D&D General When to know a rule?

[Corinnguard]

Well, I didn't want it to be THAT easy...

So you want it to be a time-consuming Ritual? Some casters just don't have the patience to cast one of those.

 

[Corinnguard]

I'd pointed out that spell creation would require DM input as to time and cost; to which Hussar came back saying neither time nor cost is required, thus implying DM input isn't necessary. Which means, taking his words literally, there's no wheel for the DM to be asleep at: these new spells can just appear.

Sure, a new spell could just appear out of nothing, but is it a useful spell? And if one does appear, how do you go about catching it? That new spell isn't going to sit still for you to catch it after all.

 

[bloodtide]

It's not impossible that one person, working alone, has produced more spells than were printed across 20+ years of books, magazines, and boxed sets. It is, however, entirely unbelievable that they would be issue-free.

Maybe check the math of making say five spells a week for a year and lets say I only made my first spell in 2010? And add in a couple Sundays of making 20-50 spells. I guess some people don't make any homebrew for RPGs, but some do.

I run five (or more) games a week.....that is a "lot" to some people that only game once a week or less.

I once actually got offered the dream of being paid 100 bucks per session to run a game. And it was miserable, because the guy paying me had this attitude that because he was paying me, he should have a greater influence on how the game was run. Now maybe if he'd been up front about this, things would have been different, but any time something came up he didn't care for, he would say something like "this isn't the game I'm paying for". He tried to overrule me at the table once, and I quit on the spot. And believe me, I could have used the money, but running the game had become a job. And I already had a naughty word job, thank you very much, where I wasn't appreciated. So I didn't need this one too.

I only charge $25.....but if I got $100 per session I would sure be a Yes DM and do whatever the players paying wanted.

 

[ezo]

So you want it to be a time-consuming Ritual? Some casters just don't have the patience to cast one of those.

Oh, no, not at all! It can even have a casting time of 1 reaction.

 

[James Gasik]

Sure, a new spell could just appear out of nothing, but is it a useful spell? And if one does appear, how do you go about catching it? That new spell isn't going to sit still for you to catch it after all.

I think that's how Sorcerers work, they catch spells the way we catch a cold.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh, no, not at all! It can even have a casting time of 1 reaction.

View attachment 361746

Which includes the player characters, as they are often the largest threats to all life everywhere.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So if I'm understanding you correctly - DMs may design magic items, maps, traps, rewards, lingering injuries, madnesses, diseases, poisons and monsters as that is all ok, but add anything to a spell list or feat list for NPCs and it dampens your enthusiasm because you consider it player-facing?

I expect a minimum of explanation when something becomes a topic of conversation. How exactly that happens is on the DM. In the described situation, the DM is making it a topic of conversation, and then coyly refusing to actually talk about it. I already said above that something as minimal as "word on the street says it's resilient against magic, though nobody seems to agree on what that means" for the "new dwarven armor" example. And, as noted, there's room for only learning how a spell works once it's deployed in combat (though that DM better be ready for criticism if the spell seems out of proportion!), but once it is deployed, yes, I'm going to ask what its mechanics are so that I can respond to it.

It's not (strictly) because I see it as player-facing. It's because I put such a strong emphasis on making informed choices. Making informed choices is the heart and soul of gameplay of any kind.

If the answer is yes, I'd find that very odd, and I guess we wouldn't make a good table fit.

In my Mystara game I have Comprehend Languages spell (attached) which has been retconned.

• There is a Glantrian version of the spell which increases the range from self to touch;
• There is an Alphatian version which uses a different spell component that increases the spell's duration;
• There is some hearsay that a Confuse Languages exists; and
• There is a more powerful 3rd level Comprehendere Linguam

Cool. Would you be coy about saying anything at all other than--and this is very important--exclusively saying that other spells exist, without ANY details whatsoever? E.g., "Ah, comprehend languages. You've heard there's a Glantrian version and an Alphatian version, and also a related higher-level spell. But I won't tell you anything else about them at all. You have to learn that for yourself."

Because if you're willing to share even the minimal details you've just shared with me, then that's plenty. Heck, even adding the details about confuse languages and comprehendere linguam is unnecessary in my book--just knowing that there are two regional variants which each modify one part of the spell's mechanics is fully sufficient.

Are you saying a DM cannot use any of the alternate versions because the players are not immediately aware of them? As a DM I consider this part of my world-building which I intend to gradually reveal to the players through play and let them reap the reward of their characters gaining this knowledge. I'm struggling to see how this is not fun?

I am saying that if you mention to the players that there are alternate versions, and then simply refuse to tell the players anything at all about what makes them different from any other comprehend languages spell, unless and until they specifically travel to those lands and do an extensive multi-week study to learn the differences, I would be extremely annoyed and would consider that being kind of a dick about it. I don't need granular details--already said that upthread and in this post--but I'd expect to at least know, well, what you just posted above, that the Glantrian version is no longer self-only and the Alphatian version lasts longer. Don't even need to know how much longer. Could be two hours, could be 1d4 hours, could be 8 hours, could be all day--I can find that out later when I seek out the nitty-gritty. Just telling me that it has longer duration is enough to make a meaningful, informed decision, even if it isn't a diamond-perfect absolutely-the-best-possible-EVAR decision.

It really is quite frustrating how often people turn "I want to make informed decisions" into "OH SO I'M NEVER ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING, YOUR MAJESTY?" Perfection is not required, and immediately invoking it as a reason why one's opponent must be wrong is strawmanning. I just want the basics; more than the absolute bare bones "Yep, there's an X, it's a thing that exists" without having to necessarily be an exhaustive accounting of every possible factoid. Enough for me to at least make an educated guess.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Come on. You know it's not all or nothing. You can't sincerely think that's what people mean.

Nope. I genuinely do wonder why someone who genuinely dislikes all actual gaming except the absolute bare minimum "I want randomness"--which is what someone straight-up said in this very thread--would ever bother with TTRPGs, let alone the overwrought, baroque, ridiculous mess that is every version of D&D and its cousins and descendants.

If you genuinely don't want ANY game in your experience, why play D&D? Someone in this thread has already said they genuinely don't want any game in their experience. They only want the randomness, because that adds spice and interest to their roleplay. They play exclusively for the roleplay. If that's truly what you want, then why play D&D?

And if that isn't truly what someone wants, why would they be hostile to the very idea of, y'know, making the game parts actually enjoyable as gaming? They clearly desire SOME amount of gaming, so why not make what gaming they desire actually fun as a gaming experience?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which includes the player characters, as they are often the largest threats to all life everywhere.

Speak for yourself! I play noble good-hearted people specifically to fight folks like that. "My cause is Life, my lord. How could I ask for aught else?"

 

[Hussar]

I'd pointed out that spell creation would require DM input as to time and cost; to which Hussar came back saying neither time nor cost is required, thus implying DM input isn't necessary. Which means, taking his words literally, there's no wheel for the DM to be asleep at: these new spells can just appear.

You skipped the part where I totally agree that no dm would ever allow it. Of course they wouldn’t.

But the players asking to look at your massive time of homebrew spells is apparently an example of bad players.