes against your earlier proclamation that you choose to play the game the way you believe it was meant to be played.
Thanks for your carefully considered reply.
Sorry, but I still believe that the two statements cannot be reconciled. I do understand your point of view that the two statements are mutually exclusive because of the differing degrees to which you have control over the rules.
However, if you disagree with a certain ruling as you say, you can choose to forego the opportunity to make your character more powerful than intended by the rules. This is the disconnect I am seeing. Is the DM forcing your character to use scrolls while in armor? If not, then there is a choice on your part. I might add that it's a smart choice on your part to use the ruling. Nonetheless, it goes against your earlier proclamation that you choose to play the game the way you believe it was meant to be played.
Thanks for your carefully considered reply.
eviloverlord said:
I'm afraid I don't see a disconnect.
As a DM, I set the rules, and I will always choose to set them as close to what I believe the core rules intend, aside from any areas where I specifically disagree with the core rules or want them to work differently for campaign/flavor reasons (and when I make changes to the core rules, I will spell them out for my players in a Campaign Rules Document). Thats my responsibility as a DM.
As a player in the LG campaign, I play by the rules that the DM sets. I do not try to find abusive loopholes or twist the rules to my advantage. That's my responsibility as a player.
However, if the DM clearly states that he wants things to work a certain way, then it is not abusive or explotive to use it in that manner. In this case, the campaign DM's have stated (over several peoples objections) that the D&D FAQ is an official rule source for the campaign, even overriding the core rules. The D&D FAQ clearly states that you can cast spells from a scroll while wearing armor, and you won't suffer from Arcane Spell failure. In LG, it's not ambigous, and the intent of the ruling is absolutely clear. I think it should have been ruled otherwise, but I wasn't consulted. (I even e-mailed the sage pointing out why I think it is incorrect, but he was unconvinced.)
Thus, there is no conflict. The DM has set the rules, and I will play by those rules. I'm not exploiting the rule or using a loophole, I'm using it exactly as they, in their wisdom, have decreed that it will work. I didn't change my character concept to take advantage of the ruling, I was already planning on taking wizard levels. This just makes my character concept even more effective than I had planned.
However, won't work that way in any campaign where I have a say in how it is ruled.
Last edited:
coyote6
Adventurer
Magic fang targets "Living creature touched", while magic weapon targets "Weapon touched" (the greater versions are similar, with the addition of "or fifty projectiles" for greater magic weapon). If magic fang is supposed to be just a limited version of magic weapon (affecting a subset of the latter's targets), it seems odd that magic fang's Target: entry wouldn't be "Natural weapon touched".
(It's also a bit odd that for a wizard or cleric to buff up a wolf, they have to directly touch its teeth, while their pal the ranger can touch its ear, paw, tail, or anything else. I think this is a cue for Hong, if you know what I mean, and I know you do.)
The PH was finished before the MM; I suspect that they came up with the "manufactured weapons" term after the spells in the PH were done, and weren't able (either through lack of time or simply not thinking of it) to go back and change the PH.
Hmm, weapon isn't in the glossary. Is there a clear definition of the term "weapon" anywhere in the PH? I just have the SRD with me.
I know several monk PCs that would be happy to hear that magic weapon affects their attacks.
(It's also a bit odd that for a wizard or cleric to buff up a wolf, they have to directly touch its teeth, while their pal the ranger can touch its ear, paw, tail, or anything else. I think this is a cue for Hong, if you know what I mean, and I know you do.)
The PH was finished before the MM; I suspect that they came up with the "manufactured weapons" term after the spells in the PH were done, and weren't able (either through lack of time or simply not thinking of it) to go back and change the PH.
Hmm, weapon isn't in the glossary. Is there a clear definition of the term "weapon" anywhere in the PH? I just have the SRD with me.
I know several monk PCs that would be happy to hear that magic weapon affects their attacks.
- Status
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content