Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5432779" data-attributes="member: 957">I hate that feat.&nbsp; It is completely stupid.&nbsp; It certainly serves your argument.&nbsp; I readily admit that.But, I'll also readily admit that WotC put out a TON of crap in the general mix of 3E material.&nbsp; By that same reasoning I have specifically pointed out that, for example, I don't think the absurdity of Come And Get It is a reasonable criticism of 4E.&nbsp; There is always a threat of designing a new system that actually takes away the ability that the characters already had in the name of &quot;offering&quot; it to them.&nbsp; That is a horrid mistake.&nbsp; (NWPs did this when they came along)Before that feat came along defining spell looks was an assumed.&nbsp; When that feat came along I cussed WotC for a few minutes and then went about pretending they had never made that blunder.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5432779, member: 957"] I hate that feat. It is completely stupid. It certainly serves your argument. I readily admit that. But, I'll also readily admit that WotC put out a TON of crap in the general mix of 3E material. By that same reasoning I have specifically pointed out that, for example, I don't think the absurdity of Come And Get It is a reasonable criticism of 4E. There is always a threat of designing a new system that actually takes away the ability that the characters already had in the name of "offering" it to them. That is a horrid mistake. (NWPs did this when they came along) Before that feat came along defining spell looks was an assumed. When that feat came along I cussed WotC for a few minutes and then went about pretending they had never made that blunder. [/QUOTE]

Verification