Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6074140" data-attributes="member: 22779">Of course, the ten thousand OTHER things that the druid has his companion do are no problem.&nbsp; After all, the grizzly doesn't start eating the other PC's does he?&nbsp; The grizzly pretty much only reacts with &quot;some semblance of realism&quot; when the DM wants to take away the PC's class ability.&nbsp; Oh, yeah, no passive aggressiveness there at all.&quot;Hey, my bosom companion with whom I share an empathic link, we're going to go underwater for a bit to check this stuff out.&nbsp; Don't worry, I will make it so you can breathe.&nbsp; We'll swim about for a bit just to get you used to that.&nbsp; Do this and I have a HUGE barrel of fish for you at the end.&nbsp; C'mon, it'll be fun.&quot;Yeah, that's too much of a stretch to believe that my DRUID can get my companion to go underwater. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid&nbsp; &nbsp; :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />Look, the only reason that this is an issue is because the DM wants to strip away a class feature.&nbsp; Or rather wants to limit the power of a class feature.&nbsp; But, instead of just saying that and discussing it with the player, he's going to continually throw in &quot;realistic&quot; roadblocks that are thinly veiled justifications for trying to limit the class feature.Why not just limit the class feature in the first place.&nbsp; If you don't want your players to have something don't give it to them.&nbsp; Seems simple enough to me.&nbsp; I consider it very bad gaming to give the players something and then do an end run around and hide behind the wall of &quot;realism&quot; which is neither real nor the real reason for the limitations.Is it really that difficult to be up front with players?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6074140, member: 22779"] Of course, the ten thousand OTHER things that the druid has his companion do are no problem. After all, the grizzly doesn't start eating the other PC's does he? The grizzly pretty much only reacts with "some semblance of realism" when the DM wants to take away the PC's class ability. Oh, yeah, no passive aggressiveness there at all. "Hey, my bosom companion with whom I share an empathic link, we're going to go underwater for a bit to check this stuff out. Don't worry, I will make it so you can breathe. We'll swim about for a bit just to get you used to that. Do this and I have a HUGE barrel of fish for you at the end. C'mon, it'll be fun." Yeah, that's too much of a stretch to believe that my DRUID can get my companion to go underwater. :uhoh: Look, the only reason that this is an issue is because the DM wants to strip away a class feature. Or rather wants to limit the power of a class feature. But, instead of just saying that and discussing it with the player, he's going to continually throw in "realistic" roadblocks that are thinly veiled justifications for trying to limit the class feature. Why not just limit the class feature in the first place. If you don't want your players to have something [u]don't give it to them[/u]. Seems simple enough to me. I consider it very bad gaming to give the players something and then do an end run around and hide behind the wall of "realism" which is neither real nor the real reason for the limitations. Is it really that difficult to be up front with players? [/QUOTE]

Verification