Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7849561" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes, and as I said, I get that. But, I still insist that having rule zero does not give you a pass to write poorly thought out or unclear rules. I also note that the section of the spell description that calls out DM fiat over how the spell works is an unusual inclusion in a spell, since most spells just describe how they work. The fact that they need to include a section specifically calling out "rulings not rules" in the midst of a rule is itself a bit of warning bell that something is going on here. My objection is that they've written a spell that says it works one way, but then upon realizing that working in that manner is problematic, the designer called out DM fiat to override how he had just written the spell to work. And, to add insult to injury, the examples he gives of DM fiat are not broad enough to cover all the problems that could result from the spell - problems the designer at least partially foresaw or they wouldn't have called out the fiat exceptions.In particular, the designer does not call out that if the party has no knowledge of the location, they are very unlikely to arrive anywhere near where they want to go.  This is particularly odd since every other spell when converted from earlier editions to 5e added this restriction on magical travel, and even powerful divination spells like 'Find the Path' were nerfed to prevent using the spell to circumvent this requirement.   So it very much seems like an oversight to go the other way and make Planeshift far more accurate in this situation than it was in prior editions.Absolutely. And if that part of your post was not directed at me, then I apologize. However, in the context of the discussion and in the context of you quoting at me, it did very much appear directed at me. And the problem I have with directing such statements at me is that they have absolutely nothing to do with my opinion.As for your opinion, the problem I have with suggesting that the campaign has reached a stage at 13th level where the party ought to be able to without acquiring knowledge of a location travel there instantly and be close, is that it's at about 13th level that I'd expect a GM to need the planes to provide challenges and Planeshift is the first real spell that empowers a party to go to other planes. So you are essentially saying that the first time the concept is introduced, that not only should it empower travel to other planes but it also and at the same time should deprecate travel and deprecate research.And even if you feel that it should, it doesn't address the incoherence argument I make above.To give an example of why your explanation feels weak to me, suppose the 5e had a spell 'we all fly' that allowed wingless high maneuverability flight, had a duration of 24 hours, didn't require concentration, allowed up to 8 targets, and was 1st level. Would you be OK addressing complaints about the impact this had on scenario design with respect to classes with and without access to a caster that could cast 'we all fly', by saying, "Well, clearly by the level this spell becomes available pit traps are no longer intended to be a problem?" But given the level that it becomes available, when would pit traps be intended to be a problem? Planeshift is the first real player initiated mass planar travel that comes on line, and it's better at dealing with lack of accurate knowledge than it's 9th level counter part gate. That doesn't strike you as a wierd?It's all well and good to say that 13th level parties are no longer challenged by providing light in a dungeon, feeding themselves, finding shelter, and protecting themselves from normal climate extremes, and wild animals because you've had some rather lengthy part of the campaign to feature challenges like that.  But, that's not equivalent to what is going on here.Ordered from least insulting to most insulting, I would rank the following:3) "FU"2) "You SOB"1) Setting up a strawman, going off on a tangent, and using your strawman to slander me.I could really care less about trigger words and insults.  Those don't really hurt me, and if someone really wants to hurt me that is not how they go about it.</blockquote>

Verification