Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 3633811" data-attributes="member: 13107">(Omitted) steps in reasoning ...If I may,There seem to be two steps in the reasoning (in regards to wild mage and various effects) that are going unstated.What I think I am hearing is an underlying premise, perhaps, &quot;The effects of a wild mage's casting is an overall increase in power that has a cost of increased variability of spell effects, and occasions where a spell effect is less than the usual result.&quot;&nbsp; This is being taken as a defining characteristic of the class, and any result is automatically conformed to this statement.&nbsp; I don't see any explicit statements in the rules to this effect, rather, this is along the lines of what is the evident intent behind the class.A second step of the reasons then follows, one which is also omitted, that is, &quot;Well, that a Wild Mage should be able to avoid the penalties built into the class doesn't seem quite right.&nbsp; Lets ignore what is explicitly written, and patch the class to work as it seems was intended.&nbsp; If and when there are additional explicit rulings to further address the matter, we will revisit the issue.&quot;I think what is going on is that the omitted steps are to some completely obvious, and can go unstated, while for others they must be stated.As an aside, going by the explicit rules in various locations, I cannot disagree with Hyp in that the explicit rules work against the underlying (unstated) premise.&nbsp; As written (and with some authority, as the statements are rather explicit), that how it works out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 3633811, member: 13107"] [b](Omitted) steps in reasoning ...[/b] If I may, There seem to be two steps in the reasoning (in regards to wild mage and various effects) that are going unstated. What I think I am hearing is an underlying premise, perhaps, "The effects of a wild mage's casting is an overall increase in power that has a cost of increased variability of spell effects, and occasions where a spell effect is less than the usual result." This is being taken as a defining characteristic of the class, and any result is automatically conformed to this statement. I don't see any explicit statements in the rules to this effect, rather, this is along the lines of what is the evident intent behind the class. A second step of the reasons then follows, one which is also omitted, that is, "Well, that a Wild Mage should be able to avoid the penalties built into the class doesn't seem quite right. Lets ignore what is explicitly written, and patch the class to work as it seems was intended. If and when there are additional explicit rulings to further address the matter, we will revisit the issue." I think what is going on is that the omitted steps are to some completely obvious, and can go unstated, while for others they must be stated. As an aside, going by the explicit rules in various locations, I cannot disagree with Hyp in that the explicit rules work against the underlying (unstated) premise. As written (and with some authority, as the statements are rather explicit), that how it works out. [/QUOTE]

Verification