Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7869903" data-attributes="member: 6987520">No, that wasn't my argument.My earlier posts (if you even read them) do not follow what JC says in SA. If you weaken it, as JC does, it is even more "balanced" for people who feel it is over-powered (which, it isn't). When I wrote "for those who care" I literally meant "who care" as in who cares about what JC says. I don't.I said it is balanced no matter how you use it because it is a feature that relies on a very limited number of eldritch invocations and even ruled as its most powerful it doesn't break the game in anyway. And I have asked you: how do you think it isn't balanced?As far as clarifications in SA not making it into errata, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of SA rulings that aren't in an errata yet. Does that reflect poorly on WotC in some ways, sure, I can agree to that. I'd much rather have an updated errata with clarifications if they are actually official (which at they point they should be).So, it ignores some things that affect creatures with DV, which is actually false. Many creatures with DV don't suffer from Sunlight Sensitivity, a separate feature.You claim the range is "stupid". Why? because it is twice standard DV and the same as superior range DV? And you quote about something being tough to see at that range, etc. Seeing things at 120 feet isn't hard if you have normal eyesight. How difficult something is to see (at any range) depends on the size and level of detail you are tying to see.And this:makes no snese at all... You seem to be saying something along the lines of "oh, I want this cool ability" so the DM will tailor the game so I can show my character is the best." What is that about? Where in the world did you come up with THAT!</blockquote>

Verification