Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lily Inverse" data-source="post: 538168" data-attributes="member: 4594">All right, I'll spell it out for you.  You act as if your words are the final word in any issue you choose to speak on.  All who disagree are met with borderline insults and insistence that any source to the contrary is wrong.Count two is correct because he is one of the co-authors of the PHB and MM, which makes all the words contained therein "his" although ownership is shared.  By that definition, the first count, that he is allowed to make corrections to this work, also makes any comment he makes about his work in writing that is published by Wizards of the Coast makes him correct.  This means that his words on this (or any other subject ) are not some house-rule made by someone else that you can dismiss as irrelevant.  Unless they are specifically contradicted by a LATER publication of the work he is making corrections to, Skip Williams' words must be considered just as relevant as the original works themselves for purposes of discussing the rules.The reasons why Skip's words render prior publications invalid, but are themselves rendered invalid by later publication, are the same:  order.  The procedure I deem most likely is reasonably simple, and based on the procedure used for judging Magic: The Gathering tournaments.  When a rule is found to be confusing or imbalancing, Skip Williams is the one who is handed the task of making an immediate ruling, which is issued to the public by the quickest possible method (normally the monthly Sage Advice column in Dragon Magazine.)  In some instances, other sources might be used, such as email or public announcement at an RPGA event where the need is more pressing.  This ruling, a well as the original issue, would then most likely be taken back to the R&D department at Wizards of the Coast where the matter is placed undre more inense scrutiny.  A different, or better, solution may be found, then this is published in the next printing of the resource or rule in question.  However, whenever the rules are referenced between publishings, the Sage's rulings on the issue are consulted FIRST, then the source, where such an up-to-date interpretation of the rules is necessary or requested, such as is the case in this discussion.I've addressed some of this already, but I will point out that this still leaves a fourth level spell which allows an arcane spellcaster to simulate a class ability of a druid an incredible degree of flexibility.  To do any more would probably, in the minds of all of the designers, require it to be higher in level.  Since the designers are adamant about it NOT being higher in level, they are clearly of the opinion that they would rather have it sharply curtailed from past editions of the game.</blockquote>

Verification