Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Full Bleed" data-source="post: 7133442" data-attributes="member: 89831">Have to disagree.&nbsp; I never indicated that the *mechanics* were less firm.&nbsp; You've connected those dots (probably because I talk about weak mechanical syntax later).&nbsp; But the &quot;firm&quot; quote came from Hemlock's creative &quot;in game&quot; reasoning for why the Sorcerer couldn't bend their own luck (&quot;The Sorcerer is a firm place to stand.&quot;)And while I respect the attempt, I rejected the conclusion that anything about the lore of a Sorcerer indicates that it's ever really &quot;standing on firm ground&quot;.&nbsp; I maintained that Wild Magic is, in fact, infirm.&nbsp; For many other classes I think Hemlock's concept is solid with some slick philosophical word-speak to back it up.I will concede that I, inadvertently, invited such creative explorations of the exclusion by saying: &quot;I can't come up with a reasonable justification for the limitation&quot; in the op.When what I meant was that I couldn't come up with a satisfying justification for the limitation within the scope of the game (of course, I could make something up like Hemlock did)... and that I could find no justification in the rules to explain it (whereas, where there are similar exclusions, there are often explanations provided.)&nbsp; My hope was to find some hidden Sage Advice or core text that went into more detail... or to see exactly how many people actually ignore the inferred exclusion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Full Bleed, post: 7133442, member: 89831"] Have to disagree. I never indicated that the *mechanics* were less firm. You've connected those dots (probably because I talk about weak mechanical syntax later). But the "firm" quote came from Hemlock's creative "in game" reasoning for why the Sorcerer couldn't bend their own luck ("The Sorcerer is a firm place to stand.") And while I respect the attempt, I rejected the conclusion that anything about the lore of a Sorcerer indicates that it's ever really "standing on firm ground". I maintained that Wild Magic is, in fact, infirm. For many other classes I think Hemlock's concept is solid with some slick philosophical word-speak to back it up. I will concede that I, inadvertently, invited such creative explorations of the exclusion by saying: "I can't come up with a reasonable justification for the limitation" in the op. When what I meant was that I couldn't come up with a satisfying justification for the limitation within the scope of the game (of course, I could make something up like Hemlock did)... and that I could find no justification in the rules to explain it (whereas, where there are similar exclusions, there are often explanations provided.) My hope was to find some hidden Sage Advice or core text that went into more detail... or to see exactly how many people actually ignore the inferred exclusion. [/QUOTE]

Verification