-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
"Yes, you can" Or "No you can't"
- Thread starter Heathen72
- Start date
Heathen72
Explorer
So If you let them [i]try[/i]...
So, are you guys actually letting them try, or are you making the mods so prohibitive that you may as well be saying no. Essentially, are you taking on board their offer? Or are the consequences pre-determined "unless they roll a twenty."
For instance, what if a player - in a really tough situation - asks if they can try a variant of a spell that probably shouldn't be allowed under a strict interpretation of the rules? Normally they wouldn't try it, but this is an emergency.
Is your answer...
Tough, it doesn't work? (Maybe you are worried about them doing all the time in the future)
Yep, but you need to roll a natural twenty? (Which frankly, is pretty much the same thing as the above)
Okay, you cast the spell, and this happens!? (You allow the attempt, they roll, and it works, but not everything goes to plan.)
Sure, and you can have a bonus to your die roll for the nifty idea? (You don't give it a second thought. After all - as the GM, there is always tougher stuff you can throw at the players. And you don't want them to feel impotent. )
Because sometimes yes means no and even though you think you are saying yes, sometimes you are really saying no... you know?
To put it another way. Are you encouraging your players to act creatively?
So, are you guys actually letting them try, or are you making the mods so prohibitive that you may as well be saying no. Essentially, are you taking on board their offer? Or are the consequences pre-determined "unless they roll a twenty."
For instance, what if a player - in a really tough situation - asks if they can try a variant of a spell that probably shouldn't be allowed under a strict interpretation of the rules? Normally they wouldn't try it, but this is an emergency.
Is your answer...
Tough, it doesn't work? (Maybe you are worried about them doing all the time in the future)
Yep, but you need to roll a natural twenty? (Which frankly, is pretty much the same thing as the above)
Okay, you cast the spell, and this happens!? (You allow the attempt, they roll, and it works, but not everything goes to plan.)
Sure, and you can have a bonus to your die roll for the nifty idea? (You don't give it a second thought. After all - as the GM, there is always tougher stuff you can throw at the players. And you don't want them to feel impotent. )
Because sometimes yes means no and even though you think you are saying yes, sometimes you are really saying no... you know?
To put it another way. Are you encouraging your players to act creatively?
Last edited:
Sacredbull
First Post
It really depends on if you're talking about an attempt at some crazy ation working within the confines of a given spell or if you are attempting to bind that spell t a new use. If it's the second it really depends on the campaign and the type of caster, as I don't see a Wizard being able to ben spells like that without some earnest codified research.
Marimmar
First Post
I voted 'No', unless something is covered by the rules it won't happen but fortunately under 3e rules a lot of things are possible.
Last time something outrageous happened was when our Monk jumped off a boat onto the druid's animal companion crocodile ran along it and jumped onto the shore to engage the enemy. This required two jump checks to see if he covered the distance and a balance check to see if he could run on top of the crocodile. It also added bonus XP for stylishness.
I wouldn't allow a spellcaster to modify his spells though, this would be too much.
~Marimmar
Last time something outrageous happened was when our Monk jumped off a boat onto the druid's animal companion crocodile ran along it and jumped onto the shore to engage the enemy. This required two jump checks to see if he covered the distance and a balance check to see if he could run on top of the crocodile. It also added bonus XP for stylishness.
I wouldn't allow a spellcaster to modify his spells though, this would be too much.
~Marimmar
Heathen72
Explorer
Yes, but what about you...
No, It doesn't depend on any of that. Don't get too caught up in the example - I want to know about your campaign - what you will say when the players are trying weird stuff. I'm not interested in hearing the strict rules interpretations - I know the rules. I want to hear what happens in your game
So - Yes or No, SacredBull?
Sacredbull said:
No, It doesn't depend on any of that. Don't get too caught up in the example - I want to know about your campaign - what you will say when the players are trying weird stuff. I'm not interested in hearing the strict rules interpretations - I know the rules. I want to hear what happens in your game
So - Yes or No, SacredBull?
Sacredbull
First Post
Re: Yes, but what about you...
It isn't really that easily codified, but in most cases yes. I love dramatics and heroism and anyone can try anything in my games. However when you take risks it can backfire. Generally I go by the 'If It Feels Right' system for success. I'm just a bit touchy as far as mucking with spells go and for me it also depends on the caster type, and the specific feel of a given game. If I want a gritty feel I drop my stunt system, but if I want heroics I'm willing to let some things go. In short for me it is a 'it depends' judgement that is largely dpendent on the given character and given situation. For instance in my view Sorcerers would be more fluid casters, whereas Wizards could accomplish similar feats, but most likely would have to invest in a small amount of research for bending magic's laws. It is also largely dependent on what type of game the players at the table want. I like to believe I give reasonable DCs and give people the chance they need given the context. Maybe I'm just full of hot air though...
spunkrat said:
It isn't really that easily codified, but in most cases yes. I love dramatics and heroism and anyone can try anything in my games. However when you take risks it can backfire. Generally I go by the 'If It Feels Right' system for success. I'm just a bit touchy as far as mucking with spells go and for me it also depends on the caster type, and the specific feel of a given game. If I want a gritty feel I drop my stunt system, but if I want heroics I'm willing to let some things go. In short for me it is a 'it depends' judgement that is largely dpendent on the given character and given situation. For instance in my view Sorcerers would be more fluid casters, whereas Wizards could accomplish similar feats, but most likely would have to invest in a small amount of research for bending magic's laws. It is also largely dependent on what type of game the players at the table want. I like to believe I give reasonable DCs and give people the chance they need given the context. Maybe I'm just full of hot air though...
I'm always willing to let someone try something; I like the sense of heroism it creates. I generally try to give (give? hmmm, maybe "let my players earn" is better) my players whatever will make the game fun for them. If it is outrageously unreasonable, I try to make it reasonable, or come up with something reasonable that is close.
Example: In my latest game, one of the druids wanted an octupus for a companion. The problem is, they are in the Hullack Forest (FR). Solution? I created the trepus as her companion, based on this website: The Northwest Tree Octopus . The group's having a lot more fun than if I'd just said "no".
/gnarlo!
Example: In my latest game, one of the druids wanted an octupus for a companion. The problem is, they are in the Hullack Forest (FR). Solution? I created the trepus as her companion, based on this website: The Northwest Tree Octopus . The group's having a lot more fun than if I'd just said "no".
/gnarlo!
