Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5459507" data-attributes="member: 8835">I'm an idiot, so I'll bite.I don't think anybody disagrees with this process.  You seem to imply that in YOUR game it can be done quite quickly.  It's been my experience that this process should take several real-time days or weeks to design, review and approve a new spell created by a player.Furthermore, at least with 2e, spell creation took considerable game time.I suspect that a majority of D&D gamers agree with my assessment of how creating spells works.As such, for MOST D&D gamers, creating a spell on the fly to solve the problem and save the day is not going to happen.  Because there is not enough in-game time, nor enough real-time.  As with the house-rules screws up games thread, a good GM doesn't approve new stuff like a spell without time to think about it.  Which ain't happening in the middle of the game.This is WHY most of us are pondering what you're getting at.  Because for most tables, following the standard rules for spell casting and spell creation, it's not a viable solution to write a new spell to solve the problem.False.  D&D, as published with the standard Vancian magic system requiring memorization for most classes, or a restricted spell list for other casting classes (wizard and sorceror respectively) has a very rigid magic system.If you don't know the spell, you can't cast it.  until 4e, you couldn't cast it if you didn't note that you memorized it that day (further limiting you).And most spells have a very codified set of effects. Sure, effects like buffs can stack.  But a fireball does level D6 damage to a certain area.  That's it.There are other games, and even replacement magic systems (Elements of Magic lets you create spell effects and combinations on the fly, as I understand it).Then it sounds like you're playing with an alternate magic ruleset than the stock one that ships with D&D.  Arguing with people as if they were the same system when they are not is confusing and misleadiing.Dude, you started this way off topic tangent.  There's nothing wrong with your playstyle.  But your tone since the beginning has had hints of antagonism.  Based on your responses, each one seemed like YOU didn't listen or ignored points the other was making.  What I smell is that you don't play the way most of us do.  You are probably a minority on that playstyle of the D&D ruleset.  The way you keep calling people out implies that we all need a lawyer to safetey check the way we phrase things just to avoid offending you.  Thats disrespectful.Nobody should have to preface every sentence with "In My game..."  And most of us assume there is some variance in playstyles.  However, it is also reasonable that each reader realize when they are in the MINORITY of viewpoint and most generalizations don't apply to them nor are they targeted at them.Meaning, when folks like me said "Players aren't going to be creating spells on the fly to solve this problem" we were generalizing the experience for what we percieved as the majority of D&D tables.  And statistically, we're probably right.  If your table works differently, great.  But don't go getting all bent out of shape because nobody else plays that way.</blockquote>

Verification