D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Scars Unseen]

One thing I don't like? Soft banning something: as in houseruling something I don't want to basically ensure no one takes it. And I'd much rather simply be told no than have a DM soft ban something in that manor.

That's one interpretation. My interpretation is that I'd be making changes to allow it to fit in the way I would see a living construct working in the world I built. If the player is attached to the concept, it's something that can be worked around. If they just want an Ebberon warforged in a my world that doesn't have Ebberon warforged, they can play something else.

I am assuming they were just spitballing and if it happens IRL would come up with something fair and balanced....

But yes, if you let me begrudgingly play a warforged but only if mangled like that it would be worse than just hard limiting it to a NO.

Yes, that's what "off the cuff" means. In reality, it would be "here is my suggestion. If you really want to make this character, we can go with this and make adjustments as we see how it works in play." But in this case it would definitely be a hard no on traditional healing and wearing armor meant for humanoid characters. I'm not against the idea of playing a living construct, but I don't buy into the whole "basically just another race, but with a cool aesthetic" thing. If a player wants to play a construct, they can do that, and there will be some positives to go with the drawbacks, but since my world doesn't really have living constructs running around like in Ebberon, one of those drawbacks is that the positives may not come into play until later since no one really knows what to do with the character.

If you see that as mangling, so be it. I see it as playing a world, not just a game.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, why should four people get what they want instead of just one?

Why should they? Does greater number now equate to more correct? Does it somehow make them inherently more deserving? I'm really trying to understand your thinking here...

 

[Imaro]

From a physics perspective, if levitation worked by applying an actual force to the ground then things like a levitating person or a Tensors Floating Disc would be doing things like getting stuck in the mud, falling into bodies of water, or plummeting you into a chasm you are trying to cross because the "ground" you have to push again at would be out of range.

Similarly if it did have a force I could use a levitating rock as a weapon not by dropping it on someone but just moving it over them. What kind of damage would a 1000lb rock do skating down a corridor of enemies being pulped under it?

Ultimately the argument wasn't as much about the force being applied (if we knew it worked that way we could have just levitated something heavy down and trigger all the traps from afar) but that the GM ruled it as a GOTCHA moment. A wizard would know that was how a spell worked and known it wouldn't work to bypass traps ... if that was the decision the GM wants to go with. If he had said upfront before we doomed the rogue to an early death we would have accepted it and moved on.

I'm confused... he levitated the shield but then someone got on top of it... right?

So I cast a spell to levitate say 10lbs but then after I do... 200lbs more is placed on top of it... I can see an argument for it sinking depending on ones interpretation of the spell... not sure a wizard would know how a spell handles every corner case use is a particularly compelling argument.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why should they? Does greater number now equate to more correct? Does it somehow make them inherently more deserving? I'm really trying to understand your thinking here...

As I always ay; we should abolish democracy and just put me in charge because I called dibs.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'm confused... he levitated the shield but then someone got on top of it... right?

So I cast a spell to levitate say 10lbs but then after I do... 200lbs more is placed on top of it... I can see an argument for it sinking depending on ones interpretation of the spell... not sure a wizard would know how a spell handles every corner case use is a particularly compelling argument.

The weight limit of that particular levitate (2ed) was at a minimum 300lbs.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Why should they? Does greater number now equate to more correct? Does it somehow make them inherently more deserving? I'm really trying to understand your thinking here...

Yes? If the goal of a table is to have fun playing DnD then 80% of people having fun is a better outcome than 20%.

Of course this simple math has nothing to do with a player and a GM collaborating.

 

[Imaro]

The weight limit of that particular levitate (2ed) was at a minimum 300lbs.

I'm not intimately familiar with the 2e levitate spell... but from what I remember I could see an argument being that you levitated the shield... one object or creature of a specific weight and that is the weight this casting of the spell levitates... not sure id agree it adjusts to more or less weight placed on the one creature or object specified by the spell as that just seems to be the players purposefully finding a loophole to circumvent the one creature or item stipulation of the spell...

Edit: which if all of you all rode the shield over the traps is exactly what you did. You argued and voted for one usage of a levitate spell to effectively levitate an entire party over danger.

 

[Imaro]

Yes? If the goal of a table is to have fun playing DnD then 80% of people having fun is a better outcome than 20%.

Of course this simple math has nothing to do with a player and a GM collaborating.

First... you have assumed a goal and how said goal is achieved for all games... but putting that aside.Then why have rules to determine uncertain outcomes in D&D? just let majority decide what happens... right? If the majority get what they want... all the time... then the most fun is achieved at least according to your logic... right?

I'll just say for me and my group at least this wouldn't result in a satisfactory experience or fun...

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'm not intimately familiar with the 2e levitate spell... but from what I remember I could see an argument being that you levitated the shield... one object or creature of a specific weight and that is the weight this casting of the spell levitates... not sure id agree it adjusts to more or less weight placed on the one creature or object specified by the spell as that just seems to be the players purposefully finding a loophole to circumvent the one creature or item stipulation of the spell...

Edit: which if all of you all rode the shield over the traps is exactly what you did. You argued and voted for one usage of a levitate spell to effectively levitate an entire party over danger.

This entire exchange could not illustrate any more clearly why your table and my table could not enjoy a game together or better show our fundamental difference of opinion on the status of players and GMs.

If everyone at the table EXCEPT THE GM is unhappy with the game then either the GM needs to adjust or the game needs to end.

If one, as a GM, makes a call that every player at the table calls foul about then one, as a GM, needs to relent, adjust, and smooth over the issue so as to continue the game. Everyone is there to enjoy themselves, NOT follow orders like some subserviant lesser being.

Furthermore, if the players and the GMs at ones table are unable to separate what is best for their character or personal vision from what is best for the game overall, then that might be a bigger problem than simple curated lists.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'm not intimately familiar with the 2e levitate spell... but from what I remember I could see an argument being that you levitated the shield... one object or creature of a specific weight and that is the weight this casting of the spell levitates... not sure id agree it adjusts to more or less weight placed on the one creature or object specified by the spell as that just seems to be the players purposefully finding a loophole to circumvent the one creature or item stipulation of the spell...

Edit: which if all of you all rode the shield over the traps is exactly what you did. You argued and voted for one usage of a levitate spell to effectively levitate an entire party over danger.

And by this logic I couldn't levitate a crate because the bananas inside are different items and not part of the crates weight.