Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6194122" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think my main point is that I don't see what value it creates. It's meaningless categorization for no real benefit.True, but why should it have to do both? Of what benefit is the distinction of being a Mage? Why can't it just give you some spells you can cast, and then have the capacity to cast those spells count enough for using items that rely on you casting those spells? (If you even want items to rely on that, which I'm certainly open to them NOT relying on that)Why not just let anyone with training in Arcana use scrolls? Or anyone with an INT of 10+Spell Level? Why introduce another category that then excludes, say, a paladin of a Cthuloid deity from using an item that summons tentacles just because she's not a &quot;mage?&quot; And why does she get to use a Holy Avenger? What is or is not a &quot;mage&quot; is meaningless, arbitrary, and artificial -- it can't help but not capture the actual kinds of characters that may or may not want to use a scroll that lets them summon tentacles.I don't think your suggestion is well supported. A character who learns magic from dusty tomes of forgotten lore and a character who learns magic from pacts sworn with questionable extraplanar entities are two completely, fundamentally, different kinds of character. They share the &quot;learns magic&quot; verbage, but they share that verbage with 95% of every fantasy archetype, so that's not a very useful distinction. Why not just say that anyone can use it? Or anyone with Scroll proficiency? Or anyone with an Int of 15 or more? Why introduce an entirely new, largely meaningless, super-category?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6194122, member: 2067"] I think my main point is that I don't see what value it creates. It's meaningless categorization for no real benefit. True, but why should it have to do both? Of what benefit is the distinction of being a Mage? Why can't it just give you some spells you can cast, and then have [I]the capacity to cast those spells[/I] count enough for using items that rely on you casting those spells? (If you even want items to rely on that, which I'm certainly open to them NOT relying on that) Why not just let anyone with training in Arcana use scrolls? Or anyone with an INT of 10+Spell Level? Why introduce another category that then excludes, say, a paladin of a Cthuloid deity from using an item that summons tentacles just because she's not a "mage?" And why does she get to use a Holy Avenger? What is or is not a "mage" is meaningless, arbitrary, and artificial -- it can't help but not capture the actual kinds of characters that may or may not want to use a scroll that lets them summon tentacles. I don't think your suggestion is well supported. A character who learns magic from dusty tomes of forgotten lore and a character who learns magic from pacts sworn with questionable extraplanar entities are two completely, fundamentally, different kinds of character. They share the "learns magic" verbage, but they share that verbage with 95% of every fantasy archetype, so that's not a very useful distinction. Why not just say that anyone can use it? Or anyone with Scroll proficiency? Or anyone with an Int of 15 or more? Why introduce an entirely new, largely meaningless, super-category? [/QUOTE]

Verification