Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sage Genesis" data-source="post: 6239230" data-attributes="member: 6706099">I was the one who made that non-lethal mage and it was in response to Marshall, backing up his own response to GM when he claimed you couldn't make a 4e mage with more than half non-damaging powers. Just want to set the record straight, it wasn't done to prove anything about your diviner.The following, however, is.The way I see it, your definition of your diviner rests on a negatively phrased condition. This character can't do combat magic. (Leaving aside for a moment the debate about what combat magic is.) In 4e, which wanted to remove trap options and accidental power imbalances, that is not a character you can viably make. I say this as someone who likes 4e, in case that matters. It was not designed for that sort of thing.4e took a different route by defining characters in a positively phrased condition. In other words: this character can do a lot of divination magic. And yes, with the proper rituals (and maybe the Divination Mastery feat) you can make a diviner. A good diviner, even. There's plenty of divination rituals to work with, some even allowing divinations that previous editions didn't have. It's just that your diviner would also be able to contribute in a fight. If you adhere to a negatively phrased definition of your character, that is a problem. If you adhere to a positively phrased one, it isn't. (NB: the word &quot;negative&quot; is not used here as a synonym for &quot;bad&quot; but as an &quot;absence&quot;.)Personally I adhere to the positively phrased definitions. To me, it's like buying a cheese and finding they threw in a free bottle of milk with it. The cheese is the same, it's not any smaller or of lower quality, I just happened to get an added bonus. But I respect that for others this might be different and I don't intend to convince people that they must adjust their point of view.And about the name thing, yeah that's part of the joke. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sage Genesis, post: 6239230, member: 6706099"] I was the one who made that non-lethal mage and it was in response to Marshall, backing up his own response to GM when he claimed you couldn't make a 4e mage with more than half non-damaging powers. Just want to set the record straight, it wasn't done to prove anything about your diviner. The following, however, is. The way I see it, your definition of your diviner rests on a negatively phrased condition. This character [U]can't[/U] do combat magic. (Leaving aside for a moment the debate about what combat magic is.) In 4e, which wanted to remove trap options and accidental power imbalances, that is not a character you can viably make. I say this as someone who likes 4e, in case that matters. It was not designed for that sort of thing. 4e took a different route by defining characters in a positively phrased condition. In other words: this character [U]can[/U] do a lot of divination magic. And yes, with the proper rituals (and maybe the Divination Mastery feat) you can make a diviner. A good diviner, even. There's plenty of divination rituals to work with, some even allowing divinations that previous editions didn't have. It's just that your diviner would also be able to contribute in a fight. If you adhere to a negatively phrased definition of your character, that is a problem. If you adhere to a positively phrased one, it isn't. (NB: the word "negative" is not used here as a synonym for "bad" but as an "absence".) Personally I adhere to the positively phrased definitions. To me, it's like buying a cheese and finding they threw in a free bottle of milk with it. The cheese is the same, it's not any smaller or of lower quality, I just happened to get an added bonus. But I respect that for others this might be different and I don't intend to convince people that they must adjust their point of view. And about the name thing, yeah that's part of the joke. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification