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: 6205008" data-attributes="member: 22779">It's pretty difficult to see it any other way when EVERY SINGLE hypothetical always, 100% of the time, is the most restrictive or penalizing example that can be brought up.  We cannot use our high level wizards to kidnap a frigging lizard man because of the hoops that some DM's bring up to jump through.  We cannot charm the Chamberlain because now he has 3 pet wizards (just how rich is this setting anyway) making sure than no spells are cast in court.  Every single example that gets brought up is met with stonewalling by DM's.  If these hypotheticals aren't meant to be methods for balancing casters against non-casters, then what the heck are you bringing them up for?  This thread is about class balance.  If you freely admit that all your examples are not actual illustrations of typical game play, then how can I possibly use them to help my game?You might not, but, I suggest you read some of the other posts in the thread.  When taking a Heward's Haversack into a Rope Trick destroys everything inside the 'Sack, that's DM's Fiat to thwart casters since that interpretation doesn't actually appear in the rules.  The rules say it's "hazardous" but that's it.  But, N'raac interprets that to mean that a second level spell can destroy any and all magic items.  Funny how all the complaints about using lower level spells to cast higher level spell ignore that little tidbit.  I can destroy an artifact with a minor magic item and a second level spell, according to N'raac, but, hey, that's not "thwarting" casters at all.On and on and on.  I'd argue otherwise, except for the fact that in every single thread like this one, it always goes the same.  Someone claims that the imbalance is there and that it's built into the rules.  The edition defenders suddenly leap to the bulwarks to claim that there is no problem with the system and then go on to provide example after example after example where the DM chooses the most penalizing restriction he can get away with and then claiming that there is no bad faith in these interpretations.</blockquote>

Verification