Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7969414" data-attributes="member: 16814">The Mind Flayer example is very weak evidence of a specific exception to the general rule for one specific monster for one specific thing they do.  Extrapolating from that is arguing from the specific to the general, which is a bad thing to do.  It is an informal fallacy, which means that the conclusion isn't automatically incorrect (as with formal fallacies), but it does mean the argument does not support than conclusion.The UA very clearly indicates that VSM applies to spells used by psionicists, unless they risk a resource to remove them.  Doing so, however, doesn't change the spell into a psionic power -- that's your invention and totally unsupported by the rules as presented.  Let's look at that section:Bolding is mine to point out that it's still a spell even after V or VSM are removed, and the action used is casting a spell.  This has no indication that psionics is not VSM.  Point of fact, I can engage this power to form the spell with my mind and still need SM components for it.Very techincally precise, Max.  I'll agree you didn't see one.  What's your point?  You seeing things doesn't establish whether it exists or not.  Rather, the point of your statement wasn't just commentary on your observations, but rather attempting to suggest that it didn't exist.  Your further argument that it must be an outlier you didn't observe follows this in establishing that you're actually arguing that it's unnecessary to even consider undetectable psionics as a thing.  That you're here making a technical argument about semantics either suggests you've reverted to arguing to spin, as you say you do when encountering posters that you deem to be engaging in bad faith, or lack a good argument.  Please advise, as I don't really want to waste time if you're in spin mode.I suppose that since you posted it there you cannot repost it here.  That's an odd thing to do -- claim you've solved this problem elsewhere but can't really address it here.</blockquote>

Verification