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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6196794" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, Dwimmerlied, we're not talking about abusive combinations that were never intended.  Good grief, I just got told that using Charm Person to bypass a flunky on our way to talk to the king was abusing the system.  The system is flawed.  It's not flawed for some because they have gone way above and beyond the rules and crushed any possible use for spells.  If Charm Person on a chamberlain is an abuse of the rules, then of course the only possible caster to play is a blaster.  The fact that people are pointing to things like encumberance rules as a limitation for casters shows how little system mastery their players have.  Heck, Ahn has flat out stated that his players are not interested in system mastery - they want to be told by the DM when to engage mechanics.  Which is perfectly fine.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But, my group, collectively, has over a century of gaming experience.  Well over a century.  We are not interested in that level of DM authority in the game.But, yes, it will certainly work to limit casters if you feel that Charm Person is over powered and you are running out the Nerf Bat for that.So, no, when the rules are used "as intended" we don't get perfectly fine running games.  Because, for us, something like Charm Person is not over powered, nor is using it to bypass a civil servant even remotely considered an abuse of the rules.And, frankly, I find it hard to believe that any DM honestly would see that as an abuse of rules.</blockquote>

Verification