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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7922901" data-attributes="member: 6777737">Yes, that's the point. It's rhetoric. The point is to take the same logic and reasoning and apply it elsewhere with the same consideration being asked of the original point. Since that results in something absurd, then you haven't got very concrete reasoning.Here's another argument. Firstly, there are spells which I think conceptually most people will say aren't smart enough to dodge walls. Firebolt, or any spell making an attack roll on the same basis as a ranged weapon attack. The pea from fireball, too, assuming that didn't get retconed. So there's spells that aren't smart enough to dodge an invisible wall.Say a Charm Person or Magic Missile spell is smart enough to dodge the wall. Well, how smart is it? Say it's a cave with two entrances and the wall of force completely blocks the passageway. Is your spell smart enough to go outside, come back in the other entrance, and find the target? What if the other entrance is a mile away? Or 100 miles away? Or hidden? Or a pinhole? Or entirely unknown to the caster? Or the caster doesn't know the wall of force is even present, given that the spell effect is invisible? Just how smart is our spell? And why can't the magic just pass through solid rock once a target has been chosen? And if it can pass through solid rock, what determines when magic can't pass through solid rock? Can I just cast Firebolts through solid rock blindly? Why or why not? And, given that magic has no real world analog to contextualize what the rules should be, exactly how do the rules teach us this interpretation?</blockquote>

Verification