Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8098142" data-attributes="member: 6801228">And now we are back at the beginning of the circle.Okay, wait, what?You do not need to use an interface (the weave being one example of a type of interface) to explain why magic works, but if you don't use an interface then you can't explain why magic works the same for everyone... even though you can by simply saying that is how mortals interact with magic. Because now if someone says "that doesn't make sense" you shrug and say "this is how the Weave works" but if you take out the weave you... just shrug and say "this is how Magic works"... which is the exact same answer, but somehow saying "The Weave" is an explanation but saying "Magic" isn't? Because the Weave is the interface for magic? I feel like a cartoon of Goofy, twisted into a knot as I point in every direction at once. How does any of this make sense?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Okay, so let me review real fast. Beholder Eye Rays are magical. They are not Psionic. Beholder eye rays do not use any components, no verbal, somatic, or material. (according to you) Psionic abilities do not use any components, no verbal, somatic, or material.One of the Beholder's eye rays is... telekinesis. Telekinesis is a Psionic ability. But of course, there has to be a difference between magical telekinesis and psionic telekinesis right? Let us go back over your points. No components? Nope, they both have that. Which leaves.... Psionic telekinesis can't be dispelled and it would work in an Antimagic zone. But wait, if we look down to your next quotes...huh, so Psionics can be magic. It can be affected by dispel magic and anti-magic zones. So, now I am at a loss. You claimed that a Beholder's eye beams being magical was as obvious as a cow having four legs. But, one of those beam being a classic psionic ability, and not requiring any components... wouldn't that make the Beholder's Eye Beam Psionic? I mean, there is no difference I can find between your required definitions of Psionics, and this ability you said was clearly and unquestionably magical in nature. And of course, a wizard can use the exact same ability as the Beholder, they simply need some components.... so, if they are doing the exact same thing, and the way one of them does it is indistinguishable from Psionics... where does that leave us?Counting Cow legs I suppose.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I just want to pop out that example and say that you are only partially right. You need a piece of iron... or a Druidic Totem, A Diety's symbol on an Amulet, A crystal, a Wooden Staff, A Diety's Symbol engraved on a Shield, A staff that does not need to be made of wood,. A sprig of Misteltoe, A reliquary with a fragment of a sacred object, an orb, a Yew Wand, a wand that does not have to be made from yew, or a Rod. All of that... seems like it makes magic incredibly permissive, since those items replace 95% of all material components for the entire magical system.</blockquote>

Verification