Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9621856" data-attributes="member: 6704184">You might wha to stick to replying to what a person says, not some wild made up extrapolation. I very very clearly did not say that. Your entire reply is moot because of the dishonesty of this premise. You cannot possibly fail to understand the difference between the nonsense you’ve attributed to me, and me challenging the notion that most groups agree with your assessment of illusion magic as too broad and causing too many problems. One group is a meaningless source.Being confident of anything based only on your own experience and one group of actors playing publicly is absurd. And having actually watched the show, this doesn’t even lend itself to your argument because they had no problems when casting those illusions! No breakdown of gameplay, no big arguments, nada. They had a blast with them, every time. So clearly they don’t see illusion magic the way you claim most people do.It’s a fun spell, but IME spells with long descriptions and mostly utility benefits don’t get used as much. Not because they cause problems, but because they are simply more mental overhead for a spell that is situational only and quite specific in what it can do. Broadly useful spells and spells that players can be creative with and spells that deal damage are the most popular. Illusion in 5e is too restricted and complex to meet those requirements, but I’ve never seen a 5e group break down over illusions being adjudicated, having observed hundreds of groups over ten years. I did see a ton of frustration over them in 4e, because they were designed more to the design goal of “make each power limited and highly specific and it can only do what it explicitly says”, which is less fun in a quite frustrating way. Not really. You’re now taking two people out of context and pretending their statements either support you when they don’t or just pretending they said a completely different thing from what they said.</blockquote>

Verification