Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9601668" data-attributes="member: 22779">Should?&nbsp; But, never, ever, in the history of the game, has it been true.&nbsp; NPC's, right from the very earliest days of D&amp;D, have never fallen in within the bounds of what is possible for a PC.&nbsp; And, I'm assuming by NPC here you mean humanoids of some form.&nbsp; Just want to be clear.&nbsp; That is not one of the joys of playing.&nbsp; That is one of the hells of playing which has caused no end of arguments and problems at the table where the mismatch between what the DM thinks is possible with the spell and what&nbsp; the player thinks is possible.&nbsp; Illusionists are the perfect example here.&nbsp; Most tables won't even consider using them because it's too much of a gamble.&nbsp; Every single time you try to do something, you wind up playing Mother May I with the DM.&nbsp; It's endlessly frustrating and leads to all sorts of play break down.I FAR prefer spells to be clearly written and do specific things.&nbsp; Note, this is my preference&nbsp; So, I'm going to see any nerf to spells to limit &quot;creativity&quot; as a good thing.&nbsp; Specifying what a Command spell can do is fantastic.&nbsp; Specifying summoning spells so they work as an area damage spell is fantastic.&nbsp; My preferred D&amp;D would strip out about 9/10ths of the spells in the game.&nbsp; Now, I realize that's a fight I lost long ago, but, I'm very much going to approve of any revision which pins down spells into doing EXACTLY what the spell is supposed to do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 9601668, member: 22779"] Should? But, never, ever, in the history of the game, has it been true. NPC's, right from the very earliest days of D&D, have never fallen in within the bounds of what is possible for a PC. And, I'm assuming by NPC here you mean humanoids of some form. Just want to be clear. That is not one of the joys of playing. That is one of the hells of playing which has caused no end of arguments and problems at the table where the mismatch between what the DM thinks is possible with the spell and what the player thinks is possible. Illusionists are the perfect example here. Most tables won't even consider using them because it's too much of a gamble. Every single time you try to do something, you wind up playing Mother May I with the DM. It's endlessly frustrating and leads to all sorts of play break down. I FAR prefer spells to be clearly written and do specific things. Note, this is my preference So, I'm going to see any nerf to spells to limit "creativity" as a good thing. Specifying what a Command spell can do is fantastic. Specifying summoning spells so they work as an area damage spell is fantastic. My preferred D&D would strip out about 9/10ths of the spells in the game. Now, I realize that's a fight I lost long ago, but, I'm very much going to approve of any revision which pins down spells into doing EXACTLY what the spell is supposed to do. [/QUOTE]

Verification