Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Squire James" data-source="post: 1990792" data-attributes="member: 548">Wow, this one's almost become a paladin thread!I think it is reasonable for a DM to "take back" a ruling that he later finds to be (in his opinion) incorrect.  DM's cannot always out-think their players, and they should not be penalized for that fact.The DM apparently accepted the cantrip with the understanding that it had no mechanical effect, and that making it a swift action would cause no harm.  Later on, he discovered that it DID have a mechanical effect... it triggered readied actions.  The DM's initial assessment of the value of the cantrip was proven wrong, and thus the DM reassessed the cantrip.  I believe he was well within his rights."Congratulations, my clever player, you found a loophole in the rules!  As a reward, I will let the events where you exploited the loophole stand and I'll give you a few bonus XP for being clever.  However, I am closing this loophole in the future and am banning/nerfing that cantrip.  The God of Magic has decided that cantrips should never be usable as swift actions."I've had to deal with this sort of player before... he would come up with a long series of small bends in the rules that individually don't appear to be a big deal (and are usually quite reasonable).  Taken together, he wrecks the campaign in a totally unreasonable fashion.  He was basically a Deck of Many Things with legs!</blockquote>