[Jamz]

Sorry, still not convinced it's better to not show warnings on adjustments not allowed...

1. Familiars wouldn't get a warning AFAIK, wizards can cast spells of target "You" on the familiar. OK. But the adjustment isn't added via wizard, you go to the familiar and add the adjustment. By default, "you" are the source and target as far as HL is concerned.

2. I don't think HL can police spells of target: "you", "self", "one creature", etc. Or rather it's not needed? But if the target has a restriction of "type" or "subtype" or "alignment" or other such causes, it should warn you.

3. It is always better to warn than not warn. No warnings == you may be getting away with something you are not. Warnings == GM looks, asks question, gives ok. Are you saying have a red mark/warning in HL bugs you that much?

4. For animal companions, say a Goliath Druid can cast spells that target Humanoid on their companion. But, this is a class feature. Hero Labs knows this. Can pass this information to the minion and can account for this making it valid.

5. There are already a handful of adjustments that DO take type or alignment into account and show as invalid/red if selected...

So, if you are getting, say, enlarge person that works differently than the spell, it's probably going to be a one-off situation I would think. I haven't seen any good examples on where, if this was enforced, would produce a lot of unwarranted warnings.


Edit: Shadow, thanks. Personally it's clear to me. But it's a case and point, what is clear to a programmer is not always clear to a user. It's like Variant Channeling, HL lets you click/add this awesome thing without telling you the downsides. Too many people don't read the source material anymore and build characters inside HL (for obvious reasons), myself included. I rarely go to the source material...