Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7570418" data-attributes="member: 97077">One could say that. One could also say: "since when did self harm or suicide become a valid action, outside of trying to achieve a game effect? You don’t even have to question what someone is thinking in this example because it’s so egregious." Which is what you said. So to make sure I understand you correctly, your position is something like "every chosen action in an RPG is to achieve a game effect, but some of those actions are invalid because they are done solely to achieve a game effect." Is that accurate?Not that one is required by the rules, but I've given you an "in-game justification" for the action: The toad wants to go from the place it is now to some other place and, along the way, runs afoul of a life-threatening hazard. So we should be good, right? If not, why not?The toad's action is independent of the toad's knowledge of how polymorph spells work. The player's motivation is also irrelevant - and possibly even unknown - when it comes to the reasonableness of the toad's action in context. The player's purposeful action declaration can be described as the toad's accident. If the player's motivation is irrelevant to the stated action and might not even be known or could be misjudged, then it seems to me that this should not be a consideration at all when the player describes what he or she wants to do. Any table rules that demand the player's motivations meet some standard are thus, in my view, pointless and unenforceable.As for how the toad's action is adjudicated by the DM, as I said, I have no care about, at least in this discussion, provided the DM is being fair and consistent. If there's an environmental hazard that the toad can leap into accidentally, so much the better.So nothing in the 5e Eberron pdf? From what I've read, magic is widespread. It's not specific enough to say how common polymorph is, nor would I see any reason why I would need to establish that.I'm not so much nitpicking as trying to show a weakness in your argument so you can polish up your position. Talking about how common or uncommon magic is in other settings is not supportive of your argument in my view since it still hinges on the toad needing to have knowledge of the spell in order to accidentally get killed. And that's just silly on its face, wouldn't you agree?</blockquote>

Verification