Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7868046" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Okay, I had to go back and figure out what you were responding to that I was responding to (etc) to get to this point. (It's late and I'm tired right now, so I might still not respond to the right thought.)What I was responding to earlier on this page was an impression that you were saying the DM would just decide what spells were available to an NPC with regards to their chosen role relative to the party, and without regards to the rules. The example, as I understood it, being that a wizard might have a spell wizards can't even have in order to provide a service to the party that you want them to be able to gain access to.My brief statement about how I do it was intended to illustrate our playstyle differences in that area. My long example later was just in response to your follow-up question (without reference back to the previous one, because I hadn't been on in a few days), and because I was strangely in the mood to go dig up an old spellbook. So I guess I was being careless.Basically, the point that I'm making is that if I decided to use this rule, then that's how the world works, and if that's how the world works, any cooperative sorcerer can say &quot;come back tomorrow&quot;, and be guaranteed to have the spell in question. I don't like that particular consequence, but I would be interested in a different, or significantly revised, variant rule that would allow some sorcerous flexibility without creating those undesired consequences.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 7868046, member: 6677017"] Okay, I had to go back and figure out what you were responding to that I was responding to (etc) to get to this point. (It's late and I'm tired right now, so I might still not respond to the right thought.) What I was responding to earlier on this page was an impression that you were saying the DM would just decide what spells were available to an NPC with regards to their chosen role relative to the party, and without regards to the rules. The example, as I understood it, being that a wizard might have a spell wizards can't even have in order to provide a service to the party that you want them to be able to gain access to. My brief statement about how I do it was intended to illustrate our playstyle differences in that area. My long example later was just in response to your follow-up question (without reference back to the previous one, because I hadn't been on in a few days), and because I was strangely in the mood to go dig up an old spellbook. So I guess I was being careless. Basically, the point that I'm making is that if I decided to use this rule, then that's how the world works, and if that's how the world works, any cooperative sorcerer can say "come back tomorrow", and be guaranteed to have the spell in question. I don't like that particular consequence, but I would be interested in a different, or significantly revised, variant rule that would allow some sorcerous flexibility without creating those undesired consequences. [/QUOTE]

Verification