Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9353942" data-attributes="member: 7006">Your summation here makes sense for the point you are trying to make.&nbsp; So if we use this as the jumping off point for the discussion-- Don't let a caster with a spell do what a martial can-- then we can debate.My own opinion is that if you don't allow multiple methods for solving problems be in the game... then you are requiring that every table have that one method.&nbsp; In the lockpicking example... having Knock as a spell means that a table isn't required to have a character that has proficiency in Thieves' Tools (if getting past locks is important to the game.)&nbsp; Likewise, in a game like Pathfinder, no one was required to have a high skill rank in Linguistics if you didn't want to, what with having the Comprehend Languages spell potentially available to them.&nbsp; Or if there is no one at the table who wishes to play a high-CHA character in a game that can use Persuasion, you have Charm Person available as needed.But the reverse is also true... no spellcaster HAS to prepare any of these spells if there are other members of the party who can accomplish the same thing.&nbsp; And while yes, there's a chance that a character could &quot;fail&quot; per se at the lockpicking or understanding a foreign language, or persuasion... failing rolls is a part of the game.&nbsp; So why would anyone at the table care?&nbsp; No one should be getting pissed off that a PCs Persuasion check was low and thus start screaming &quot;WHY THE HELL DID WE NOT HAVE THE WIZARD CHARM THE GUY?!?&quot;&nbsp; That's just dumb.&nbsp; Characters fail rolls all the time in D&amp;D... so just because there might have been a work-around via a spell had the table wished to go in that direction... any mature person will recognize that its completely okay when the table chooses not to.We don't need to &quot;win&quot; all the time.&nbsp; And the person who demands that the Wizard have anything and everything prepared so that the Wizard CAN &quot;win&quot; all the time and never have a failing situation is not a person to be taken seriously.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9353942, member: 7006"] Your summation here makes sense for the point you are trying to make. So if we use this as the jumping off point for the discussion-- [I]Don't let a caster with a spell do what a martial can-- [/I]then we can debate. My own opinion is that if you don't allow multiple methods for solving problems be in the game... then you are requiring that every table have that one method. In the lockpicking example... having [I]Knock[/I] as a spell means that a table isn't [I]required[/I] to have a character that has proficiency in Thieves' Tools (if getting past locks is important to the game.) Likewise, in a game like Pathfinder, no one was required to have a high skill rank in Linguistics if you didn't want to, what with having the [I]Comprehend Languages [/I]spell potentially available to them. Or if there is no one at the table who wishes to play a high-CHA character in a game that can use Persuasion, you have [I]Charm Person[/I] available as needed. But the reverse is also true... no spellcaster HAS to prepare any of these spells if there are other members of the party who can accomplish the same thing. And while yes, there's a chance that a character could "fail" per se at the lockpicking or understanding a foreign language, or persuasion... failing rolls is a part of the game. So why would anyone at the table care? No one should be getting pissed off that a PCs Persuasion check was low and thus start screaming "WHY THE HELL DID WE NOT HAVE THE WIZARD CHARM THE GUY?!?" That's just dumb. Characters fail rolls all the time in D&D... so just because there might have been a work-around via a spell had the table wished to go in that direction... any mature person will recognize that its completely okay when the table chooses not to. We don't need to "win" all the time. And the person who demands that the Wizard have anything and everything prepared so that the Wizard CAN "win" all the time and never have a failing situation is not a person to be taken seriously. [/QUOTE]

Verification