Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9617635" data-attributes="member: 29398">Ah, yes.&nbsp; I have that spell in my game but only Illusionists get it, and Illusionists haven't exactly been a common sight in this campaign (that said, the party I'll be running after this one will have not one but two (part-)Illusionists in it; I think the whole 16-year campaign has only had 4 or 5 in total).Fair enough.This is where I look at setting logic and think &quot;Mages have been researching and inventing new spells for how long now?&nbsp; Of course they'll have come up with a spell that does X provided X is a) relatively simple and b) not achievable by an existing spell&quot;.&nbsp; And so, to follow the ongoing example, if spells are extremely tightly proscribed in what they can do and there's a need for a spell that can generate a signal flare 'cause no existing spell can do it as a side effect the odds are mighty high somebody has already invented it.I don't disagree with you here but given the history of the game's development I very much suspect that, due to pressure from the at-large player-base, this would be end result were spell effects to be as tightly reined in as Hussar was suggesting.I don't mind creative use of &quot;skills&quot; and &quot;feats&quot; either, which is in part why I don't have them codified in my game (other than a few class-specific things such as tracking for Rangers, pickpocketing for Thieves, etc.).&nbsp; With one major exception anyone can try anything, including trying a class-specific skill if not that class, even if you're not very good at it and have sometimes very low or even near-zero odds of success.&nbsp; The major exception is, of course, that a non-caster cannot cast a spell.Doesn't matter if my character's a spellcaster or not, as a player sooner or later I'm going to push the boundaries of the rules and see what happens.To a point, but I think that's fair: a fighter can't intentionally decapitate (which is, let's face it, a pretty major thing to be able to do) without either a feat or an item that grants that ability, same as a wizard can't cast Fly if she doesn't have it in her spellbook and a cleric can't cast Fly at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9617635, member: 29398"] Ah, yes. I have that spell in my game but only Illusionists get it, and Illusionists haven't exactly been a common sight in this campaign (that said, the party I'll be running after this one will have not one but two (part-)Illusionists in it; I think the whole 16-year campaign has only had 4 or 5 in total). Fair enough. This is where I look at setting logic and think "Mages have been researching and inventing new spells for how long now? Of course they'll have come up with a spell that does X provided X is a) relatively simple and b) not achievable by an existing spell". And so, to follow the ongoing example, if spells are extremely tightly proscribed in what they can do and there's a need for a spell that can generate a signal flare 'cause no existing spell can do it as a side effect the odds are mighty high somebody has already invented it. I don't disagree with you here but given the history of the game's development I very much suspect that, due to pressure from the at-large player-base, this would be end result were spell effects to be as tightly reined in as Hussar was suggesting. I don't mind creative use of "skills" and "feats" either, which is in part why I don't have them codified in my game (other than a few class-specific things such as tracking for Rangers, pickpocketing for Thieves, etc.). With one major exception anyone can try anything, including trying a class-specific skill if not that class, even if you're not very good at it and have sometimes very low or even near-zero odds of success. The major exception is, of course, that a non-caster cannot cast a spell. Doesn't matter if my character's a spellcaster or not, as a player sooner or later I'm going to push the boundaries of the rules and see what happens. To a point, but I think that's fair: a fighter can't intentionally decapitate (which is, let's face it, a pretty major thing to be able to do) without either a feat or an item that grants that ability, same as a wizard can't cast [I]Fly[/I] if she doesn't have it in her spellbook and a cleric can't cast [I]Fly[/I] at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification