Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Someone" data-source="post: 5340052" data-attributes="member: 5656">Perhaps, if you believe my intent was to make a perfect parallel between the two of them, when I wanted to showcase why the spell's wording is so wrong. Someday I'll learn not to make examples or comparisons when postng on forums: people tend to concentrate on the diferences and ignore the point.Well, no. This is a big pile of red herring because nobody is talking about making non-combat encounters the same as combat encounters. What I'm saying is that the spell is so badly worded as to be virtually irrelevant. Two DMs, given the same exact situation where Instant Friends is used, can and probably will rule vastly different outcomes as how the spell works. The wording is so vage as to be useless (let's be generous and say virtually useless). The DM, faced with the spell, has to rule based on how powerful it is (2nd level), what should the role of a utility power be in the grand scheme of skill challenges, how unexpected uses of the spell can affect his campaing, and finally, after doing the game's designer job, how much trusted friends do for their buddies, with the unntentional consequence that now the whole continent is populated with kings that woud backstab their best friend before 1d4 hours. Even Thomas Moore lasted more than that.The fact that you, the DM, has to completely rule the spell's effect from the ground up every single time is cast goes beyond a sing of bad game design and enters the realm of failing at basic communication.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Someone, post: 5340052, member: 5656"] Perhaps, if you believe my intent was to make a perfect parallel between the two of them, when I wanted to showcase why the spell's wording is so wrong. Someday I'll learn not to make examples or comparisons when postng on forums: people tend to concentrate on the diferences and ignore the point. Well, no. This is a big pile of red herring because nobody is talking about making non-combat encounters the same as combat encounters. What I'm saying is that the spell is so badly worded as to be virtually irrelevant. Two DMs, given the same exact situation where Instant Friends is used, can and probably will rule vastly different outcomes as how the spell works. The wording is so vage as to be useless (let's be generous and say [i]virtually[/i] useless). The DM, faced with the spell, has to rule based on how powerful it is (2nd level), what should the role of a utility power be in the grand scheme of skill challenges, how unexpected uses of the spell can affect his campaing, and finally, after doing the game's designer job, how much trusted friends do for their buddies, with the unntentional consequence that now the whole continent is populated with kings that woud backstab their best friend before 1d4 hours. Even Thomas Moore lasted more than that. The fact that you, the DM, has to completely rule the spell's effect from the ground up every single time is cast goes beyond a sing of bad game design and enters the realm of failing at basic communication. [/QUOTE]

Verification