Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6831051" data-attributes="member: 6701872">No, you just heavily implied that no matter what example I came up with you would find some grounds on which to categorically ignore it as "not valid," such as when I brought up a sub-class that adds risk to magic use which I have seen people provide testimony that they dislike specifically because they don't want the risk, and you ignored it as not valid by claiming that anyone not liking said option is doing so because it is "poorly designed." So rather than waste my time continuing to share my gathered evidence that players say "I don't want the risk", I skipped to the foreseeable end: that there is no example that you would accept as valid. Your post clearly indicated that you believed I had not though of a particular thing. That particular thing was actually present in my post you were indicating did not have said thing.So rather than being rude and assuming you were intentionally ignoring what I had said, I went the entirely not rude route of giving you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you had simply made a common mistake.I feel magic is special as-is because it does things beyond what can be done my normal non-magical means.Everything in every game ever is more mechanical than magical - imagination, not the game rules, is the tool that must be used to make things magical.</blockquote>