Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5760185" data-attributes="member: 95493">But this isn't something supported by the rules, nor should it be. It is something tacked on. Also, in every example the creator was long dead. But the simple destruction of the skeleton and ransacking of the person's effects are as likely to bring about the same result. Why must a spell (or effect) without a power or description even approaching it be responsible for this result?What you are saying now is not what was said when I originally quoted and rebuffed that a bard could mock the dead creator, vecna or shadow magic. If this is all you are trying to say then fine, that is one interpretation of how the spell could work.The real issue is that faulty description HAD TO be made up in order to explain the lacking information brought up by the spell.They are likely to be inconsistent because the game doesn't give them an expectation of what is supposed to happen. I think we can all agree that DMs throughout DnD have been able to make rulings as they see fit. It just feels like in 3e we went from having a solid and well explained design for fire into 4e where it is a "DM's judgement call" every single time.I think it is entirely possible for DMs both young and old to decide that the fireball should burn the paper at the feet of the enemy this time but then realizes that it always should have but the rules never said so.Inversely it is entirely possible that the DM had always decided that fire does spring forth from a fireball but this time it didn't because this time the paper was important.Either way it leaves an inconsistent and frankly unrealistic flavour in my mouth  that it should be solely up to DM's whim how fire works. Instead, I would prefer there to be a rule and that if it is inadequate or lacking then it be changed so everyone knows what to expect going in.Wasn't it you that said you didn't have the information and that Mallus did? Now that I went looking and quoted what Mallus said, you are giving other information that it is Hercules and Merlin only? Either way, my information didn't change. I based my statements solely on the information supplied here and based on Mallus' original quote he gave more than just Hercules. Either way.I said you were wrong, based on the quote I provided. It wasn't due to "fallacies of generalization" ?Anyway, I DO agree that they gave Hercules as the example of brawn vs Merlin's magic. That isn't what was implied (if not outright said) earlier.All I can think is that many people can picture Hercules, given the number of movies, books and mythological tales he has been in, as opposed to Eric the Red - whom I barely know even as a nerd of history.I do agree that using Hercules can set up an expectation that fighters may be capable of achieving fantastic feats (of strength). I do not agree that all fighters can be Hercules however but that they can expect to be mighty men.</blockquote>

Verification