Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9444000" data-attributes="member: 22779">But my criticism has very little to do with that. My issue is that open ended spells are more difficult to interpret. Which means there is a greater chance of someone’s interpretation being mistaken. No one is acting in bad faith. I absolutely do not think the example of “change” to force a shape changer to change shape was made in any sort of bad faith. None whatsoever. I do think it’s wrong though and not in keeping with the RAI of the spell. What that means is that I now have to treat every single use of an open ended spell as potentially a misunderstanding of what the spell does. So every time a spell is cast, I need to check if it’s one of these open ended spells, then if it is, then check if the player is interpreting the mechanics correctly then check if the open ended effect is in keeping with the game overall. And it’s exhausting. I can’t possibly keep track of every spell in my head. Because we change campaigns about every 18 months, I have to track five or six new characters each with new suites of spells every campaign. For example, my current campaign does not have any character that can cast Command AFAIK. So it will be another year before I need to look up the Command spell. I’ll never remember that. The last time I saw a Suggestion spell used was about two years ago since no one has used it recently. Which means the next time, I’ve got to stop and examine and rule. And the next time will be with a different player and a different player/campaign/group the time after that. Over and over and over again. So yeah, a tiny bit of tightening up the spell description does freaking wonders for my stress levels during games because tighter spells require less policing.</blockquote>

Verification