Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Forrester" data-source="post: 326066" data-attributes="member: 1279">I think we're seeing eye to eye here. I completely agree that there's more than one "correct" approach. It's just that I've seen some Higher Ups (not Piratecat, actually -- more Monte -- but maybe PC feels the same way) come forcefully out against changing spells and in favor of changing the problem you want the characters to overcome. As if you'd be "cheating" the players in some way if they didn't have access to all of the Official 3E Toys. And (to tie things back to the original purpose of the thread) it seems to me that players are more rules-lawyerly, and thus more resistant (for *whatever* reason), to Rule 0 than they were Back In The Day. I think we've seen plenty of evidence for that in this thread. The fact that they have support for their position from the Gaming Elite just encourages them even more, and that's a shame. A DM should NEVER feel guilty for Rule 0'ing things pre-campaign, and as long as he is being fair and thoughtful, he shouldn't feel guilty about doing it mid-game either, when he feels he has to. -----------A side note: my campaign started as a Freedom Fighters vs The Encroaching Army battle, and from the outset it seemed obvious that this had to be a world in which 5th and 6th level characters (PCs and NPCs) were not rare (given how easy advancement is at lower levels). Obviously, tough to find any political reason for the elves to not kill the party if they knew where they were <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.I managed to come up with a good reason why there were no 5th level+ wizards or 7th level + clerics opposing the party (who started at 1st level), thus allowing them a chance for survival (no casters w/fireball or clerics w/Divination or Scry). What I couldn't do is figure out why, if you can create a Wand of Fireballs at 5th level, why the army wouldn't be churning out said wands like crazy -- at least one or two wizards in the army (of 500+ elves) would have them, if not more.Did I pull my hair out? No. Did I change the problem? No. Did I make it so that wand manufacture in my game is more difficult than that suggested in the DMG? Yep. Was this a bad call? Some would say it was . . . that I've taken away some important Wizardly power, and I need to make it up to the class somehow for it to stay balanced. Of course, that's baloney.  The party didn't defeat all the elves, but in the end killed 100+, including an outpost leader. (Damn 1st level NPC clerics and their Command spells!) The party escaped into the Underdark. Would the elves have Scry'd them and Teleported in a high-level party to kill them all if they could? Absolutely! Did they? No . . . because to tell the story I wanted to tell, I had to kill Scry/Teleport. So I did. Summing up:1) I agree that there are many methods DMs can use to make 3E fit their campaign goals, but2) I wish that there was less of a stigma for using Rule 0 to make the changes the GM thinks he needs to make. --------Re Standing Stones: If YOU were an Evil Guy in a world were Divination Spells Were King, woudn't YOU invest in an amulet of non-detection? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification