Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 2423904" data-attributes="member: 5724">I'm trying to say there is no patterns, yet it works consistantly for repitition, but provides no information for experimentation. It's like things falling at the same speed regardless of weight. There's no reason to assume that all "fire" spells share common traits which can lead to postutlating a "theory of gravity" based upon observable "firey" actions. Any knowledge one gains about "fireball" is useless for any other spell. There's nothing that "transfers over" because there's no pattern connecting each individual spell (and each individual caster's version of the spell) to each other. And when I say no pattern, I don't have to mean "no observable pattern" I can really mean NO pattern.I'm saying that there is no bit of information that explains multiple pieces of empirical data because there is no shared causility. In order to have a pattern (of anything) there has to be a shared causility or you're dealing with coincidence. To me, magic never works in the same way twice, although you can use it in the same way twice. Magic is always causaly coincidental, yet works like a pattern as long as exactly the same words/movements/materials are involved. Change even the tiniest bit, and it wont work unless you change it into a different caster's version of the same spell.I'm trying to say that the data set you have obvservable doesn't have to have a pattern outside of each spell working as described. There doesn't have to be a pattern connecting any spell to any other spell— no Harry Potteresque "Leviosa!" connecting levitation/flying/air spells —no shared movements or componants. Just because one can cast a spell the same way everytime doesn't mean that anything you just did has any connection to any other spell in the game (that's an assumption based upon the idea that things which work consitantly cannot be coincidentaly caused-I argue that magic breaks that). Worse than that, you can get the same exact effects using different words/movements/materials.Above and below that data set is no pattern either. It seems like your arguement is that there's a pattern (which is completely rational, there's always a pattern in the real world when dealing with non-quantum things and even then there are some patterns/probabilities) but my argument is that there's really not a pattern —that there's really no shared traits that have any similiar/shared/paternable effects.Again, you seem to be working under the base assuption that there's a pattern because magic works. If I'm understanding properly, you think that if there was no pattern, it would only be conincidence and magic couldn't work in the way it works in D&D if it was only coincidence. I'm saying, yes it can, because its magic and it doesn't have to follow logic, rationality, or anything anyone else thinks about how something should work.joe b.</blockquote>

Verification