Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7315929" data-attributes="member: 6919838">BTW i find the subject of intent somewhat amusing as it is portrayed in this discussion...Early on i responded with something liike this regarding this whole FF debate (and iirc specifically the Elfcrusher thing)"Changing to add chance of failure and risk to a spell that is IMX most often used to try and save PCs and allies is not a direction i would be taking for a spell used so rarely and with really no significant game imbalancing in play history."Now some may take that as claiming the intent of the Gm was to screw over their players and such, but in fact it is describing how i feel and what i feel the impact of the ruling to be - that as i see it such a ruling will more often be a negative to the players and their characters due to the stakes involved and the frequency of PCs using it vs NPCs using it. No need to divine the intent of the Gm there... just stating the obvious consequences and how they help me decide to not go this way myself. ...as i see it.  it should be obvious that the result of nerfing a spell that is more often used to save PC/allies from a killer situation is going to impact them more and not in good ways.i even noted several times that if the campaign saw FF used more often by NPCs this would not be a valid concern.So, to be clear... a decision or ruling can be player hostile without it being an example of bad faith or pyschic reading the intent - because anti-player can mean going to hurt them worse as a matter of results not intent.of course, its always funny to see NO WAY TO FATHOM THE GMs INTENT type worries or challenges to validity of positions especially when so often we see positions supported or taken (and often not challenged with the same "you cannot know") that are made based off a perception of something like , oh, i don't know, lets say..."I don't think this is nerfing the spell at all. If you use the spell as I believe it was intended then you can still use it at the moment of falling with no additional rolls."I am of course fairly convinced the implied "intended by whom" was supposed to be the designers. maybe not. maybe they meant "intended by my momma and my pet dog spot" and so they have an easy way to know what was the intent.</blockquote>

Verification