Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 3113580" data-attributes="member: 4134">Yes, it does. He just created it. If he slapped the d20 logo and legal stuff on it, he could sell this feat. It's not "official" (meaning "made by Wizards"), but it does exist.I think that was his intention: To create an extreme example.Sure, the DM should always be able to challenge whatever build there is. But the DM could give nukes to kobolds. What counts is how far out of the way the DM would have to go - both to challenge the build and not to obliterate the rest of the party - which consists of sensible characters.Yes, he is saying that. So am I. The reason is simple: Just because they're from the same source doesn't mean that they're equally valid. Often, there's perfectly good stuff in a book that contains a really broken rule tidbit. Then that broken rule has to be taken down, but that doesn't mean the rest of the book must be beyond limits, either.And he's not picking on the playe who wanted that broken rule. Said player can choose any other stuff from the book the DM approves off. He could get the very same feat/spell/whatever that other player took. And said other player couldn't get the broken rulepiece, either. Noone's saying "this rule is banned - for you!". In fact, shame on the player for choosing broken rules and throwing a fit when he may not use it. That was one of the main reasons I threw a player out of my group.Yes, but it isn't favouritism, so there's no injustice. If the player won't see that his choice is broken, but the other made a more sensible choice, then that player is clueless. Throwing a tantrum right after makes him clueless and rude. Being clueless and rude makes him a prime candidate for being disinvited."I am DM. My word is Law. Legal is what I say is legal. Your feat is dismissed."There, perfectly legal. Of course, if the game is supposed to work, you'll give an explanation. "I think this rule is broken", is a good explanation, if you take the time to tell them why you think that, it's a great one.That is not true. We're not banning clerics from using that splatbook. He's free to take all the other classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, magic items, whatever from the book (provided they aren't broken and therefore banned). We just ban that single feat - for everyone. And specifically saying that divine metamagic can be chosen and used with persistant spell most definetly means upping the cleric's power, since it directly means opening the door for him to cast divine favour, divine power or righteous might to last the day. I once played a cleric with persistant divine power and persistant divine favour (back when persistant was only +4) as part of a "clerics aren't walking band-aids any more" project (basically, I showed the AD&D-marred players that clerics aren't weak sidekicks that can only heal) and it wasn't even funny. The DM soon approached me that it was too much, and I readily exchanged persistant with another feat (quicken).Of course, but noone suggests to deny clerics access to whole books based on a single rule that is banned for everyone, not just clerics.</blockquote>

Verification