Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Slaved" data-source="post: 3461031" data-attributes="member: 43358">It is the same with the monks belt.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I did not say that anyone did. It was phrased as an anology.You might want to read this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</a>What I said and what a strawman arguement is are actually completely different things.If what you said was exactly what happened then you actually threatened the players. You pulled out some creatures that would benefit from it and asked them if they would want to deal with that. It seems implied to me that you would not change the creatures challenge rating even though you changed the creatures statistics to make it tougher which further pushes the threat.The point I was making was that if you used exactly the same threat with many other items then a lot of them would be modified or dropped as well because the very same threat still applies.I am fine with people choosing what they will for their own games but if you are going to use Logical Premise A to ban or change something then why should someone not point out that using the same logical premise in exactly the same way would cause many other things to be banned or changed exactly the same reasons?  <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification