Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4186424" data-attributes="member: 5143">True, as the philosophy of D&D became closer and closer to that of 4e.I'm saying that there are both magical and non-magical creative ways to solve problems.Sure, you could use Animate Rope or something to wrap around an enemy's legs in the middle of combat before.  Which is a creative way to solve a problem magically.However, you could also try using bluff to trick a monster into stepping into the coil of rope and having an ally pull on the other end.Removing Animate Rope as a spell doesn't eliminate creativity.  It instead eliminates one option you had before.  An option only available to casters, I might add.  Now casters have to think of solutions the same way everyone else had to.  Without simply looking at their list of spells and having the options pretty much handed to them.Actually, in a way there is a balance vs problem solving issue.  For instance, it's all fine and dandy to say that a player is being really creative by casting rope trick and luring the enemies into the room with ghost sounds and then dropping down with surprise in order to get a surprise round against their enemies.  But from a balance point of view, you've just given the wizard an advantage in combat that their spells were not meant to provide.  They get a surprise round(with the enemies in the position you wanted them to be in) when a fighter in the same position wouldn't.And this side effect happens with most non-combat spells.  Creative use of low level spells(and a lenient DM) can allow you to defeat monsters WAY above the CR you could normally defeat without them.</blockquote>

Verification