I see nothing wrong with a GM not blanket allowing every ability ever published in an article to be added to his game. One issue with ongoing expansion is the need (and inability) to test how each new element combines with everything that is already out there. This is why many games gradually collapse under their own weight. It's also why a lot of CCG's keep a rolling set of "tournament legal" cards, as having older cards gradually fall off limits the combinations that must be considered (and not republishing problem ones limits their time as problems). The later the release, the less likely errata was considered post-release, as most businesses will focus on their current edition, not the one they aren't printing (so no new sales) any more.
Again, waiting for the complete build, with WBL equipment and actual spells carried (and slots left empty). There's also nothing wrong with a ruling that a condition you choose to impose on yourself (like the Dave effect of Celerity) is a requirement of the spell - negating the drawback also negates the benefit.
There is a lot of space between "ban every spell" (or feat, magic item, class, prestige class, etc.) and "assess each spell, interpret the words in a balanced manner and, in the most extreme case, modify or remove the spell". I find the later releases as 3.5 wound down tend to show evidence of poorer consideration of balance.
There is a difference between "every late release was 100% overpowered" and "later editions had the advantage of pulling out the gems and leaving the dross behind".
You've tossed out an array of feats, races, spells, and other aspects of a character. You have not set out that L7 (or select a mid-level for ease of reference) indexed character which a GM could review. That's my standard.
Again, full build, all items costed for WBL, encumbrance computed. You still need the item at hand - now its heavier.
You're entitled to play your character. I'm entitled to play mine. My vote is that the wizard FriendlyFire be removed from the team. Let's see how the rest of my teammates feel about that.
To repeat, if you can't see, so much for spells with targets. The fact that a spread's "effect can extend around corners and into areas that you can’t see." implies it can't be cast to start somewhere you can't see, and that this is an exception to most areas of effect. It's amazing how actually reading and interpreting the rules can assist in addressing perceived issues of overpowered characters. And it's interesting to be challenged on my reading comprehension for stating that.
Sadly, we cannot meet in an open field or dimly lit corridor to have you point out the exact spot you would target a 20' radius effect at to strike five targets and miss three others. Much less do this in about 1 second, or with your back turned rom a third party's verbal descriptions. I'm sure you would impress us all. As to the average person's spatial reasoning, ask an auto body shop whether they can stay in business relying on people making errors in split second special reasoning.
Please cite the specific rule which says "playing gridless is not permitted". I believe you'll find a comment in most post-core rules books that those rules are optional, such that the GM is following the rules to allow, and disallow, whichever of them he sees fit, by the way.
And we're back to perfection of spacial reasoning, with no ability to perceive the target. Interesting how you feel it appropriate to critique the reading comprehension of others. As a colleague of mine once asked in a meeting, do you believe it is remotely possible someone could understand your point, yet still disagree with it, or is that impossible in your world? Again, sadly, no way to perform an objective test.
In any case, the issue of whether wizards are omnipotent or actually face challenges in most games is hardly germane to the thread, and the last couple of posts make it pretty clear there's negligible value in continuing the discussion.
Last edited:
