Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 939374" data-attributes="member: 307">Re: BardsThose spells are probably to make up for the bard &quot;losing&quot; magic missile from their spell list <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> This sort of quote worries me, Dragon 309, pag 16: &quot;Some spellcasters lost spells vecause they didn't fit their archetype (badrs casting magic missile just seemed strange to a lot of people) . . .&quot;If Ed Stark is ignorant enough about the actual rules of 3.0 that he thinks that bards could cast magic missile then he has no business ever being anywhere near a rules revision for the game. The fact that such an inane and blatantly incorrect statement about soemthing as basic as the 1st level spell list for a core class made it into his article and through the proofreading and editing process indicates to me that WotC has a lot of people who don't know the rules very well working on the revision.I am not filled with confidence. If you are working on a revision to the existing rules you should get the basic existing rules right. Otherwise, you are unqualified to be tinkering. Like Monte Cook, I think I will not be incorporating much, if anything, from 3.5 if this is the sort of quality we can expect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Storm Raven, post: 939374, member: 307"] [b]Re: Bards[/b] Those spells are probably to make up for the bard "losing" [i]magic missile[/i] from their spell list :rolleyes: This sort of quote worries me, Dragon 309, pag 16: "Some spellcasters lost spells vecause they didn't fit their archetype (badrs casting [i]magic missile[/i] just seemed strange to a lot of people) . . ." If Ed Stark is ignorant enough about the actual rules of 3.0 that he thinks that bards could cast [i]magic missile[/i] then he has no business ever being anywhere near a rules revision for the game. The fact that such an inane and blatantly incorrect statement about soemthing as basic as the 1st level spell list for a core class made it into his article and through the proofreading and editing process indicates to me that WotC has a lot of people who don't know the rules very well working on the revision. I am not filled with confidence. If you are working on a [i]revision[/i] to the [i]existing rules[/i] you should [i]get the basic existing rules right[/i]. Otherwise, you are unqualified to be tinkering. Like Monte Cook, I think I will not be incorporating much, if anything, from 3.5 if this is the sort of quality we can expect. [/QUOTE]

Verification