Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8132465" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Why is it always such a challenge to get across simple ideas, needing me to twist and turn and argue for weeks? Rhetorical question by the way.  Did you just ignore the part of my post where I said "there is consideration given after the fact", referencing that the class was built, balanced, and the spells assigned. Then they said "well, it is possible that the character might go with an elemental theme, limiting their effectiveness, so we will add a way to mitigate the negatives of that choice." Does that contradict my point? Not even slightly, because it was done AFTER the class was balanced. Meaning that the existance of that rule did not effect the balancing of the class. And, since you want to go with "bonkers" claims, lets consider this. If I polled a dozen players with wizard characters, and listed out their spell lists, and find that many of them are different spell lists, are we to assume that those wizards are not fairly balanced against each other? They have different spell lists, so according to your position some of them would be overpowered compared to the others, purely based on their spell choices.Which is not what you claimed. You claimed they think it is a bad rule, not that they thought it wasn't ready to be published. You need proof to back up that assertion. You have none.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sure it makes a big difference to the player in that situation. But was the game balanced under the assumption that you never have the right spell for the job? Or was it balanced around the idea that you will generally have the right spell for the job? I think it makes far more sense to balance under the assumption that the players will have the ideal spell list. And if the game was designed under that assumption, then you have not broken the game. You have made the player more capable of reaching the balance point that the game was designed around.Sure, but that is adding to the spell.Exactly, so the caster is using their abilities to manipulate someone, so a roll is appropriate.And this is my point. The situation Asisreo is proposed is the illusion speaking, and the illusion convincing the target of what the caster wants it to say automatically, because the target believes the illusion is real. That is my objection. I have no problem with the illusion working, but I am not going to let a player bypass persuasion or deception just because they got a convincing sock puppet illusion in the targets mind.Sure, maybe the designers thought the rule thye created was a bad rule that would hurt the game, so they decided to bury it. Or maybe they felt it wasn't quite finished being playtested and delayed an official printingOr maybe something else. But Crimson is stating it as an objective fact that the designers did not publish the rule because they felt it was a bad rule and would harm the game. There is no evidence of this, so him claiming it is wrong. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Proof. Quote the designers. Let them tell us that they had no choice because the rule was broken balance-wise. Without proof, you are leaping to conclusions.</blockquote>

Verification