Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MostlyHarmless42" data-source="post: 8797599" data-attributes="member: 6845520">To add to this whole conversation of whether players are &quot;jerks&quot; or not for refusing to prepare certain spells or not because it isn't in character. Or people being jerks for trying to force them to, I point out that it isn't just as simple issue either. There are times where &quot;in character&quot; choices do make sense:Example: I am playing a cleric and have chosen a god whose dogma specifically forbids the preparation of healing spells. I am not a jerk for refusing to prepare them regardless of if the cleric as a whole can.&nbsp; I'm of two minds on this. Personally I prefer the mechanical idea of having players be able to switch spells out, but I definitely would fall on the side of erring on spell learning to prevent player conflict though. The ranger not learning a water walking spell would not a table break, where as a party of players trying to pressure said ranger into preparing it might do so. If that possibility can be easily mitigated why not allow it?Personally I wish we could give ever class an option to choose between being a learned or prepared caster at character selection and give clear mechanical advantages and disadvantages to each as universal concept isolated from class. After all, why can't I play a druid who learns spells and doesn't prepare them? It should be a player choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MostlyHarmless42, post: 8797599, member: 6845520"] To add to this whole conversation of whether players are "jerks" or not for refusing to prepare certain spells or not because it isn't in character. Or people being jerks for trying to force them to, I point out that it isn't just as simple issue either. There are times where "in character" choices do make sense: Example: I am playing a cleric and have chosen a god whose dogma [I]specifically forbids[/I] the preparation of healing spells. I am not a jerk for refusing to prepare them regardless of if the cleric as a whole can. I'm of two minds on this. Personally I prefer the mechanical idea of having players be able to switch spells out, but I definitely would fall on the side of erring on spell learning to prevent player conflict though. The ranger not learning a water walking spell would not a table break, where as a party of players trying to pressure said ranger into preparing it might do so. If that possibility can be easily mitigated why not allow it? Personally I wish we could give ever class an option to choose between being a learned or prepared caster at character selection and give clear mechanical advantages and disadvantages to each as universal concept isolated from class. After all, why [I]can't[/I] I play a druid who learns spells and doesn't prepare them? It should be a player choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification