Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 3124304" data-attributes="member: 19675">The facts of liiiiiiiiiife, the facts of liiiiiiiiiiiiiiife!Mucho truth in your post besides what I quoted, KD!Part of my use of the pejorative &quot;carelessness&quot; in this discussion is predicated upon my experience with another WotC procuct, M:TG.&nbsp; Too many times, they used the same language on newer cards that was used in prior banned cards.But part is based on my experience with the 3.X rules themselves, like the distinction that they insist on making between humanoids' unarmed strikes and other creatures' natural weapons...when humanoids' unarmed strikes fit the very PHB glossary definition of natural weapons.So, don't take it too personally.From my side, I have always taken it as my personal responsibility as a playtester to not only test the mainstream stuff, but also to push the system or setting to its extremes to see what rattles, and I encourage fellow playtesters to do the same.But it is absolutely true that no amount of playtesting, however rigorous, will uncover all the flaws.&nbsp; I wouldn't be horribly surprised if someone sat down with 1Ed tomorrow and found a rules flaw nobody else had noticed...After all, I've seen the same kind of thing in RW legal systems which get a LOT more closely scrutinized.&nbsp; I was in my 1st year of law school when an ESL student proposed a particular reading of a bit of Texas Criminal Law (in open class) to the professor...who had been part of the revision comittee that had just completed work on that section of the law a couple of&nbsp; years previously.&nbsp; He stopped, looked at it, and said that it was a perfectly valid reading...and he would be making some phone calls that afternoon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 3124304, member: 19675"] The facts of liiiiiiiiiife, the facts of liiiiiiiiiiiiiiife! Mucho truth in your post besides what I quoted, KD! Part of my use of the pejorative "carelessness" in this discussion is predicated upon my experience with another WotC procuct, M:TG. Too many times, they used the same language on newer cards that was used in prior [I]banned [/I]cards. But part is based on my experience with the 3.X rules themselves, like the distinction that they insist on making between humanoids' unarmed strikes and other creatures' natural weapons...when humanoids' unarmed strikes fit the very PHB glossary definition of natural weapons. So, don't take it too personally. From my side, I have always taken it as my personal responsibility as a playtester to not only test the mainstream stuff, but also to push the system or setting to its extremes to see what rattles, and I encourage fellow playtesters to do the same. But it is absolutely true that no amount of playtesting, however rigorous, will uncover all the flaws. I wouldn't be horribly surprised if someone sat down with 1Ed tomorrow and found a rules flaw nobody else had noticed... After all, I've seen the same kind of thing in RW legal systems which get a LOT more closely scrutinized. I was in my 1st year of law school when an ESL student proposed a particular reading of a bit of Texas Criminal Law (in open class) to the professor...who had been part of the revision comittee that had just completed work on that section of the law a couple of years previously. He stopped, looked at it, and said that it was a perfectly valid reading...and he would be making some phone calls that afternoon. [/QUOTE]

Verification