Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6239218" data-attributes="member: 7635">I go back to my chair analogy: A chair's primary use is to sit in. Because I could pick one up and hit you with it doesn't make it a weapon by definition. Its 100% useless in a dungeon with 10 ft ceilings. That's why I hate to call it a defensive buff. Its useful only when the situation is right, but as I said above, just because I can use it as a form of defense doesn't make it a combat spell, merely a spell with uses in combat. Hey, I'm not the one calling sleep damage!&nbsp; 4e has a lot more spells that are &quot;combat&quot; spells. I won't disagree there. I also saw its possible to but a non-combat (or at least, nonlethal) wizard as well. Points to them. My point is that people are defining terms in very broad nets. If Sleep is a damaging spell or fly a combat buff, then no spell (or few spells) actually qualify as non-combat, which makes the definition useless. If I'm playing the wizard and I say &quot;I'm prepping lots of combat magic&quot; you're probably going to assume I have spells like Magic Missile, Fireball, or Summon Monster; not Light, Fly, or Dispel Magic. The problem when you're not arguing specific editions: I can argue from a d20-era PoV, you can argue AD&amp;D, and someone else can argue 4e and we can use semantic tricks (like how light once had a combat use) to prove the other wrong.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 6239218, member: 7635"] I go back to my chair analogy: A chair's primary use is to sit in. Because I could pick one up and hit you with it doesn't make it a weapon by definition. Its 100% useless in a dungeon with 10 ft ceilings. That's why I hate to call it a defensive buff. Its useful only when the situation is right, but as I said above, just because I can use it as a form of defense doesn't make it a combat spell, merely a spell with uses in combat. Hey, I'm not the one calling sleep damage! 4e has a lot more spells that are "combat" spells. I won't disagree there. I also saw its possible to but a non-combat (or at least, nonlethal) wizard as well. Points to them. My point is that people are defining terms in very broad nets. If Sleep is a damaging spell or fly a combat buff, then no spell (or few spells) actually qualify as non-combat, which makes the definition useless. If I'm playing the wizard and I say "I'm prepping lots of combat magic" you're probably going to assume I have spells like Magic Missile, Fireball, or Summon Monster; not Light, Fly, or Dispel Magic. The problem when you're not arguing specific editions: I can argue from a d20-era PoV, you can argue AD&D, and someone else can argue 4e and we can use semantic tricks (like how light once had a combat use) to prove the other wrong. [/QUOTE]

Verification