Persistant Spell Feat

[moritheil]

How about Pun-Pun?

Beat me to the edit, I see. Pun-Pun is neatly handled under the stipulation I have that while I do not go out of my way to send encounters at you above the regular EL range, if you go picking fights with things way beyond your ken, I am not responsible for the outcome.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Beat me to the edit, I see. Pun-Pun is neatly handled under the stipulation I have that while I do not go out of my way to send encounters at you above the regular EL range, if you go picking fights with things way beyond your ken, I am not responsible for the outcome.

I added this as well in an edit of my own: As to my example, it doesn't matter how broken the feat is--you made a theoretical argument that whatever appears in WotC's books is what we should balance our game around. This is purely theoretical so far, so I ask you--if that feat above appeared (and I readily admit that it is extreme!), would you continue with this policy?

Also, your edit is extremely unsatisfying--what you are saying is that instead of just out-of-game banning a rules exploit, you allow them all and then just have the gods kill people who are abusing the rules to become too powerful. The result is the same, but as a GM and as a player, I would be happier just having the GM ban the rule than the way you handle it.

 

[moritheil]

I added this as well in an edit of my own: As to my example, it doesn't matter how broken the feat is--you made a theoretical argument that whatever appears in WotC's books is what we should balance our game around. This is purely theoretical so far, so I ask you--if that feat above appeared (and I readily admit that it is extreme!), would you continue with this policy?

I made an argument that your sense of balance should be based on what is available. As the DM, you choose what is available. Can you honestly say there is something wrong with a DM banning the entire book that contains a feat like that?

 

[Rystil Arden]

I made an argument that your sense of balance should be based on what is available. As the DM, you choose what is available. Can you honestly say there is something wrong with a DM banning the entire book that contains a feat like that?

What if the rest of the book is the best stuff that WotC has put out in the past two years, second to none? Say you've read through the book and absolutely love it, other than that one feat. If you like, maybe there's also three or four more feats that are just as blatantly overpowered and also two overpowered spells, but the rest of the book is pure gold and you can already think of ten ways it will make your game better just by glancing at it. Having a wide variance is fairly normal for WotC books, especially since multiple designers worked on many of them.

 

[moritheil]

Also, your edit is extremely unsatisfying--what you are saying is that instead of just out-of-game banning a rules exploit, you allow them all and then just have the gods kill people who are abusing the rules to become too powerful. The result is the same, but as a GM and as a player, I would be happier just having the GM ban the rule than the way you handle it.

Playing Pun-Pun is satisfying? I find it much more satisfying that rather than relying on heavy-handed and potentially arbitrary veto power, I instead model what would happen in a fantasy world that contains divine beings watching closely for major events (and indeed, with foreknowledge of such events.)

I'm not in any way making this up - go look up Salient Divine Abilities. Deities know beforehand when something concerning their portfolio arises. As the job of an Overdeity is essentially to sit around and regulate divinity, an event like someone attempting to use the Pun-pun trick is going to be noticed and known well in advance.

Also, Pun-pun gets slain not because he is "too powerful" but because he is on the way to destroying all of reality by becoming infinitely powerful, without limit. There is a very important distinction between the two. One can be "too powerful" for one's level without being infinitely powerful.

 

[moritheil]

What if the rest of the book is the best stuff that WotC has put out in the past two years, second to none? Say you've read through the book and absolutely love it, other than that one feat. If you like, maybe there's also three or four more feats that are just as blatantly overpowered and also two overpowered spells, but the rest of the book is pure gold and you can already think of ten ways it will make your game better just by glancing at it. Having a wide variance is fairly normal for WotC books, especially since multiple designers worked on many of them.

That has never happened, and as far as I know, will never happen. Your example is far too much of a stretch - it not only presupposes some ridiculous feat even the most die-hard powergamer would not like to see around, it also presumes to tell me exactly what my reactions will be.

What part of your example includes the part where I am me?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Playing Pun-Pun is satisfying? I find it much more satisfying that rather than relying on heavy-handed and potentially arbitrary veto power, I instead model what would happen in a fantasy world that contains divine beings watching closely for major events (and indeed, with foreknowledge of such events.)

I'm not in any way making this up - go look up Salient Divine Abilities. Deities know beforehand when something concerning their portfolio arises. As the job of an Overdeity is essentially to sit around and regulate divinity, an event like someone attempting to use the Pun-pun trick is going to be noticed and known well in advance.

I never argued that playing Pun-Pun was satisfying. That's a bit non sequitur, actually. I simply stated that divine intervention was an unsatisfying way to resolve a rules exploit.

 

[Rystil Arden]

That has never happened, and as far as I know, will never happen. Your example is far too much of a stretch - it not only presupposes some ridiculous feat even the most die-hard powergamer would not like to see around, it also presumes to tell me exactly what my reactions will be.

What part of your example includes the part where I am me?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in this post. The part where 'you are you' is where you give me an answer as to what you will do in this situation. I can't see what you're objecting to here--could it be that I said you had neat ideas from glancing at the book? I honestly feel sorry for you if you don't, as a big part of the fun for me in reading for this game is all the neat ideas I come up with when reading a well-written gaming book.

 

[moritheil]

I never argued that playing Pun-Pun was satisfying. That's a bit non sequitur, actually. I simply stated that divine intervention was an unsatisfying way to resolve a rules exploit.

You implied it, but it is good to clarify your position for the record.

What do you define as a rules exploit? Either a rules exploit is illegal, in which case it should be handled outside the rules, and no divine intervention occurs. Or it is legal, in which case it can be handled inside the game.

Since we are discussing Pun-Pun, the base assumption is that it is legal. (Otherwise, it doesn't work, and there is nothing to discuss.)

 

[moritheil]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in this post. The part where 'you are you' is where you give me an answer as to what you will do in this situation. I can't see what you're objecting to here--could it be that I said you had neat ideas from glancing at the book? I honestly feel sorry for you if you don't, as a big part of the fun for me in reading for this game is all the neat ideas I come up with when reading a well-written gaming book.

No, what I am saying is you are determining everything about this situation. That is hardly a realistic, fair, or likely example. If I give you a long and drawn-out example, I'm sure that beyond a certain point it will start to feel surreal to you as well.

For example: Rystil, I want you to suppose you get an argument with a fellow on the internet. For some reason, even though your mind rebels against the idea of losing, and even though you have no reason to lose the argument, you are compelled to give up and surrender. What will you do?