Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2374581" data-attributes="member: 31734">This is a non-sequitur.&nbsp; We're looking for a definition, not prerequisites.&nbsp; Where is the definition?&nbsp; The most you could say for a definition is that with craft (alchemy) you can make a bunch of non-magical items.&nbsp; Requiring alchemists to be a spellcaster is totally irrelevant.&nbsp; Point to a <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary" target="_blank">definition</a> of alchemy.&nbsp; Any definition other than prerequisites that you have to be a spellcaster to make the following (see table) list of non-magical items.&nbsp;&nbsp;You're making this up.&nbsp; Nothing says that magic itself is not a science.&nbsp; Why can't I have the Science of Magic School?&nbsp; What rule prevents that interpretation?&nbsp; Who would even want to prevent such an interpretation and limit creativity?&nbsp;Have you ever read the Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke?&nbsp; In it, he makes a very intriguing statement.&nbsp; One of the characters says, and I'm paraphrasing not having the book with me, &quot;Advanced alien science would be indistinguishable from magic.&quot;&nbsp; I don't know what relevance this quote has on this topic, but I've been looking for a place to use it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> &nbsp;&nbsp;I'm glad you find it amusing.&nbsp; In any case, why is using the the only definition we have goofy?&nbsp; If there's no definition for a term, how in the world are we supposed to discuss it?&nbsp; That would be goofy -- using words for which neither of us agree on the definition.&nbsp; It would be like if I used the definition of color wavelengths to be inverted (i.e. red is blue and blue is red).&nbsp; How could we agree on the color of your car, for instance, if we don't even agree on the definition?&nbsp; So, I say again, tell me where in the rules you get your definition (you say it is 'in-game defined')?&nbsp; The section on the knowledge skill is not a definition on alchemy.&nbsp;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.&nbsp; I plum forgot.&nbsp;I don't see why not, if that's the game you choose to run.&nbsp; Nothing says that magic cannot be explained by a rational approach to science.&nbsp; In fact, some magic systems (not D&amp;D or d20) demand it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 2374581, member: 31734"] 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 [url="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary"]definition[/url] 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. 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. :D 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification