Re: session re****t

In article <ep5hlv$n6v$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Mary K. Kuhner <mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <ep5c4v$6u8$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Justin Fang <justinf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>In article <ep3249$7ue$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>Mary K. Kuhner <mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>>>The warlock's magical damaging attack is given no type!  We had a long,
>>>long discussion of this when we discovered it.  The damage has to be
>>>some type or other so that we know what can defend against it, but
>>>there is no hint in the class writeup.

>>I think that's actually supposed to be a feature, not a bug; since the
>>damage is untyped, only spell resistance protects against it.  

>They may consider it a feature but I consider it a bug.  The type
>system is a powerful way to adjucate interactions between powers;
>it shouldn't be bypassed in this fa****on.  "Force" damage was
>invented specifically because the untyped Magic Missile damage was
>awkward in the rules.

Hm.  Probably they should have explicitly defined a generic magic damage
type, to handle cases like the Warlock, Disintegrate, Horrid Wilting, etc.
I think there's only a couple examples of those in the core rules, which
is
perhaps why they didn't do it.

>Why repeat that mistake again?

Lack of continuity between the people who wrote the core rules and the
ones
who wrote the splatbooks, maybe.

>I can't quite regret that I allowed this class, because the PC is
>excellent and couldn't be done with the core rules.  But I wish
>I didn't have to allow it, because I really loathe the splatbooks,
>especially _Arcane_.  The material is not well enough tested to
>safely use, in my opinion.  It reintroduces a lot of problems which
>were finally cast out of the core rules.

They do seem to have acquired the software company habit of using
customers
as beta testers.  I guess the eventual solution will be a 4th edition.  Of
course, then they'll start releasing splatbooks for that...

-- 
Justin Fang (justinf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)