Timeline for How much like a whip is a fire lash?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2018 at 1:24 | comment | added | nijineko | @KRyan But not two hours before I started working on an answer, as it happens. I'm slow. | |
| May 25, 2018 at 1:23 | comment | added | nijineko | @HeyICanChan I think we actually agree on how it should work in the end, but I see your point. I did point out that point of ectoplasm being effectively solid. The question becomes does unstable ectoplasm mimicking fire count as a solid or a semi-gaseous energy field? | |
| May 24, 2018 at 18:17 | history | edited | KorvinStarmast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 45 characters in body
|
| May 24, 2018 at 18:12 | comment | added | Hey I Can Chan |
@KRyan O, I agree that it's bad for the game, but I meant that it's great for conversation. :-) (I've read the argument that one of the reasons for 3.5's enduring popularity is it's vagueness: it's written just well enough to be playable yet just poorly enough that many points can be endlessly debated yet offer no satisfying conclusion.)
|
|
| May 24, 2018 at 18:01 | comment | added | KRyan | @HeyICanChan I would say that it’s absolutely terrible that this can happen. Clarity in writing should be one of the foremost requirements from rules text. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 17:59 | comment | added | KRyan | The querent added the specification of Expanded Psionics Handbook pyrokineticist two hours before you submitted this answer... | |
| May 24, 2018 at 17:33 | comment | added | Hey I Can Chan | Can I just say I think it's great that we can both read the same text and draw absolutely opposite conclusions. Enjoy your +1. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 16:41 | history | answered | nijineko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |