Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hairfoot" data-source="post: 5053019" data-attributes="member: 23732">If that's an apt analogy for you, we're obviously coming from perspectives so far removed that debating will probably be fruitless.Because one is an exercise of creativity using a spell which is a mainstay of D&D, while the other is a "turn it up to 11" exercise in nullifying the ability score range and creating superhero PCs.  The unwilling enlargee still gets a saving throw. If the DM thinks it's a RAW abuse, give the save a big bonus.  I'd rather do that for a player than say their imagination and cunning is invalid.This is really a topic for another thread, but the 3-18 attribute range is designed to indicate the very limits of abilities for humans.  A human with an 18 score is at the top of the race's potential.  Due to inherent abilities, some races may score a 19 or 20 in an attribute, and they are truly legendary and possibly unique.  When you get into mid-20s, those are the attributes of demigods and avatars.Having a pixie with 30 DEX raises the question of what dexterity is meant to represent and undermines the simulation goal of the 3-18 range.  Whether such extraordinary PCs belong in an adventuring party is up to each individual group, but personally I'm bored by that sort of powergaming, and consider it the province of Exalted, not D&D.Indiana Jones lashing his bullwhip onto a beam and swinging across a room to catch the princess because he's a skilled, heroic mortal isn't the same as Superman idly drifting across to do it because he's an invincible flying alien.I don't agree with the premise that restricted options restrain creativity.  Take a basic limitation: encumbrance.  When equipping a character, I enjoy figuring out how much stuff my PC can lug about and still be effective in an adventure.  That limitation presents a planning challenge and I enjoy seeing how my choice of gear pans out.  I see planning spell selections in the same way.A lot of the criticism of Vancian casting seems predicated on an assumption that a caster will know exactly which spells they'll need to get out of hock on an adventure.  If water breathing saves a PC from drowning, then that's either pure luck or clever reconnaissance.  I don't see how it becomes a cheesy get-out-of-jail-free card in any circumstance.  It's equally possible that water breathing won't get used, and to have it the caster gave up a spell that may have saved the day.Then there's the fact that magic is special.  Why shouldn't it cause extraordinary circumstances occasionally?  I've never witnessed this apparently common setup of the mage dominating every situation with spells, because a role of the DM is to balance that stuff out.  If an adventuring mage is becoming the sine qua non in a campaign, he's also going to become the target of fear and assassination.  With great power comes great threat.The comparison between old game computers and roleplaying limitations is very interesting.  I had a Commodore64, then upgraded to an Amiga.  At that age I was also a slavish follower of game magazines, and read every review of every game.  And do you know what the most common criticism of early Amiga games was?  That they were nice to look at, but often boring to play, because the limitations of the C64 forced developers to make the gameplay complex and engaging, rather than churn out bland, one-dimensional games with 30 DEX...I mean pretty graphics.</blockquote>

Verification