Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr_Rictus" data-source="post: 1008056" data-attributes="member: 850">I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's like saying "so does Magic Weapon really make it a magic weapon?" That's not an argument, that's just a repetition of the question.In any case, if one says (reproduced for handy reference):Then as far as I can see one is either trying to construct a syllogism, or apply the scientific method.  Unfortunately, both tests fail.The syllogism is the construction I dismissed before, because it simply isn't valid reasoning.  It's the argument that     A implies Cand     B implies Callows you to derive     A is equivalent to (implies and is implied by) B.Which it doesn't.  This is in fact exactly the same as the fallacy of the witch being made of wood, whether you recognize it or not.  There's nothing disingenuous about it.But to give the benefit of the doubt for a moment, the only other interpretation of this I see is the scientific one: "A and B act the same to various tests, and therefore they probably are the same sort of thing."  But that's not what we have here, either.  The basis of the scientific method is its success at prediction, that is, if A and B are consistent under all the tests I devise, they will probably remain consistent under all circumstances.  Or in other words, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.And that's not what we have.  Magic items are produced by a different (and permanent) process, and can have a variety of properties other than an enhancement bonus, for example.  If they have these points of divergence from items which are merely the target of a magic weapon spell, what basis do we have for believing that they should be the same in any other given particular (such as the effect of the shatter spell), just because they have one thing (an enhancement bonus) in common?  Especially when the vast majority of objects which are uneqivocally magic items don't even have that property in the first place, and other items which are apparently not magical (adamantine weapons) do?What we have is basically just, "well, at least it looks like a duck," if that.  Well, so does a goose from far enough away.  There may perhaps be an argument for merely being the target of a spell making something a "magical" object, but this isn't it.</blockquote>

Verification