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="SnowHeart" data-source="post: 4656753" data-attributes="member: 82099">I think you're taking my words out of context. The specific example does not break the game, but it can form one part of a theme or ongoing abuse of the RAW to unbalance the game. Thus, I had first said things that either break the game or the theme.No, because that's applying cultural and technological assumptions to a rule mechanic. We're talking exclusively about a rule mechanic here.Absolutely! So why not just dedicate a few spell slots to preparing the spell? Saying you cannot use permenancy on it at all (an extreme that I would not favor) or applying limitations to it (better) does not hinder the class. The wizard/sorcerer is still perfectly capable of casting the spell should he so choose. Instead, by using the permenancy as you're advocating, the weight and burden of running that shifts from the Player to the DM. IMO, the DM has enough going on without also having to keep this in mind.  Fair enough but again I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I used that as a brainstorming example of ways that a constant Detect Magic could work to the wizard's detriment. Using a PC's abilities against her (particularly when they become a crutch) is a perfectly valid approach for a DM. Again, you ARE making assumptions about me and my game. You assume I implement "sudden house-rules" without warning (or at least implying that I do), or that I'm advocating the same. I don't. I always talk through rules issues with my players, discuss my concerns, and seek input on ways to address my concerns in ways that are fair to the players. Ultimately, though, I believe in what was the Golden Rule of AD&D 2nd -- if a rule doesn't work for you, toss it out. The idea that the RAW have somehow become a sacred, untouchable thing that DMs shouldn't dare think about changing is, to me, absurd. In the end... you say "tomato" and I say "tomatoe". They are different approaches and styles to DMing a campaign. In the end, the purpose is to have fun. If a rule isn't fun, I say toss it out. No rule is so holy or sacrosanct that it can't be changed or eliminated if it isn't fun. To me, using the rules even if it reduces the fun of others just because you "can" isn't right. Does a permenant detect magic have to ruin the fun for the DM? Absolutely NOT -- hopefully the DM is creative and adaptable enough to go with the flow. But if it does, and it really doesn't ADD that much to the player's experience (and I'm really not sure a permenant detect magic adds all that much, precisely for all of the counter-examples you raised above) then the DM should be able to address the issue with his players to come up with alternatives. That's it. Peace.</blockquote>

Verification