Call of the Twilight Defender

[Brace Cormaeril]

I think ultimately this is another indication of how WotC writers do not understand their own game.

The only thing that this spell is ultimately indicative of, within the context of this thread, is the profound drive by many players in the community to attempt to exploit any possible reinterpretation of a spell or ability. If these players believe that the designers intended for a 6th level spell to grant a spell caster a permanent increase of 38 hit points per use of the spell, then it is *they* who do not understand the game they are playing.
While Stephens and Thompson's work could've used a finer edit by Vallese, this is inevitable. Editors often fail. However, to generalize this to "WotC writers do not understand their own game", is fallacious at worst, and I assume, arrogance at best.

 

[Dandu]

The only thing that this spell is ultimately indicative of, within the context of this thread, is the profound drive by many players in the community to attempt to exploit any possible reinterpretation of a spell or ability.

Shall I get off your lawn?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Nah, I agree with Brace. Just another reason why I don't mindlessly follow RAW to the exact letter, especially when it blatantly runs against common sense and/or game balance.

Seriously, come on...Even if it did actually work exactly as you (may?) hope that it does, giving an infinite and permanent hp boost. Even in that case, it becomes an issue of "what DM would actually allow that in his game?" Pun-pun is legal by RAW. (Is there a Godwin's Law variant for char op that instead declares the probability of a pun-pun reference approaching 1?) I guess theoretical char op (versus "practical" char op) has its place...It just always seems like such wasted effort to me, though.

 

[Dandu]

Hold on a bit. That train of logic is flawed for the reason that some DMs don't allow monks because monks are "overpowered". That does not however mean that optimization exercises involving monks are a waste of time.

Now to be fair, this thing is a lot more overpowered than monks. However, I haven't ever stated a position on what I believe it does. I have just stated that this spell exists, and that it seems to be oddly written, and have discussed what it probably means with various posters. The actual person who posted about permanent HP gain was... not me.

I even stated that "If you want to object on the grounds that one cannot gain more HP than the maximum for the character, I think that would be a decent argument."

 

[Corsair]

I even stated that "If you want to object on the grounds that one cannot gain more HP than the maximum for the character, I think that would be a decent argument."

That is the way I feel. Temporary HP are a specific exception to this. I feel this spell either heals the target, or it it provides temporary HP. Healing is just simpler.

That being said, reading an ambiguous spell to have an effect that is massively overpowered and does not exist anywhere else in the game (outside of actual class levels and feats) is a terrible idea. Not just from a balance standpoint, but from a general rules interpretation standpoint. Why on earth would anyone, faced with a vague rule, invent some new possibility that is completely at odds with the entire system and clearly broken? How could anyone think that is the best or most likely to be correct option?

 

[coyote6]

Yeah, if WotC still answered 3.5e questions, I think the only question to ask about that spell is "Is this supposed to give temp hp or heal hp?"

It's a sorcerer/wizard spell, so if it heals hp, it would be one of the few spells with healing effects available to them.

 

[Dross]

The actual person who posted about permanent HP gain was... not me.

It was me being an advocate for . (and I never said it was a good argument )

I agree that the spell should provide either temporary or healing HP.

Personally and totally as a style thing I would go Temp since wiz/sor don't cure HP. Rules wise, curing would seem more likely.


And despite any "common sense" reading people should use, some DON'T.

But as a practicing devil's advocate I tend to look at things through a ex-co-player's eyes, just to see how broken I can try to make things in these discussions.