Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9449845" data-attributes="member: 6877472">I don't mind &quot;friendly fire free&quot; magic.&nbsp; I see it as one's spells are an extension of one's self, and thus your will and intend should matter.&nbsp; Now, granted, maybe there should be a way to trick you, but spells have always been written to do what they say they do without much wiggle room.I can't sneak into an enemy Wizard's alarm spell, no matter what I roll, because it &quot;knows&quot; I'm not someone allowed to pass into it.&nbsp; Ditto with tiny hut.&nbsp; And many many more spells.The fact that some spells &quot;know&quot; what you want them to do and others don't might be more of a flavor fail, or it may be that there are some in-universe &quot;laws of magic&quot; at play.Because friendly fire, isn't.&nbsp; And the game allows other kinds of attacks to &quot;pull their punch&quot;.&nbsp; You can declare you're knocking a foe out with an attack, you don't have a chance to hit an ally when you shoot arrows into a melee, and several warriors attacking each other willy nilly have no chance to hit an ally or even themselves (in 5e, at least).I can understand that some people want these things, but I've never felt that accidentally shooting a friend in the back really makes the game more fun.&nbsp; It's the old gamist vs. simulationist debate, and neither side is inherently right- it comes down to what you and your friends enjoy.&quot;D&amp;D isn't fun.&nbsp; D&amp;D is serious business!&quot; -somebody, somewhere.The main problem, as I see it, is the debate as to which option should be front and center.&nbsp; The gritty, simulationist game, where the rules enforce a certain playstyle (&quot;if there's melee, you melee.&nbsp; Or stay the hell out&quot;) vs. another (&quot;ok guys, don't worry, my fireball will only scorch bad guys!&quot;). Either due to sales figures, customer data, or personal preference, WotC generally chooses one over the other, leaving people who want their style to have to houserule it in.&nbsp; But of course, they aren't consistent here- leaving in options to please the other factions (or at least pay lip service to them), so the end result is never going to be completely to anyone's taste without putting on your chef hat and getting into the kitchen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9449845, member: 6877472"] I don't mind "friendly fire free" magic. I see it as one's spells are an extension of one's self, and thus your will and intend should matter. Now, granted, maybe there should be a way to trick you, but spells have always been written to do what they say they do without much wiggle room. I can't sneak into an enemy Wizard's [I]alarm [/I]spell, no matter what I roll, because it "knows" I'm not someone allowed to pass into it. Ditto with [I]tiny hut[/I]. And many many more spells. The fact that some spells "know" what you want them to do and others don't might be more of a flavor fail, or it may be that there are some in-universe "laws of magic" at play. Because friendly fire, [B]isn't[/B]. And the game allows other kinds of attacks to "pull their punch". You can declare you're knocking a foe out with an attack, you don't have a chance to hit an ally when you shoot arrows into a melee, and several warriors attacking each other willy nilly have no chance to hit an ally or even [B]themselves[/B] (in 5e, at least). I can understand that some people want these things, but I've never felt that accidentally shooting a friend in the back really makes the game more fun. It's the old gamist vs. simulationist debate, and neither side is inherently right- it comes down to what you and your friends enjoy. "D&D isn't [B]fun[/B]. D&D is serious business!" -somebody, somewhere. The main problem, as I see it, is the debate as to which option should be front and center. The gritty, simulationist game, where the rules enforce a certain playstyle ("if there's melee, you melee. Or stay the hell out") vs. another ("ok guys, don't worry, my [I]fireball[/I] will only scorch bad guys!"). Either due to sales figures, customer data, or personal preference, WotC [I]generally[/I] chooses one over the other, leaving people who want their style to have to houserule it in. But of course, they aren't consistent here- leaving in options to please the other factions (or at least pay lip service to them), so the end result is never going to be completely to anyone's taste without putting on your chef hat and getting into the kitchen. [/QUOTE]

Verification