Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9047142" data-attributes="member: 7040941">Yes, because the game isn't so complicated that one needs to ponder such a question, nor so serious that a posthumous correction (either in what happened or what will happen in the future) is an unruly burden. And thats especially true when whats being asked for is already something a Caster could do, and even more absurdly true when the player has pitched a reasonable means of achieving it. Nobody reasonable is going to let a Martial replicate Wish (Though Id love to hear the good faith pitch to try and justify that), but theres literally a number of Spells that are basically just straight up things Martials don't need a pitch to just be able to do; to the point that they arguably shouldn't even be spells at all. Yes, particularly in context of what I said above. And more than that, such a dynamic really has to come down to why that DM isn't running a game more suited to their preferences. And if the group collectively agrees on the ban as a swap for playing 5e or whatever, then there isn't an issue and can't be cited as a system problem.Ive said this before, but it isn't the systems fault if you don't like it, and its not an excuse to run a poorer version of itself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emberashh, post: 9047142, member: 7040941"] Yes, because the game isn't so complicated that one needs to ponder such a question, nor so serious that a posthumous correction (either in what happened or what will happen in the future) is an unruly burden. And thats especially true when whats being asked for is already something a Caster could do, and [I]even more absurdly[/I] true when the player has pitched a reasonable means of achieving it. Nobody reasonable is going to let a Martial replicate Wish (Though Id love to hear the good faith pitch to try and justify that), but theres literally a number of Spells that are basically just straight up things Martials don't need a pitch to just be able to do; to the point that they arguably shouldn't even [I]be[/I] spells at all. Yes, particularly in context of what I said above. And more than that, such a dynamic really has to come down to why that DM isn't running a game more suited to their preferences. And if the group collectively agrees on the ban as a swap for playing 5e or whatever, then there isn't an issue and can't be cited as a system problem. Ive said this before, but it isn't the systems fault if you don't like it, and its not an excuse to run a poorer version of itself. [/QUOTE]

Verification