Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8132989" data-attributes="member: 6855114">Or it is a case of :&quot;Hey, we received complain that such and such can never change their spell because of campaign. May be something like spell versatility would help...&quot; and they started testing the rule in that context. And only in that context. After all, it why we have the UA. We can help them try them in &quot;other&quot; context than the ones they tried it on. So, in the context above, the rule worked as intended for any number of reasons: players' self restraint, DM fiat, whatever. So concentrated were they on their testing that worked out, that they simply did not consider how the rule would abused under a more normal setting and they used it as advertising for their new book. They were so focused on a one problem solving that they simply did not consider that there were other possibilities.Then, came the warnings and outcries of those that saw what the rule could do. I bet that the designers went and made exactly what we did. Test it with abusing it mind. And when they realised, with comparison and &quot;niche protection&quot; in mind. They simply did what was logical. They removed it.I do not believe so. See the above.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Helldritch, post: 8132989, member: 6855114"] Or it is a case of :"Hey, we received complain that such and such can never change their spell because of campaign. May be something like spell versatility would help..." and they started testing the rule in that context. And only in that context. After all, it why we have the UA. We can help them try them in "other" context than the ones they tried it on. So, in the context above, the rule worked as intended for any number of reasons: players' self restraint, DM fiat, whatever. So concentrated were they on their testing that worked out, that they simply did not consider how the rule would abused under a more normal setting and they used it as advertising for their new book. They were so focused on a one problem solving that they simply did not consider that there were other possibilities. Then, came the warnings and outcries of those that saw what the rule could do. I bet that the designers went and made exactly what we did. Test it with abusing it mind. And when they realised, with comparison and "niche protection" in mind. They simply did what was logical. They removed it. I do not believe so. See the above. [/QUOTE]

Verification