Freedom of Movement, providing "movement as normal"

[VorpalStare]

OK, I think it's time to put this argument to rest and just agree to disagree on this. I respect your argument, and agree that it has a lot of merit. At the same time, I think I've made my point and that my reasoning is more sound.

If I was playing in your game, and you ruled as you posted here, I wouldn't object too much. I'd just chalk this up to another place where the rules don't make very good sense, and the DM has the ultimate say on campaign rules. Many players, however, play D&D for the immersive experience and wouldn't let this go so easily without adequate explanation. "Because it's not spelled out explicitly." just doesn't always cut it.

This is what would happen:
PC: Okay, I grab the orc by the back of his greasy head and try to drive his nose into his brain with my knee.
DM: Are you planning to grapple?
PC: No, I just want to drive my knee into his face.
DM: Well, you can't do what you're proposing unless you grapple first and then while grappling, you can drive your knee into his face, or rather an undisclosed area of his body because we don't have called shots. Oh, while we're at it, you can't say 'knee' because it would just be a generic unarmed strike, and you don't specify body location unless you want me to penalize you for trying to hit him so high with a low body part ....

Okay, I'm being mildly sarcastic here and I mean no offense (I hope you read this with a little bit of a sense of humor), but I think my point is more clear now.

Well, that just really sucks. It makes for a much more boring game. You might as well number the squares on the board and merely call out, "Wizard to B4. Action #36C." I'd prefer the player use any descriptive text she wants and to clarify the rules she is using if necessary. Maybe different styles are necessary depending on how well the players and DM work together. I urge it to try it this way, though, as it greatly frees up the roleplaying and keeps people from merely stating rules or, probably worse, using the same tired cliché description over and over again.

I agree with you. In my experience, the normal sequence play is:
1. The player declares his action either descriptively or explicitly: "I introduce his face to my knee", "I grab his spell component pouch"
2. The DM requests the appropriate roles: "Make an attack roll.", "Make a touch attack and an opposed disarm roll.", etc.
3. Resolve the action

Miscommunication is usually revealed in step 2, where the player notes that the die rolls requested don't match his intended action "Wait! I don't want to grapple him, just hit him."

With good DM player communication, and some experience working together, things work very smoothly and the player characters' actions are both explicit and descriptive (something I, too, would like to see more of in my games).

 

[VorpalStare]

Yes, there is. It is contained in the description and prerequisites for Craft; Alchemy. The one where it says you must be a spellcaster to practice the art. That makes it magical.

Actually, it doesn't. All that means is that you must have the ability to cast spells to practice Alchemy. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to actually cast any spells or employ any magical powers of any kind to practice it. It could mean that some form of mental discipline required of all spellcasters enables the understanding of alchemical principles, for example.

Yes, it does. Magic and science are, by definition, different. Magic (in the D&D sense that actual magical effects can be created, as opposed to real world magicians using sleight of hand) is, by any definition you care to use, the ability to create effects that are coutrary to science.

Magic and Science are not related in this way. Science is the pursuit of knowledge through the observation and evaluation of empirical evidence. Magic is a phenomenon that cannot be adequately explained by Science. It's entirely possible to Scientifically study magic (or alchemy, or any other observable phenomenon for that matter), the study just would not bear much fruit, because magic cannot be explained by the rational approach science uses.

 

[Storm Raven]

Actually, it doesn't. All that means is that you must have the ability to cast spells to practice Alchemy. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to actually cast any spells or employ any magical powers of any kind to practice it. It could mean that some form of mental discipline required of all spellcasters enables the understanding of alchemical principles, for example.

It does, otherwise it would have Spellcraft or Knowledge: Arcana as a prerequisite. At some point in the Alchemical process, by the RAW, you have to use your spellcasting talent to get the substances to work. If you didn't, then anyone could use the skill.

Magic and Science are not related in this way. Science is the pursuit of knowledge through the observation and evaluation of empirical evidence. Magic is a phenomenon that cannot be adequately explained by Science. It's entirely possible to Scientifically study magic (or alchemy, or any other observable phenomenon for that matter), the study just would not bear much fruit, because magic cannot be explained by the rational approach science uses.

Making them antithetical fields of study.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I2K: There is no definition in the rules for alchemy.
Storm Raven: Yes, there is. It is contained in the description and prerequisites for Craft; Alchemy. The one where it says you must be a spellcaster to practice the art. That makes it magical.

This is a non-sequitur. We're looking for a definition, not prerequisites. Where is the definition? The most you could say for a definition is that with craft (alchemy) you can make a bunch of non-magical items. Requiring alchemists to be a spellcaster is totally irrelevant. Point to a definition of alchemy. Any definition other than prerequisites that you have to be a spellcaster to make the following (see table) list of non-magical items.

Yes, it does. Magic and science are, by definition, different. Magic (in the D&D sense that actual magical effects can be created, as opposed to real world magicians using sleight of hand) is, by any definition you care to use, the ability to create effects that are coutrary to science.

You're making this up. Nothing says that magic itself is not a science. Why can't I have the Science of Magic School? What rule prevents that interpretation? Who would even want to prevent such an interpretation and limit creativity?

Have you ever read the Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke? In it, he makes a very intriguing statement. One of the characters says, and I'm paraphrasing not having the book with me, "Advanced alien science would be indistinguishable from magic." I don't know what relevance this quote has on this topic, but I've been looking for a place to use it.

An inapplicable definition, as one did not have to be a spellcaster to practice alchemy in the "real world". Trying to say "the real world definition of an in-game defined magical art says it is a science" is about the goofiest thing you've said in this thread.

You tacking QED onto a clearly inapplicable definition is also amusing.

I'm glad you find it amusing. In any case, why is using the the only definition we have goofy? If there's no definition for a term, how in the world are we supposed to discuss it? That would be goofy -- using words for which neither of us agree on the definition. It would be like if I used the definition of color wavelengths to be inverted (i.e. red is blue and blue is red). How could we agree on the color of your car, for instance, if we don't even agree on the definition? So, I say again, tell me where in the rules you get your definition (you say it is 'in-game defined')? The section on the knowledge skill is not a definition on alchemy.

Oh, and then while you're at it, explain to me again why this issue is not only so important to you, but how it is pertinent to this thread. I plum forgot.

It's entirely possible to Scientifically study magic (or alchemy, or any other observable phenomenon for that matter), the study just would not bear much fruit, because magic cannot be explained by the rational approach science uses.

I don't see why not, if that's the game you choose to run. Nothing says that magic cannot be explained by a rational approach to science. In fact, some magic systems (not D&D or d20) demand it.