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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8928509" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yes. But the first being more does not mean that the second is now not at all recontextualizing. You may note, for instance, that I included "low casters" alongside the "non-casters" represented by Fighters. The lowest levels of spells are in fact generally alright, especially if you add DM efforts to restrict the power of spells and to enhance skills in both breadth and power.I don't believe recontextualizing requires that you "discover anything new about the scene."On the bulletproof side, I fully agree...because it is passive. It is not a declaration. That's a vital difference.The bending bars, despite being somewhat secondary in your presentation, is actually the much more relevant response, because it is an action. But it is not an action which changes the rules of play, as it were. There is no insertion of a solution that simply did not exist before: the bars could always have been bent with a strong enough person. Superman (effectively) is using superpowered skills here, not anything remotely comparable to spells. His heat vision and cold breath, on the other hand, would be much more spell-like, and yes, they enable solutions which would not ever be possible by skill alone, only via special (and expensive) equipment or highly unusual situations.I don't really see this as a rebuttal of my point. Especially in the context of post-TSR D&D.Because you have choices. Look at Bend Bars, Lift Gates. The player decides the consequences of their breaking an object. Hell, look at Spout Lore. The player must answer where they learned a particular fact if the GM asks, and that answer is true. That is by definition a recontextualization.</blockquote>

Verification