Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 1448716" data-attributes="member: 17077">Calm down. Anger will not solve anything. Nor will condiscending remarks. We are all intelligent people here and it is extremely insulting to me that you just assume that I didn't bother to read your post before responding to it. I quoted the example because I felt that your quoting was selective and wanted everyone to see the entire text. Especially since the conflicting nature of the rule printed and the example flollowing it helps to illustrate my point.And if you read [/B]my[/B] post, you would have seen that I already told you that you could interpret it as literally as you want, and you would certainly have a position every bit as strong as mine in doing so. I feel that much of the process of 3.5 conversion has been rushed and sloppy. The disparity between the rules and the examples immediately following them is, IMHO, clear evidence of this. Since I own the 3.0 FRCS, I went back and checked and sure enough, most of the 3.5 text for the Red Wizard is cut and pasted right out of that book (including the example), without the slightest consideration for how the rules have changed in the new edition. And this kind of thing is not limited to this book or this one class. As many have pointed out, previous errata for various spells, feats, etc that helped to balance them dramatically in the previous edition have been completely ignored when those things have been updated to 3.5 edition.Whoever did the DMG Red Wizard in 3.5 either simply overlooked the fact that the rules for specialization have changed, or they accidentally passed it over in editing. You can feel free to go by the letter of the book if you like (and the examples given ARE part of the rules, meant to clarify rather than confuse, which was supposed to be the whole point of the 3.5 edition). I prefer to discern the designer's intent in any situation where a conflicting statement arises, especially in a conversion from one rules set to another where the change needlessly punishes a class far beyond what was originally intended to balance it. You can even condiscend my position by patronizing me and telling me it's ok to use my "house rules." There is simply no reason to argue over semantics. I will play the game my way, you will play it yours. But please, don't insult people with your matter of fact "laws" of the game. A "law", which BTW, contradicts itself.</blockquote>

Verification