It surprises me when a legitimate question gets denounced because some people cannot see the opposite side. I try to always see each side to find if there is merit in the other side.
The element of Phantom Steed that brought in the confusion is the word 'creature' it should be removed or wording to counter it added.
Anyhow, I see it as a resolved issue now.
- Gauss
Edit: P.S. you are correct again, you were simply repeating what he has said regarding rulings vs his opinion. However, I find his opinion to be more valuable than most people's and since James Jacobs is the primary person responding to questions I will personally treat him as the authority until I hear from someone better equipped than he to handle such questions.
It surprises me when a legitimate question gets denounced because some people cannot see the opposite side. I try to always see each side to find if there is merit in the other side.
The element of Phantom Steed that brought in the confusion is the word 'creature' it should be removed or wording to counter it added.
Anyhow, I see it as a resolved issue now.
- Gauss
Edit: P.S. you are correct again, you were simply repeating what he has said regarding rulings vs his opinion. However, I find his opinion to be more valuable than most people's and since James Jacobs is the primary person responding to questions I will personally treat him as the authority until I hear from someone better equipped than he to handle such questions.
This issue was resolved at least five posts into this thread. It shouldn't have had to even been brought up to Mr. Jacobs it was another clear cut case of basic reading comprehension and plain ole stubbornness. No matter how much any of us tried to explain this issue as simply as we could it just did not get through.
The case here is very simple the word "creature" was focused on instead of the much more important "quasi-real" just for posterity here from dictionary.com
qua·si [kwey-zahy, -sahy, kwah-see, -zee] Show IPA
adjective
resembling; seeming; virtual: a quasi member.
So in this case the term "quasi real, horse like creature." means a spell that -RESEMBLES- a real horse like creature. In my opinion this all could be cleared up a lot easier by simply making the spell an illusion instead of a creation.
Vazok, as you stated that is your opinion. I try to keep a more open mind since opinions can easily be contrary while reading the same material. Additionally, 'resolved five posts in' is also your opinion.
Let me put this another way: there was another thread not long ago where someone (ie: me) put forth the idea that the word 'incorporeal' in the description of the spell Blink opened up a can of worms. I got bashed for quite awhile with comments regarding my ability to comprehend material that were similar to the ones in this thread about the OP. In the end people saw I was correct, I got backing from James Jacobs, and now my FAQ request thread has over 25 faq requests.
My point is not that this thread should result in a similar answer but that people are too quick to personally attack a person who sticks to thier opinion. I try to keep an open mind about the options and see all sides without bias or personal attacks. It would be nice if everyone on the boards did this.
- Gauss