Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4996254" data-attributes="member: 4937">How else was I to take it?That's not logical.  Why can't they strike with great speed and force using a weapon because their own bodies are more conditioned?I didn't say that they couldn't.  I said that the monk could not be as strong of a fighter as a fighter, and so, if your principle interest in the monk is combat, he will always seem underpowered.   The monk would be a reasonable choice for a front line fighter in a stealth centered party where no one used heavy armor, and the monk has big advantages over the fighter in some out of combat situations.  However, in general, the monk must seem weak vs. other martial classes in combat else it utterly obseletes them.That's not logical.Cheaper than no weapons?  If weapons become irrelevant, those other classes that depend on them as their primary implements would cease to exist.  Weapons might possible exist for the sake of spellcasters, who are too busy training their mind to train their bodies, but if weapons are irrelevant surely armies wouldn't use them.No arguments from me there.  If you haven't addressed issues like fireball, flight, and invisibility in your campaign and you think the world should look exactly like our own world's history, then I've got little sympathy for you when your world goes off the rails due to actions by the PC's.I'm not seeing the problem.I don't see that as a problem.  No rules set really needs to go into an elaborate metaphysical description of how magic works in order to explain all of its effects.  We don't expect sci-fi stories to give elaborate descriptions of all the science within them.  Some cursory explanation is not only enough, it's probably both all that is possible and all that can be contained within the limited framework of a rulebook.   Dropping a physics text into a rulebook would be pointless.Without some comprehensive description of the technology of magic which underlies how each spell works, I can't say whether mirror image is illogical or not.  However, personally, I find the writer of the essay you link to to be something of an idiot.  Yes, it is true that the mirror image 'popping' is an exception to how illusions normally work, but its also true that as an exception to how illusions normally work you can't see through them (knowing which images are illusions and which not) merely by successfully disbelieving them.  This implies that the technology behind 'mirror image' is somewhat different than that behind say 'silent image'.   Clearly, in 'mirror image' some sort of partially real material is created that gives the illusion real visible substance in the world, but clearly that material is as fragile and emphemeral as a bubble.  Of course, this implies that maybe you could make advanced versions of 'mirror image' that emulated 'advanced image' or phantasmal force in some respects and mirror image in others - you could see through it, but when you interacted with it it popped.  Or conversely, you could create a mirror image that couldn't be popped, but to which allowed the opponent a saving throw to ignore the effect.  But that's all up to the individual DM as to what he will allow as spell research by the PCs.</blockquote>

Verification