Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6940077" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Fireball has a cost:&nbsp; A 3rd level spell slot, which can be quite precious indeed.Your idea costs some flour.&nbsp; When someone else suggested that such a trap should have a specific cost, you questioned why, ignoring the fact that every standard trap in the game has a cost, sometimes in the thousands of gold.&nbsp; You wanted to pay for the flour.Researching a spell has a cost, in time and money, as well as skill checks.You didn't understand why there should be skill checks or research costs.&nbsp; &quot;A bit of ingenuity&quot; was all you said it took.&nbsp; You still like to hand-wave the fact that there's nothing in the rules to allow such research.You've acknowledged that spell like effects, without use limits like spell slots, unbalances the game.&nbsp; Now you try to hand wave that by saying that the game isn't too well balanced anyway.&nbsp; So what's a bit more, eh?&nbsp; (hint:&nbsp; Some try to improve the game balance instead of pretending it doesn't matter.)Yes you agreed to skill checks.&nbsp; And I only had to twist your arm how many times?Yes you agreed there should be costs.&nbsp; I think it was Delricho that twisted your arm on that one.&nbsp; And yes, you never said &quot;no cost&quot;, you just asked why there had to be one.&nbsp; Same thing, different words.All of which is meaningless.There are dozens of in game reasons why this shouldn't be allowed.&nbsp; The dedicated power seeker will rationalize their way past them all, as you have sought to do.There are problems with the total lack of rule mechanics to cover such experimentation (Hint:&nbsp; It's called &quot;D&amp;D&quot;, not &quot;R&amp;D&quot; )&nbsp; The dedicated power gamer will ignore this, as you have,There are real game balance reasons, the ones that aren't just technical objections.&nbsp; But for someone whose very goal is to unbalance the game, these aren't objections at all, they're victory points.You say that high level wizards unbalance the game:&nbsp; Only if the DM lets it happen.&nbsp; Want to defeat a high level adventuring party?&nbsp; It's actually pretty easy, and it doesn't require any divine intervention.&nbsp; Just tactics and patience.&nbsp; A power focused DM will try to outdo the high powered spell casters at their own game.&nbsp; The story teller will force them to diversify their portfolio, so many of those spell slots have to be reserved for non-combat duties.&nbsp; The field tactician will note that they may have the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, but they don't have a lot of them, and spreading the hits out into waves, times long enough the buffs go down will drain them dry.There are lots of ways a good DM can maintain game balance.&nbsp; The best tool for that job is to learn to say &quot;no&quot; to bits of game breaking &quot;ingenuity&quot;.&nbsp; A good dose of Dispel BS goes a long way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 6940077, member: 6669384"] Fireball has a cost: A 3rd level spell slot, which can be quite precious indeed. Your idea costs some flour. When someone else suggested that such a trap should have a specific cost, you questioned why, ignoring the fact that every standard trap in the game has a cost, sometimes in the thousands of gold. You wanted to pay for the flour. Researching a spell has a cost, in time and money, as well as skill checks. You didn't understand why there should be skill checks or research costs. "A bit of ingenuity" was all you said it took. You still like to hand-wave the fact that there's nothing in the rules to allow such research. You've acknowledged that spell like effects, without use limits like spell slots, unbalances the game. Now you try to hand wave that by saying that the game isn't too well balanced anyway. So what's a bit more, eh? (hint: Some try to improve the game balance instead of pretending it doesn't matter.) Yes you agreed to skill checks. And I only had to twist your arm how many times? Yes you agreed there should be costs. I think it was Delricho that twisted your arm on that one. And yes, you never said "no cost", you just asked why there had to be one. Same thing, different words. All of which is meaningless. There are dozens of in game reasons why this shouldn't be allowed. The dedicated power seeker will rationalize their way past them all, as you have sought to do. There are problems with the total lack of rule mechanics to cover such experimentation (Hint: It's called "D&D", not "R&D" ) The dedicated power gamer will ignore this, as you have, There are real game balance reasons, the ones that aren't just technical objections. But for someone whose very goal is to unbalance the game, these aren't objections at all, they're victory points. You say that high level wizards unbalance the game: Only if the DM lets it happen. Want to defeat a high level adventuring party? It's actually pretty easy, and it doesn't require any divine intervention. Just tactics and patience. A power focused DM will try to outdo the high powered spell casters at their own game. The story teller will force them to diversify their portfolio, so many of those spell slots have to be reserved for non-combat duties. The field tactician will note that they may have the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, but they don't have a lot of them, and spreading the hits out into waves, times long enough the buffs go down will drain them dry. There are lots of ways a good DM can maintain game balance. The best tool for that job is to learn to say "no" to bits of game breaking "ingenuity". A good dose of [I]Dispel BS[/I] goes a long way. [/QUOTE]

Verification