Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 542593" data-attributes="member: 813">Please do not assume such a condescending attitude.Hogwash. They are balanced by the rules contained in the spell write-up. I think if you spend 5,000 xp on a spell, it should do what you mean, not what you say. We don't require the fighter's player to be really strong and actually swing weapons around the room. Why should we then require the mage to be smarter than the player is capable? You don't have a 30 Int. I don't have one either. But it's written on the character sheet. How else do we simulate that except by making it work as meant instead of as said?I was saying the dragon would word the contingency (a spell he's known for 500 years) correctly. Not that he could predict the future with his Int. Stay on topic. He wouldn't make the mistake of casting contingency incorrectly.If you wish to continue being pedantic in this thread then I will sadly bow out of it. It is possible to find holes in the game without being pedantic about wording.</blockquote>