Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pergentile" data-source="post: 5496187" data-attributes="member: 6671368">I spoke of a wizard with a smelting fetish. I can see the implication, but no.Dozens of spells that do what they should not. Maybe my poor English is causing confusion. Do I structure my sentences strangely? Also I did not say we could both think of a spell that can provide a constant electrical current, but of a spell that could separate the two elements when it logically shouldn't.... I can't though ha ha. Lets just use Mithral and call it a win on your part on the Aluminum discussion.Which it will do. Try it. Go outside on a sunny day and roast some ants. Why are you assuming that the light is from several sources? It is simply a giant magnifying glass and the sun. The flat mirror would only be used to redirect the suns light to the magnifying glass when it is to be aimed somewhere that does not have sunlight."Medieval technology" I thought we were using magic? Using magic to attain the correct information as to think of a system like latitude/longitude seems plausible to me.I don't think saying that something could be targeted based on its location relative to several landmarks that could be seen from space is a stretch, or that its location relative to those landmarks could be figured out. Remember that this is theoretically being done by a high level wizard, who would have a LOT of time to dedicate to it. Even if latitude and longitude don't fit the bill, I still stand by my original statement that the castle you cannot see could still be targeted without seeing it based on knowledge and calculations.I don't see how this rebuts my point. I only see how it shows the flaws of what Americans did, and of the imperfect systems humans used and still use. I don't think that the fact that the Americans can't make a proper map is an accurate example of how targeting based on relevant location could not be done in D&D.Nothing, they have to do with making things easier to accurately aim. Did you not say that even high tech stuff nowadays needs to have its target painted? When there is absolutely no outside forces effecting ones calculations or few enough that they can be accounted for, one can reliably say that projectile A will hit target B, regardless of the distance between them.Nicely put; what is gut level?^^ Where did you read that from an outside perspective, one could see something go into a black hole? I thought that light was also warped, and that nothing can be seen from within a certain radius of the black hole? (Black Hole may have been named for the fact that it does look like a hole of nothingness since it warps light, but the phenomenon itself is an infinitely small point) Do you mean one will reach the outside edge of the pocket of light-less space in a finite amount of time?I think of "debate for the sake of debating" as one trying to rebut every single point, even if one's points start to become less than polished. I agree that a thought experiment elicits a wide range of topics etc, but when ones points become hard to discern, or start to become based on assumption, and stop being effective in their rebuttal, I see them as not having a point in said thought discussion. I would like to point to post #20 as an example.There are a lot of points that have been made. It is getting difficult to decide whether this is possible or not.</blockquote>

Verification