delericho
Legend
Well, yes. And a couple of years later they told us that 4e was coming because 3.5e was so horribly broken.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Questiom on a feat - Energy Substitution
- Thread starter Greenfield
- Start date
Well, yes. And a couple of years later they told us that 4e was coming because 3.5e was so horribly broken.
Celebrim
Legend
Well, yes. And a couple of years later they told us that 4e was coming because 3.5e was so horribly broken.
Yes, and in describing their horribly broken product, I kept replying, "You are describing problems I don't actually have."
And that was largely because I'd chosen not to buy their products other than those related to the initial release, and unlike the company, I'd spent my efforts in actually creating a better product and a better game rather than following the 'Magic the Gathering' model of tempting players into buying new playing pieces for the utility that they brought in winning the game. Splatbooks were fundamentally being targeted not at DMs, but at players, with the selling point being: "Look at all the new tools you can use to frustrate your DM. New races! New Feats! New Templates! New Prestige Classes! New Spells! New Magic Items! All officially sanctioned! Balancing and play testing not included! Revel in the broken goodness! One turn kills! Infinite combos! And no DCI to ban things!"
WotC was deliberately encouraging a play style that promoted selling books at the expense of the enjoyment of the game. We'd come a very long way from the point where things in the DMG were considered the exclusive province of the DM. Now players were expected to have control over and order up any magic item or PrC they desired without reference to the game situation at all. Furthermore, we'd come to a point were a given splatbook was by my estimation only providing me as a DM 5-10 pages of usable content (and that was a generous assessment). So there was no way I was going to spend $30 for a 5-10 page supplement.
Playing a 3e game, I was using more pages of the 1e DMG than I was of any 3.5 era supplement. That's how bad it was. All that glossy illustration, and no money at all for actually producing needed, usable content and detail.
delericho
Legend
Well, it doesn't say that it doesn't change the composition of the altered spell.
And if you're adjusting column of ice in this way, given that it does no damage, that must surely be the sole reason for bothering?
Last edited:
delericho
Legend
Likewise, for much the same reason. I bought a huge number of 3.5e books, but I actually used very, very few.
Celebrim
Legend
Well, it doesn't say that it doesn't change the composition of the altered spell.
The best way to adjudicate a rule of this type is based on what it says, not what you assume it means. I'm a computer programmer. I'm used to things doing exactly what they say on the box and only what they say on the box.
The mistake of assuming that the ice is replaced by fire, lightning, metal, or something else is equivalent to the mistake of ruling that a creature in Magic the Gathering flies because it's picture shows it flying or that it's picture implies it has wings.
Largely, there is no reason to bother. Regardless of what you substitute it too, the spell does exactly the same thing. But to the extent that there is any reason to bother, it is in how the largely environment reacts to a spell with the given descriptor.
For example, the environment might be aligned against Cold spells, and say something like: "Reduce the caster level of any spell with the Cold descriptor by 4. If this reduces the caster level below the minimum necessary to cast the spell, the spell fails."
Or you might have a feat like, "Increase the effective caster level of any spell with the Fire descriptor that you cast by 1."
However, since this spell is ALSO largely indifferent to caster level, I can't imagine any good reason to apply Energy Substitution to it. For that matter, I can't think of good reason for it to have Cold as a descriptor, because well, per the rules, the ice isn't actually cold in the sense implied by the Cold descriptor.
Dandu
First Post
Last edited:
delericho
Legend
I know. It was an admittedly feeble joke. Hence the smiley.
XP, although I have 7 on my machine at work and it has a lot to recommend it.
Alas, the last twice I've had to replace my home PC the new machine has been bundled with Vista and then 8.
Last edited:
Dandu
First Post
Interesting. Why do you prefer 7 and XP over 8 and Vista? (And no mention of ME?)XP, although I have 7 on my machine at work and it has a lot to recommend it.
Alas, the last twice I've had to replace my home PC the new machine has been bundled with Vista and then 8.
delericho
Legend
It was my brother who got stuck with ME - I was on '98 and then moved to XP.
As for my preference for XP and 7, it's largely to do with the OS making unwelcome changes in each case. I found that Vista added a whole bunch of stuff that I immediately switched off and never saw again (but that remained lurking in the background), while 8 has gotten rid of the Start menu that I found extremely useful. (And yes, I'm aware of the oddity of slicking Start to switch off the PC. Somehow, I was able to figure it out!)
I daresay they fixed a bunch of stuff along the way. But, as with 3.5e, it was a lot of problems I just didn't have.
Dandu
First Post
Though Vista and 8 are terrible, literally dozens of people never had an issue with either.
The point of selling an operating system is to dominate as much of the market share as possible. That means it has to appeal to as many people as possible. It doesn't matter if 50, 60, or 90% of the market has no problem, as long as there's people who do, there is sufficient reason to try and improve.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
