Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6868269" data-attributes="member: 6683613">Has the sorcerer player actually made this claim explicitly with respect to his cards, or are you just putting these words in his mouth?&nbsp; For my part, I certainly don't make this claim with my bard.&nbsp; There is nothing about substituting one spellcasting implement for another that implies the character should be able to cast more spells.&nbsp; I feel like you're forcing this point in order to make your parallel.If a hypothetical player made this claim, it would strain suspension of disbelief, because the obvious follow-up question to him not actually doing it is &quot;Why not?&quot;&nbsp; I'm not fine with narration that introduces plot holes or risk thereof.&nbsp; If the player's character concept calls for always-available magical power, he should go for a class the mechanics of which let him do that.&nbsp; If the player's character concept calls for him to know stuff, he should go for an ability score array the mechanics of which let him do that.&nbsp; Then he won't have to contrive narrative reasons why he can't do something.&nbsp; He'll be able to choose whether to do it or not, reacting to the situation in whatever way makes sense for the character.The whole point of having mechanics is to let your character do the stuff that his concept says he should.&nbsp; If you opt into a complete conceptual-mechanical mismatch, that's like trying to eat soup with a fork when there's a spoon right there.&nbsp; Yeah, you may be able to kludge up some awkward approach, but it's still going to be a lot messier than the alternative, and don't expect us to be impressed by it.Yeah, pretty much.&nbsp; If I ask you to offer answers to these questions, no doubt you'll have some ad hoc reasons why it doesn't work.&nbsp; But I prefer events in a story to unfold organically and according to a consistent internal logic, rather than things happening to serve some external need.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 6868269, member: 6683613"] Has the sorcerer player actually made this claim explicitly with respect to his cards, or are you just putting these words in his mouth? For my part, I certainly don't make this claim with my bard. There is nothing about substituting one spellcasting implement for another that implies the character should be able to cast more spells. I feel like you're forcing this point in order to make your parallel. If a [I]hypothetical[/I] player made this claim, it would strain suspension of disbelief, because the obvious follow-up question to him not actually doing it is "Why not?" I'm not fine with narration that introduces plot holes or risk thereof. If the player's character concept calls for always-available magical power, he should go for a class the mechanics of which let him do that. If the player's character concept calls for him to know stuff, he should go for an ability score array the mechanics of which let him do that. Then he won't have to contrive narrative reasons why he can't do something. He'll be able to choose whether to do it or not, reacting to the situation in whatever way makes sense for the character. The whole point of [I]having[/I] mechanics is to let your character do the stuff that his concept says he should. If you opt into a complete conceptual-mechanical mismatch, that's like trying to eat soup with a fork when [I]there's a spoon right there[/I]. Yeah, you may be able to kludge up some awkward approach, but it's still going to be a lot messier than the alternative, and don't expect us to be impressed by it. Yeah, pretty much. If I ask you to offer answers to these questions, no doubt you'll have some [I]ad hoc[/I] reasons why it doesn't work. But I prefer events in a story to unfold organically and according to a consistent internal logic, rather than things happening to serve some external need. [/QUOTE]

Verification