Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2297326" data-attributes="member: 172">Unabashedly.The beginning of the sentence is true. It is a basic utility spell, albeit one that the player in question never would have taken unless he was metagaming.Where I feel you are wrong is "hardly a game breaker even if the player knew before hand that it would be useful." In this particular adventure, it was a game breaker, and was so precisely because the player knew it would be the one spell solution to the adventure."Beggars can't be choosers"? It's not like wizards grow on trees IMC. They might hire someone who has some arcane knowledge to give them clues as to the meaning and move them along the adventure without unveiling the entire content of the text at once.By the way, when I say "ruled it out", I mean that I made rulings limiting what comprehend languages could do in this situations -- I ruled that it can unveil literal meanings of broadly known languages, but has very limited ability in translating context, double meanings, and ciphers.You're generous. Let me assure you, knowing the person in question: he was metagaming in a bad way. He didn't, for example, inform me that he was going to sale his wares as a translator of ancient texts as a way to attract potential patrons (which would have been cool.) No, he involved himself in the party and whipped the spell out in an "a ha! I got the DM" moment. He was trying to be sneaky.One must distinguish between benign and malign metagaming.</blockquote>

Verification