Was really outer space in Spelljamer? I mean, there is no Phlogiston in outer space, but there is spelljamer.Actual outer space. Not the Astral. If the ships can travel to the planes, or specific helms grant that ability, OK. As long as there's actual outer space, I'm fine.
But weird space, with space dragons.
VRGtR is the book the makes me think we could get an interesting reimagining of spelljamer. I’m not interest in a pure retread, give me a new twist please.Yep, this. There are various changes I make for my own use, but just as I'm not interested in seeing someone else's vision of the setting, neither would I want to impose my take on anyone else. It should be presented as-is.
Also, given the mess WotC made of Ravenloft, I'm frankly not at all interested in any attempt they make to 'reimagine' the setting.
It references it's primary sources. Check them out then come back and apologise.It is a wiki mate, and unreliable at the best of times.
Yes, in the original Spelljammer boxed set (which I own). The propellent used by the giff in their weapons in no more made from potassium nitrate, carbon and sulphur than spelljammer ships are propelled by the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen.Does it say it in any of the fluff or RAW.
In the real world gunpowder was developed by alchemists long before anyone understood the chemistry involved. As a product of alchemy it is, by definition, alchemical.This is rubbish and you should feel bad for saying it.
Was really outer space in Spelljamer? I mean, there is no Phlogiston in outer space, but there is spelljamer.
Nope!It references it's primary sources. Check them out then come back and apologise.
Alchemy that uses real science is still science. End of.In the real world gunpowder was developed by alchemists long before anyone understood the chemistry involved. As a product of alchemy it is, by definition, alchemical.
I think you are miss-using the term science when you mean chemistry. Science is a system, a methodology. Gunpowder was not created, originally, with science. Science is how we understand the chemistry, but they are separate. Gunpowder was created with alchemy that relied on chemistry that was unknown to the creators.Nope!
Wiki's are not source.
It is not on me to provide your proof.
Alchemy that uses real science is still science. End of
Alchemy was a protoscience to get technical, when the rigeurs of modern scientific method was not available. Now the trouble with alchemy it led to all sorts of rather dodgy practices, imbibing mercury as a famous one among Chinese immortality seekers.I think you are miss-using the term science when you mean chemistry. Science is a system, a methodology. Gunpowder was not created, originally, with science. Science is how we understand the chemistry, but they are separate. Gunpowder was created with alchemy that relied on chemistry that was unknown to the creators.
FYI, IIRC, @Paul Farquhar is a scientist, so you might not want to argue with him on this distinction
Thanks mate, see I am fine with that, as it shows that it is totally alchemical and has nothing to do with science being total magical in nature.FYI, @Rogerd1 , here is the definition of smokepowder in the 2e DMG (pg 179-180):
View attachment 154804
View attachment 154805
I never claimed that science and alchemy were the same. Nor did Paul as far as I can tell.Alchemy was a protoscience to get technical, when the rigeurs of modern scientific method was not available. Now the trouble with alchemy it led to all sorts of rather dodgy practices, imbibing mercury as a famous one among Chinese immortality seekers.
Chemistry is using scientific principles, and led to other dodgy areas such as chemical weapons being one prime example. But it has also led to cures to literally hundreds of diseases which was not possible with alchemy.
Thus alchemy using the description from the post below.
![]()
Spelljammer - What is important to you about Spelljammer
..."how does this work for people who don't know much about medieval science?" Well, one can take good advice about being careful with your fireballs in the phlogiston. Or, after the TPK, one might actually be interested to read up a bit about Stahl and Becher. On a more serious note, for me...www.enworld.org
This is totally alchemy, and has nothing to do with science is any way. They are not the same.
Well...no.I never claimed that science and alchemy were the same. Nor did Paul as far as I can tell.
Also a clarification, chemistry doesn’t use science, it simple is what it is. We use science to understand the chemistry of things, but the chemistry is there whether or not we understand it. That is how we got gunpowder without science! It seems your are saying “chemistry” when you really mean “the study of chemistey”, which is a science
Ok, I accept that chemistry is the term used to describe the brand of science. However, the point remains. Substitute “chemical reaction” for “chemistry” or similar more accurate terminology. The point is you were using the term science incorrectly, not the definition of chemistry. I made a mistake their, pretty big of me to be able to admit that on the internet!Well...no.
How and why certain reactions happen, results in chemistry which is a scientific study and overlaps between numerous fields.
What is Chemistry
web.archive.org![]()
Chemistry Is Everywhere - American Chemical Society
American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.www.acs.org
In short, chemistry is a science.