Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6148577" data-attributes="member: 42582">In the RM experience I was referring to it's sometimes after, sometimes before.When the effect that's overpowered is core to the spell - say the duration of a buff, or the way of calculating damage for an attack - then I wouldn't normally retcon.When the effect is something peripheral and broken (one that comes to mind is using scrying defences spells, that create a false vision when scrying is attempted, to try to set up communication systems more powerful than the message/sending spells in the system, by having the scrying attempt hit an image of the character reading a newspaper with the information that the player in question wanted to communicate) then I might intervene when the players are making their plan.The way things work at my table, it would never come about that a player would simply declare an action and then have me veto or retcon it. Either I would intervene at the preliminary planning stage, or suggest a retake, or suggest a change for the future because what happened was clearly overpowered.(I should add - this has not really been an issue in 4e, because of its general tendency to approach mechanics from the point of view of satisfactory metagame parameters rather than modelling ingame cause-and-effect. It's the latter approach that I have found tends to produce overpowered combos and/or side effects.)</blockquote>