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="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5985333" data-attributes="member: 87792">And to me that's simply ducking the question.  The quick answer is "There was no garbage can outside the door.  There has never been a garbage can.  And we leave binbags outside for the binmen because that is what the tenancy agreement says to do.  Now you may think we ought to have a garbage can.  But at present we do not.  So shall I put one on the shopping list?"  (Of course that wouldn't be a diplomatic way of replying).I thought the Triton was summoned through Summon Nature's Ally - and therefore summoned by a Druid.  That is why I gave the summoner Wis 18.  If summoned through summon monster Wis 18 would indicate summoned by a cleric.  A wizard would have 18 - and both therefore be a genius and the sort of person who could come up with such ideas.Professional skill.  Downright common knowledge IMO.You mean the wizard wouldn't know how a fundamental form of magic works despite being (a) a genius and (b) having his life depend on such tools.  And no wizard in the hisory of wizarddom had (a) tried to find out and (b) communicated the results of such a very basic experiment to other wizards?  Despite this being the class that recruits geniusses.  You're seriously straining my suspension of disbelief here - making almost all wizards incurious, unknowledgeable about their very are of expertise, and generally the very opposite of what I think of when I think "wizard".The 3.5 spell description says summoned monsters cannot summon.  And says it for a very good reason.  I've checked the 3.0 SRD and it appears to be missing those two lines in the Summon Monster spell.You talk about "The Social Contract" as if it was either included in the PHB or handed down from Mount Sinai.  It was neither.  And from what I can tell, Gygaxian D&D would have laughed at the very concept of holding back just because it would be overpowered.  The so-called social contract is different in different places and part of the reason our pretend elfgames have rules is so we can reach a mutually acceptable social contract with a minimum of fuss.  The rules of the game are part of the social contract - what you seem to be proposing is that we telepathically draft a second social contract that says that "you not only stick to the rules agreed when you sat down to play the game and any that come up in play, but you should be able to intuit a further set of rules that are written down nowhere".Neither do we.  That's why we want a balanced set of rules - so we can stop handling the annoying nonsense of filling in the gaps where there should be rules and balancing systems that should be balanced, and instead get on with the job of DM - managing the world, the NPCs, and the challenges.Where are the restrictions on a DM in a balanced game?  The DM can do whatever the hell he likes.Good.  Because I thought the primary driving purpose behind 4e was the Tyrrany of Fun.  Being serious, balance is not and has never been the primary driving force although it might be possible to argue that it is the Bed of Procrustes for 4e (not an argument I think is correct but one that might be arguable).Balance actually has quite a bit to do with prep time and fun.  Balance is information - and will tell you at a glance whether something is too easy, too hard, or almost right.  This is only one aspect of prep time and of fun - but is definitely one of them.</blockquote>

Verification