Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 4175206" data-attributes="member: 336">That is a little ridiculous but that is what exaggeration gets you.There is a difference in rules and RULES.  One of them serve to guide, the other serve to restrict.The use of combat rules for out of combat actions usually ends up as an impediment, an obstacle, or a way for players to abuse the system.Take a look at the spell FLY in 3.0 and take a look at FLY in 3.5.  You will notice that a conscientious restriction was placed to avoid out of combat use or to restrict it.  Because as it was it was too good for its level.  Enter OVERLAND FLIGHT a higher level spell that can be used in combat or completely out of combat.So you created something to cover the fact that the rules constrained what you wanted to do with a creature's power.  The artifact is a plot device.How is that any different than a DM creating something to cover something the rules are silent about or is covered by fluff (evocacriptions).  The creating in this case is still a plot device.One case is because the rules run counter to what you want.  The other is because it doesn't require rules (combat rules).  I'd rather have an open ended system than one that restricts me and I have to find ways to "break the rules"</blockquote>