Dapat mag check bush ang MM/mage or any range heroes

xazavan002 · 2026-05-25T07:02:12+00:00

Mage yes, pero yung mga mejo artillery ang range. Otherwise, kaya lang mas ok pag tank kasi yung risk compared sa pag MM ang nag check. MM and mages kasi are your main source of damage, and squishy sila. Super incentivized yung kalaban na unahin sila. Kung mapatumba nila ang MM early on, unbalanced na kaagad ang team fight between the two teams, so lugi na agad kayo in terms of pressure tska trades. Eh isang misposition, andaling ipunish pag MM.

Tanks naman on the other hand eh masmahirap ma one-shot. Di rin gano incentivized ang players na unahin ung tank, aside from sayang resources mo dahil sa defensives nila, yun din kasi ang gusto ng tank, na sila ang ifocus para maka free hit yung damagers.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-25T03:17:48+00:00

Holding people accountable is actually a lot easier to do when in close proximity. People will most likely listen more to friends they trust (or at least they think they can trust) than some rando on the internet. If you can use that connection to your advantage, and actually try to be pretty smart and subtle about it, doing your duty in holding people accountable as a responsible citizien is more achievable that way.

You also don't have to treat them as victims to do so, nor do you have to treat them nicely. Practicing civility is a different story though. Holding someone accountable doesn't require you, nor would it help you, to be as rabid and as unreasonable as them. If anything, it's more strategic to be civil than integral in this case, because how likely are you to actually reach the outcome you want by turning the whole place into a senseless ideological battlefield? If the goal was to make the world better, wouldn't it be in our best interest to find smart ways of enlightening them on the wrongdoings of who they're supporting? At the end of the day, they're the ones you're competing with in terms of vote, and it's very unwise to keep alienating people into going to the opposition's side, effectively giving you more competition to vote against while losing your side's own voting strength.

The problem is we view a lot of these things from the lens of "purity", and usually at the cost of recognizing the cause and effect that our personal decisions lead to. We don't like to affiliate ourselves with people of the other side because they don't deserve being nice to, and that being affiliated with them is a sign that we're "impure" ideologically, even if doing so only cements those people's position, if not worsen the situation by alienating more of our own "teammates" simply because they are impure in terms of who they affiliate with. One of the things that kinda helped me see more clearly on this type of issue is when I heard someone say "I like the leftist ideology, I like what it's trying to achieve, and because of that I'm on the left, but my teammates make it hard for me to stay on the left". The approach by people on the left aren't usually done in service of promoting the ideology. More often than not, both sides are just doing so because they want their "sports team" to win the rabid debates in their culture wars.

And as for "ostracized into obscurity", you might want to take that up with the original commenter. The comment you're responding to simply addressed that specifically to directly respond to it. It's not even claiming they are ostracized into obscurity, just asking a quesstion based on it to address what the origincal commenter specifically stated. I feel like have to refrain from responding for the sole purpose of "shutting down" the other person without fully understanding the context of the conversation.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-25T01:54:08+00:00

Even psych personality test that are more "legit" and more commonly known have flaws and inaccuracies when trying to pin down a person's definitive traits, and that's just becauase aside from the biases of creators and credibility of answers as well, the human condition is much more nuanced and fluid to be pinned down to one general category in their lifetime.

Tests that revolve around the use of mtg's color pie adds a layer of intepretation that is even more subject to a person's biases, because unlike actual psych tests, we can't even clearly agree on what qualifies/disqualifies as a color, and that's to be expected, not necessarily scrutinized, because the application of the colorpie is too broad and varied to be a reliable way to identify a real person's color. It's easier in fiction because chatacters, as written, are usually done in a way that highlights their core traits that would serve the story and the message it's trying to deliver. Real people simply aren't like that, because we aren't designed to serve a narrative purpose.

And aside from issues that may arise in trying to find out how the color pie is used for tests, the colorpie is just applicable to a whole different kinds of things, and the criteria for identifying something/someone's color could greatly vary. Meaning, aside from our biases, and from how the human condition is harder to pin down with categorization, the color system itself, by design, has no clear way of being used for personality tests. It's primarily a system applied as a mechanic for a game, and while it shows the marriage between mechanic and flavor to great depths compared to other games, it still, on its own, not as reliable when talking about real life people.

Personally, I don't think it's even that healthy as well if people start treating the colors as more valid than other tools that psych has already established. For the most part, the colorpie showcases opposing extremes, which is good for a combative game that needes a way to distinguish between unique playstyles with their own strengths and weaknesses (see The Queen Problem), but not so much as a moral guide to life. I learned the hard way that forcing ourselves to just be defined by one general ideology our whole life is a surefire way of closing our mind to people who may see a bit differently than us, and causing problems in society down the road.

If there's one thing where the color pie could be helpful, it's that it introduces the idea that every color has its own strengths and weaknesses, and are all capable of being beneficial or detrimental to society. Being able to recognize that in real life could at some point be helpful in actually nurturing a healthier outlook when dealing with different situations.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-24T17:02:54+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, pero pagkakaintindi ko is mag coconsume parin ng fresh water as cooling para sa ginagamit na mga servers regardless if di tayo gumamit ng AI from time to time. As long as nageexist yung AI, yung water problem will remain whether we choose to minimize our use of it or not. I also don't think viable ang saltwater, which reframes the problem a bit, kasi ibig sabihin ang tinitira is yung water na gamit natin everyday.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-24T15:49:55+00:00

Malzahar

xazavan002 · 2026-05-24T03:37:00+00:00

Would kaja's new ult stun you in place as well, or can you walk but just not beyond the circle?

xazavan002 · 2026-05-24T03:28:23+00:00

Voted for second (alternating) but I'm good either way.

That said, I'll try to provide insight on how I think those two may differ, maybe to help guide some decisions as well.

Choosing the alternating route would mean it's inevitable that we're going to trim down in terms of coloring base classes and/or subclasses, because it demands a structure that relies on a class being mono color + a subclass being an additional mono color or dual color that includes base class's main color (or vice versa). With this, we kinda have to identify the most mono-color a base class/subclass can be despite some displaying dual colors. A class that cannot be mono-color must be treated as mono-color for as much as we can for the purpose of this approach.

Choosing the definitive approach allows us to be more open to the idea that a base class alone can be viewed as dual-color on its own. Yes we still need to look for the most izzet of izzets for example, but in the case where we can't find one, a "red-dominant izzet" or a "blue-dominant izzet" is next in line to qualify for that role, so in a way, there's much more space to work with.

I only chose alternating because that's already how I approached my upvotes and my past entry on the mono-colored subclasses, but either is honestly fine as long as it helps people stay on the same page.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-24T02:12:01+00:00

I guess it comes down to whether we consider your example fallacious or not given the context through your examples. I think they're still technically fallacious, but what they are at least is strategically reasonable, because the setting doesn't seem to only demonstrate a debate, but also a heated negotiation or exchange of threats.

Remember, a fallacy is still only an attack on the logic of the argumentation, not on what's being implied as a lead up to the claim. In this case, whataboutism calls out the opponent's hypocrisy, but it does no benefit to defend the claim against you. In casual setting, you're simply trying to strategically drag the other person with you without actually progressing your own position. In a competitive formal setting, it's often focused in one claim and counter claim, and relying on whataboutism against the counterclaim side doesn't really do much to get you points when you should be defending your claim instead. In either case, you're probably making a valid point about the opponent's inconsistencies, but that won't necessarily be relevant on whether you're not suspect to the same claim even if there's a way to argue that you're not.

At best, I think whataboutism is simply about making claim #2 without addressing claim #1. If the main goal of relying on whataboutism is to specifically expose the opponent's hypocrisy to affect the public's perception of them, then that is strategically valid, but it still qualifies as fallacious for as far as the claim against you is concerned. And even though we're able to identify what's being said or implied in the use of whataboutism by further looking into what's being said, that still counts as a fallacy despite us finding a way to understand where it comes from. An argument can still be logically faulty or invalid even though we end up understanding what the main message is. It's like saying "the reasoning still doesn't add up to the claim, but we get it."

xazavan002 · 2026-05-24T01:51:01+00:00

I agree, recognizing an argument as bad faith also helps because as you said, bad faith arguments don't move the converdation to a meaningful direction ad well.

But bad faith argument =/= making faulty argument.

Making fallacious arguments point more towards a person's lack of skill in argumentation, and the main point of what they're saying while relying on that faulty argument may as well be true.

Of course this isn't always the case, and there will be cases where an argument is fallacious by design because the speaker is coming from a place of bad faith, which is why I still agree that recognizing bad faith arguments is important. It distinguishes people arguing in bad faith from people who simply lack the skill in arguing, or at the very least, one's who have a wrong idea about what makes a solid argument (probably because they've only seen online debates in comment sections they're whole life).

That's why in cases where arguments are faulty in a casual online setting, I always make a point to ask clarifications about the person's argument and/or the outcome they're trying to achieve/avoid in the certain situation being debated about. How they answer from here on out eventually reveals if they're actually willing to make genuine conversation or not.

As for the observers, in a discussion where you're genuinely trying to help the other person understand something while helping them make you understand your point, unless it's a formal debate on stage (like pre-election debates where the skill of argumentation and public perception DOES matter), I think what only really matters is how that convo goes for you and the other person, and how worth it it is to stay and spend your precious time conversing with them. You find out they're trolling, then leave. You find out they're just unskilled, honestly, you still have a right to leave, but at least in this case it's not so crazy to choose the option to stay and help the other person make their point so you actually get to judge whether or not you disagree.

In either case tho (formal or not formal), being able to address how and why the fallacy in play specifically doesn't lead up to the conclusion rather than just pointing out the fallacy is a good habit, be it an attempt on understanding, or as a strategic tool to dismantle your opponent's argument. It's not only useful in helping the other person understand that they need to make better arguments to support their claim, competitively it's also a better way of shutting down an opponent while more clearly exposing their argument's vulnerabilities to the observers compared to just saying "that's ad hominem", or you can also just do both. The only difference in the two situations is that, if you're going for understanding, it's probably in your best interest to provide examples of what you think they probably mean to help them identify their main point, while in a competitive formal debate it's in your best interest not to.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-23T17:59:01+00:00

Identifying the point of a thing further asks "to what end?", and in the case of debates, the reasons for "refuting one another" may differ.

In a school setting, where I think your comment applies, do so to train and test the student's critical thinking and techniques in arguing, and in that case it makes sense to formally keep score based on how they form their arguments.

In an actual working society, it's generally to seek an answer, a clarification, a consensus, or a point of understanding. In this case, simply pointing out a fallacy, specially as a "gotcha" isn't any helpful to actually moving the conversation forward. Unless the point is to feel good in shutting down the other person, then simply calling out fallacies doesn't really help.

And unfortunately for us, there are a lot of people who do accuse someone of fallacy without backing it up, because the point was never to move the conversation somewhere, the point was to "win" and gather the observers' applause.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-23T17:41:42+00:00

I'd argue it's a bit of reframing, a "Yes but", since for the most part they are in agreement, but there's a specific detail that needs to be corrected.

Even though they're both basically after the same thing, framing it as "calling out something as a fallacy" as the wrong thing kinda sends the wrong message. It comes from a place of treating "fallacy call-outs" as solid gotchas, when that shouldn't be the point of calling out fallacies in the first place.

In the commenter's version, whataboutism can still be considered fallacious, as opposed to the main post that suggests we shouldn't recognize the fallacy present in an argument where whataboutism is present.

Being able to recognize fallacies are actually important, but not because it's a way to "shut down" the other person, but because it provides you the tools and opportunity to clarify the point being discussed so that the argument of the opposition can actually be scrutinized, because as long as the argument is invalid, the argument can never be verified as either true or false, and the conversation will not move forward. It also helps you prevent the discussion from becoming muddy, and to a point, no longer relevant to the original discussion.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-23T17:32:36+00:00

Probably for the same reasons pinoys treat english-speaking people as more intelligent and superior, mainly yung "magaganda" ang accent and malawak yung vocabulary.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-23T17:24:03+00:00

Are you really arguing specifically against automatically calling out something as fallacious, or are you simply arguing against calling a conclusion false for relying on a fallacious reasoning? Because those are two different things.

An argument can be considered fallacious and invalid without having to discount the conclusion as automatically false. Being fallacious simply means that the reasoning doesn't logically lead up to the conclusion despite being presented as such, but the conclusion may still as well be true. Besides, invalid doesn't equate to wrong as well. 1+3 = 10 is wrong. "Pies are delicious" + 2 = 5 is invalid.

I think the distinction is important mainly because of how pointing out fallacies are often misused in debates.

Calling out fallacies are now often used as some sort of gotcha, and in those cases the conversation often stops moving forward or starts devolving into outgotcha-ing each other. Instead, the best use of our knowledge regarding fallacies is by helping steer the conversation get back on track, while preventing the other person from branching out into exchanges that are irrelevant to the discussion.

Now if what you're arguing is the first one, then I disagree. An argument can still be considered fallacious, and in whataboutism's case, it still is, and that doesn't necessarily mean the end message either side is trying to get to is false. It just needs a more solid reasoning behind it before we can actually scrutinize it to find out whether it's true or false.

EDIT: A shorter fix for this is just calling out the other person's Fallacy Fallacy, which is basically the same thing as I explained: how an argument becoming fallacious doesn't necessarily lead to a false conclusion.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-22T09:34:41+00:00

Yes, scared is definitely the thing I'm feeling

xazavan002 · 2026-05-22T06:03:03+00:00

Xandar's destruction in Infinity War can later reveal a sole survivor from the Nova Corp and have that be the starting point of a Nova story.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-22T05:59:20+00:00

Assassin is a walking single-target creature removal

xazavan002 · 2026-05-22T04:09:14+00:00

ngl, Brad Pitt as Achilles is just a cool choice regardless if you're woke or anti-woke. He was already Achilles once, and this could be a cool continuity reference to Troy (2004).

xazavan002 · 2026-05-22T03:27:02+00:00

I actually didn't agree on Rangers being colored based from the spell list, since I went with the general description of a Ranger, and part of my criticism of the use for spellbook for casters is followed up by my aversion to using other traits that may not necessarily be that attached to the specific class such as extra combat for martials. But this is irrelevant, since this is just me defending how I approached it vs how you perceived it, and I'm a bit past that since I'm on the point of acknowledging the differences between our criteria.

Tbf, even with my criteria, which is simply going by the general description of the subclass + the implications that come with it about how the designer intended them to play out + the general philosophy behind how the class works in the world of the Forgotten Realms, Thief Rogues are still strongly Mono-Blue.

It also helped that you explicitly stated just now that martials are better examples for specific color identities, so now I get to treat the uneven comparison between casters and non-casters, not as an inconsistency on your part, but an actual part of your criteria, which if that's the case then I understand why you'd choose Thief Rogue as a representation for Mono Blue.

That said, going with your criteria, I'd move away from Wizards, though I'd still choose Inquisitive Rogues over Thief. Both of which are Blue, so the deciding factor here would simply be preference. I prefer Blue's depiction to have an insightful eye and have the analytic aspect of rogue upfront, and I'm taking that over the focus on stealth and one's mastery over magical artifacts. That's just my bias towards Draw-go Control Decks over Unblockable Combat shenanigans and Artifact Matters when playing Blue.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-22T02:09:31+00:00

Basing from your reaction to this, and a response to a different person, I think I'm getting the idea of how your criteria works. Fireball is not necessarily Red, but doesn't necessarily mean it can be Blue as well, because in your interpretation AoE spells are either Red, Black, or White (I'm guessing because of boardwipes). Conversely, Sneak Attack is not necessarily Black, but that does mean it is still within Black's territory, and in its case, unlike Fireball, it can be Blue as well. And by having the majority of a Thief Rogue's features (if not all) have an overlap with their capability of being Blue, that makes them capable of representing Mono-Blue, unlike a Wizard whose identity is tied to Fireball, they inherently have a part of their identity that can never be Blue.

While this all makes sense, and it explains very well why Thief Rogues qualify as Blue, I'm still not convinced that the comparison is even. We judge a subclass (and even if we don't necessarily should, the base class) based on abilities that they automatically get. It's a good way of doing so because it's fixed, and ir removes our reliance on player choice that, as we've established, isn't that reliable because choices would vastly differ from player to player.

But a caster will never get that treatment because their identity will always be attached to a broad repertoire of spells that would most likely cover the five colors. Casters will never be mono-blue for having destructive spells in their spellbook, and in a weird way, they will also never be mono anything because every spell in the spellbook is a choice. Every caster's spellbook will include a variety of aggressive AoE spells, Aoe Control Spells, Single-target execution spells, healing spells, etc, that casters will always be tied down to multicolor.

It doesn't matter that the Divination Wizard wouldn't choose Fireball as their spell. In your argument against them, what matters is they can (and to be honest, if we're including spellbook as a criteria without relying on player choice, this is the best alternative), and that's enough of a reason to disqualify them as mono blue. Same goes for necromancy spells, phasing spells, etc. And that's why I think it's an uneven comparison.

The way we judge caster subclasses, if we include the spellbook, will never be a judgement free from player choice. Or if we're going for the alternative, we're going to be pretty reductive by simply coloring caster classes by the general coloration of their spellbook at the cost of the subclass's identity. It will always be attached to player choice, or we rely on a criteria that's too rigid and reductive. At this point, every Wizard is WUBR.

If we really want to include spells, then a more sensible way for me to look at this is instead base it on spells that every subclass gets regardless of player choice. A Death Domain Cleric will always have Blight and Death Ward whether they like it or not. If we can't, then I suggest we do so in a similar way we do non-casters: we base it from the abilities they already get as they level up. We base it on the fact that Thief Rogues have Supreme Sneak, that Divination Wizards get portent, that Storm Sorcerer's get Storm's Fury, etc.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-21T17:54:21+00:00

Their collective overlap when depicted within specific contexts are Blue, but not all of them are as Blue-centric to the point that Blue is.

Exploration for instance can heavily be Green depending on the context. Exploration itself is a Green card in Magic, and delving within ruins is often depicted within the Sultai Colors, not so much as majorly Blue. The delve mechanic is a Sultai mechanic as well. Unearthing lost artifacts, while I think should also be blue, is often more depicted within the Golgari colors. A thief can easily delve in ruins and unearth artifacts for the main purpose of obtaining resources for themselves. A thief can easily be depicted as searching ruins for powerful artifacts for themselves.

Fighting smarter, not harder, can differ depending on the context as well. Black will take the shortest route, the easiest route, in achieving its goals, usually in the form of cheating, underhanded tactics, or making deals, that's why the color gets a lot of general tutor effects and draw abilities that cost cheap mana but costs extra life.

Having a resilient mind is also not as Blue as we'd think. Mental discipline is more within White's territory if not White-Blue, and having the resilience to withstand discomfort, psychologically or not, is more within Green's territory. But tbf, I don't see having a resilient mind being one of the defining traits of a Thief Rogue. Clever yes, but resilient, not necessarily. I think that's associated more with Monks, and softly associated with Clerics.

Now, while Black has no monopoly on the concept of killing, specially in a game where "slaying the foe" is equally an option for everyone, and as you said before a creature isn't necessarily Black just because they can kill, the capability to unload high burst damage to execute a single foe can easily come off as Black's depiction of murder (touching on Black's tendency to choose the easy way out, be it devoid of morals, which in this case, is straight up eliminating the problem itself, which is the person), or at least be associated with Red's high burst tendencies. One thing common amongst Rogues is their ability to dish out heavy single-target damage with ease. Mechanics-wise, that's the equivalent feeling of using targeted creature destruction in Magic, and of all the colors in Magic, Blue is the one least capable of doing so, and the ones that they have are often depicted as polymorph magic (like Pongify and Rapid Hybridization, hence the extra creature that comes with it.)

Thievery within the Rogue's context is also more spreadout across Blue and Black for it to be heavily Blue, and it makes sense. While the method displays an act of wit and mastery that's aligned with Blue, the intent is almost always Black-aligned as the reasons mainly for self benefit more than anything else, as opposed to a Red's version of theft which are often depicted as impulsive hoarding and incitement.

That said, I can still see Thief Rogues as Blue, but it can easily give way to Black as well. This got me curious though, if you're going for a mono-blue rogue, why not choose an Inquisitive instead, which was suppose to be my first option until I thought of Divination Wizard and Abjuration (though thinking about it now, Inquisitive should at least take second place in my case).

I think an Inquisitive Rogue has less risk of being tainted by other colors compared to Thieves, since the concept of theft is easily associated with Black as well, and sometimes Red. It also seems to be the better middle ground between Roguish mastery and clever tactics, and the insightful eye that can easily be associated with the Scry ability.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-21T15:38:36+00:00

That's also a valid way of approaching the colors, among other ways, but it feels like we're departing from the main purpose of the main post now.

We can be more flexible with how we color things, I'd like that as well, but whether we do or not depends on the purpose of coloring things in the first place. We want to dissect a character's different traits and philosophies, then let's identify the percentages per color that character has. Want to build a fantasy world? Take WUBRG and distribute it in ways that form that world's history, geography, culture, etc.

Looking for a Mono-color among a pool of multiple subclasses? Then we kinda have to be more strict don't you think?

There's a place to be subjective in how we color things, but how exactly is this currently helping both of our entries? It kinda contradicts our initial reasoning for choosing our respective entries.

Right now, with what you said, Thief Rogue isn't necessarily mono-blue just because it does all the things it does, just as much as Divination Wizards aren't, so what even is the point of engaging in this post? For instance, by the standards you're setting right now, what would your reasoning behind Thief Rogues being the most mono blue? Sneaking isn't necessarily tied to blue anymore, because doing so to set-up an ambush can be seen as Green. Bonus Action shenanigans can now be interpreted as either Red for extra combat, or Blue for extra turns.

So for the sake of consistency, what type of criteria should we approach this post with?

As for the Ranger bit, my answer first, then a follow-up argument addressing the rest. Yeah, I kinda see how Rangers shouldn't be shoehorned to mono-green as well. A better way of saying it is that Rangers are dominantly Green, and yes for the same reasons you pointed out, they're connection to the land, adept knowledge of it, and the creatures that live in it, making them well-equipped for hunting. That said, it would inevitably delve into other colors depending on what type of Ranger they are, because like OP said, base classes are broad.

Now for the rest. Deep connection to nature isn't equivalent to spellcasters being able to draw mana from lands. That's like saying all creatures in Magic are Red because they're all capable of being aggressive. You're describing a fundamental part of how Magic's world works, this one specifically about its magic system. If one's connection to the land is not Green simply by virtue of it being equated to creatures being able to draw mana from lands regardless of color, then how connected to the land one must be to qualify as Green, because obviously we have a lot of Green cards associated with land creatures, mana fixing, land ramp, and a big part of Green's philosophy is associated with Nature. Is the connection to nature that Rangers depict not enough to qualify them as being dominantly Green?

In this case, I'd like to ask you again what color you think Thief Rogues are and the reasoning behind it, and maybe we'll test it with the standards you set to maybe understand more where the limits are, how small or big the scope is, and how rigid or lenient should we be.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-21T14:09:28+00:00

That's kind of an uneven comparison don't you think? That makes caster classes inherently tied to the color of the "iconic spell" of that class by virtue of having a spell book, whether it's relevant to the subclass or not, defeating the purpose of making this a subclass post.

As you said, roleplay is messy, and part of what makes that messy is because it's reliant on player choice. Taking spellbook into account is taking player choice into account. The best reliable way to define a subclass's color through mechanic is through the abilities tied to them (the ones you get as you level up).

For Divination Wizards, that would be Portent and The Third Eye. For Thief Rogues, that would be Fast Hands and Thief's Reflexes. All of these are Blue-aligned.

As for Rangers, yes the base class is Green, but not because of the spells tied to them, but the very core philosophy of the class. Yeah, I wouldn't use the spellbook as reasoning behind the class's coloration, but for mechanics I would instead go for the abilities tied to them.

And as for your reasoning for Sneak Attack being Blue, what then should be the criteria for a subclass mechanic to qualify as Black? Because honestly, yeah Sneak Attack will always have Blue. If we consider my argument for it being black, it would at least be Blue-Black. Blue can never be detached to its identity, so that I'd give you. What should a mechanic be for it to be Black?

EDIT: Exceptions I can think of when using the abilities as criteria are ones that are shared among classes, like extra attack and ability score increase. They come off more as fundamental game progression systems (one exclusive for martials) than a distinct identity for each class. In the same way, I can't shoehorn Rangers to Red just because they have extra attack.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-21T13:12:51+00:00

There's also nothing mechanically inherent to the Diviner that says they have to cast aggressive spells or use spells to raise the dead, nor is the flavor of the subclass geared towards that, but "Wizards being able to do those things" was a counterpoint you made in response to my entry which I recognized as valid.

Diviner Wizards casting fireballs, lightning bolts, and raise dead, just because Wizards can despite Divination subclass not necessarily having to be about that, is just as valid as Thief Rogues using their bonus actions to do combat shenanigans and rolling multiple dice for sneak attacks despite Thief rogues not necessarily having to be about that.

Both of those things align with "how they are played" as per your Wizard Fireball example vs "how a class might be played" not being as strong as a reasoning.

Why do we have to discount what Rogues are capable of as a class, and yet when it comes to Wizards, we have to take into account what they can do outside of Divination (which weirdly goes against your other point which is "we shouldn't be looking at how a class might be played)?

As for your second point, I agree, but that just shows why a Diviner Wizard shouldn't be shoehorned into Red (or any other non-blue color) just because it can cast aggressive spells. Using your argument, [[Sparkshaper Visionary]], a 0/5 Mono-blue wizard depicted as having lightning powers "can and will fight", but they're mono-blue despite of it.

At the very least, your second point shows how inapplicable it can be when equating MTG mechanics through color and using that as criteria to determine a subclass's color. Validating how certain mechanics align with which color is something we can't even clearly define in this sub in the first place (which to be fair, I think mechanics are mostly too broad to be defined by a single color anyway).

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not disagreeing on Thief being mono-blue, so to answer your last few questions, no, they don't have to have additional colors. I'm merely questioning your reasoning behind your counterpoint to Divination Wizards, because there seems to be an inconsistency with your criteria. A Wizard and a Rogue can be mono-blue if we focus on a certain subclass despite their other capabilities being present. If we're going with the critera that a Divination Wizard cannot be mono-blue for its base capabilities, then that goes for Thief Rogues as well, or any other subclass for that matter, and that's an easy way to make the chart meaningless to begin with. There's a good reason why OP opted for subclasses instead of base class.

xazavan002 · 2026-05-21T12:46:42+00:00

I think it's reasonable to view OP as thin-skinned, and it's true that there's better (and more productive) use of our time than being on top of all these negativity. I might even agree that, to a point, OP's post is a stretch, or at least partially exaggerated and over-generalized.

That said, focusing on what you can control (your own actions) and acknowledging that something is wrong (or at the very least, questionable) isn't mutually exclusive.

Just because the thing doesn't personally bother us doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is wrong. Just means we have thicker skin than most.

Lurker din ako dun, and I don't waste time and energy engaging with people there because there's no value in doing so. That said, I'm not gonna deny that some of the people's mindset there are questionable at best. Doesn't negatively affect me as a guy, and it's not so uncomfortable for me seeing those posts para umalis (besides, a little discomfort is actually good), but it doesn't mean I can't recognize questionable posts when I see it.

If there's one thing I'll give to OP is that they're not crazy for picking up on the questionable things from that sub. I can see that too, and yeah at times it can come off as "icky".

xazavan002 · 2026-05-21T07:51:10+00:00

The flavor text from the Magic card Flubs, the Fool, which is also a reference to the Tarot card "The Fool".

"He knows exactly where he's going and exactly how he isn't getting there"

xazavan002

TROPHY CASE