Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7181487" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, let's see about that.&nbsp;&nbsp; Wait... you think that is logical?&nbsp;&nbsp; Well, yes, because that point of view is completely logical.&nbsp;&nbsp; But ok, for the sake of argument, let's see if your description holds up as accurate.Nope, we've already ran into trouble.&nbsp; Far from being logically consistent, your description has already just within this short space of time become incoherent and self-contradictory.&nbsp;&nbsp; Either something literally is instantaneous or else it requires a measurable amount of time to occur, however short.&nbsp;&nbsp; It cannot be both.&nbsp;&nbsp; A short single word or a small gesture is not instantaneous by definition, but occurs in a short but still measurable amount of time.&nbsp; 'Short' and 'instantaneous' are not the same thing.&nbsp; My argument never depended on how long that amount of time was, but only that it existed as some amount of time larger than 0 (or larger than the minimum quantum of time).&nbsp; A short single word or small gesture can still be detected both by intent and actual action, and therefore responded to or interrupted.&nbsp;&nbsp; And notably, even Hemlock himself admits that this is true, both by the rules and by logic, since he would allow a person to prepare an action to respond to a person attempting to cast a spell.Again, the familiar model of two gunfighters facing off is instructive.&nbsp; Drawing and firing a revolver is almost assuredly faster than getting off any non-quickened spell, and almost insuredly involves simpler and quicker gestures, and yet that action is logically and assuredly for the purposes of a game one which can be reacted to.&nbsp; Merely declaring your intention to draw and fire first does not insure that you in fact will, and to accept that illogical viewpoint will clearly have detrimental effects on the game resolution creating a metagame that bypasses the rules of the game.Importantly, not only does my table view that, but Hemlock's does as well, both as a matter of the flavor and mechanics of the rules (for example, Hemlock probably does not deny that spells can require components)!Except that, they are not.&nbsp; Your own argument fails at practically every step to produce either a consistent view of the world or to describe Hemlocks actual view.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7181487, member: 4937"] Ok, let's see about that. Wait... you think that is logical? Well, yes, because that point of view is completely logical. But ok, for the sake of argument, let's see if your description holds up as accurate. Nope, we've already ran into trouble. Far from being logically consistent, your description has already just within this short space of time become incoherent and self-contradictory. Either something literally is instantaneous or else it requires a measurable amount of time to occur, however short. It cannot be both. A short single word or a small gesture is not instantaneous by definition, but occurs in a short but still measurable amount of time. 'Short' and 'instantaneous' are not the same thing. My argument never depended on how long that amount of time was, but only that it existed as some amount of time larger than 0 (or larger than the minimum quantum of time). A short single word or small gesture can still be detected both by intent and actual action, and therefore responded to or interrupted. And notably, even Hemlock himself admits that this is true, both by the rules and by logic, since he would allow a person to prepare an action to respond to a person attempting to cast a spell. Again, the familiar model of two gunfighters facing off is instructive. Drawing and firing a revolver is almost assuredly faster than getting off any non-quickened spell, and almost insuredly involves simpler and quicker gestures, and yet that action is logically and assuredly for the purposes of a game one which can be reacted to. Merely declaring your intention to draw and fire first does not insure that you in fact will, and to accept that illogical viewpoint will clearly have detrimental effects on the game resolution creating a metagame that bypasses the rules of the game. Importantly, not only does my table view that, but Hemlock's does as well, both as a matter of the flavor and mechanics of the rules (for example, Hemlock probably does not deny that spells can require components)! Except that, they are not. Your own argument fails at practically every step to produce either a consistent view of the world or to describe Hemlocks actual view. [/QUOTE]

Verification