Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 6671327" data-attributes="member: 59506">Well how about that.  15 years of 3E and I learn something new about it.  I thought Evenglare was just being sarcastic; but in hindsight, maybe not.  I even went back and checked my original 3.0 books, and yup, it says it there too (meaning it's not just a 3.5 thing).So, I was wrong.Whether I agree with it or not (I still think it steps on the toes of the Sorcerer), it was that way in 3E, and quite likely could have been left vague in 5E for the very interpretation that Celtavian is getting from it.  (There are a lot of things left vague or that seem to allow multiple interpretations for, IMO, just this very reason.)So, quite likely, either way is okay officially.  That is unless they decide to do a Sage Advice on this; which I hope they don't.  5E is supposed to appeal to fans of multiple editions.  Leaving this aspect the way it is, unclarified, leaves it open for both points of view.I'm going to go now and begin my self-imposed seclusion of 40 days in order to study the rules more thoroughly.Game On.(Just kidding about the 40 days thing...)<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /></blockquote>