Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6196851" data-attributes="member: 221">This seems to be another example of hyperbole on your part. I have not read anyone talking about crushing possible use of spells. For Charm Person, I would merely note the limitations placed on the spell, in the rules. It is abusing the spell to use it in a way that bypasses the inherent restrictions in the spell text. DMs need to make sure that doesn't happen and all the rules are enforced, not just the ones that benefit the players.There seem to be two arguments here. You are arguing that one side is "crushing rules," when in fact the argument is actually being made for enforcing rules via DM authority. To better have this debate, it would help if you would stop assuming that the actions of the imaginary DM are somehow breaking rules, when no suggestion of that is being made in the examples given. If someone lays out a legitimate reason for the Chamberlain not to be affected by Diplomacy, or even Charm Person, in such a way as to thwart their use, while still using the rules (and even assuming its part of a pre-written encounter), then how is that DM force. If I as a designer, think ahead, and plan for contingencies properly, then there need be no mid-stream change of the rules, for this scenario to play out as described. It might even be a major plot point. All absent the DM Force Manbearcat describes.</blockquote>