NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6206567" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Yet the ruling suggested well upthread to resolve the issue without allowing unlimited reuse of charged items is the one the game designers issued in a later publication. Apparently, it was a “reasonable ruling”, and might actually be the original intention.  I also think “it's ridiculous and no DM will allow it|” is not remotely consistent with “it's not generous at all” Back to this, and the Chamberlain. The guy with no armor and minimal weaponry speaks strange words in a foreign tongue in a strong, clear voice while making strange hand motions. Suddenly, the entire attitude of the Chamberlain changes.  No one observing this should be in any way suspicious? If we can get the Chamberlain unobserved, and if we are prepared to deal with any fallout when the spell ends or it is otherwise learned we overrode his own decisionmaking process, then the Charm spell could well get us past the Chamberlain (Wicht has some good further comments as well). What is the rule to determine whether some other mortal caster got a wish in the last 30 days? How many times can he sell the same soul?  “That tarnished thing? It will come to us in the eyeblink that is a mortal’s life, bargain or no.”The PC’s will simply say “be ready to bind the wizard’s wounds”. The problem, I believe we can agree, as a lack of actual mechanics – the rules should define the interplay, not provide a vague description to be argued between “the world is sucked into a horrible black void” and “your throat tickles”. I believe I have stated where I see an interpretation versus a reasonably clear read of the spell.  I have also said that there is a lot of room between “the most generous ruling in all cases” and “the most restrictive ruling in all cases”, which is where we should end up.  My general bias is the ruling which is most consistent with established mechanics and least tortuous of the actual rules as written. [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] is suggesting a rule change. That should, to me, be provided before the spell comes into play.  If brought in after, players should be able to change their own choices within reason (right down to “had I known that, I would have picked a different spell”).  This change favours the caster, so I doubt it would cause a lot of consternation. In [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION]’s case, I think it is changed to be more evocative of true bargaining. It is not limiting, but broadening, as I see it. It is limiting in that he is not bowing to the theory that a lifetime of servitude should be trivially easy to negotiate, which I also consider not consistent with the actual words of the spell. I’d say he’s reading the rules.  They say you must bargain., not that you generally get a freebie from the creature. Do the PC’s commonly give something for nothing? I think they commonly act to advance their own agendas.</blockquote>

Verification