Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6243921" data-attributes="member: 22779">Two things. First you're probably right in that I've been a stickler for interpretation but mostly that's due to what I see as some very questionable interpretations. Rope trick has potentially lethal limitations.  The summoned demon has already used its wish. That sort of thing. Secondly, we're discussing 3e which has been revised strongly once into 3.5 and is a complete game. I would say there is a difference at least in scale between a couple of sentences in a setting resource from 3e clarifying a spell and core errata issued to everyone. They are not equal. Just about everyone agrees that the initial write up of SC's was not as good as it could have been. But isn't that like using 3e's original aoo explanation to criticize 3e?  The wording was revised and clarified. Why insist on using the old verbiage?</blockquote>