Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Muh" data-source="post: 9481629" data-attributes="member: 7042567">Let's take the mimic example you just gave. It's a good example. I like your reasoning, but I think there's a problem with this line of thinking.You argue essentially that if feature X is allowed to be designed such that feature X is REQUIRED for activity Y to be possible, then you lock activity Y out from the set of possible actions that can be taken without this specific feature.The problem here is that if we follow this reasoning we will come to the conclusion that any activity that is allowed by any feature must not be an exclusive feature, otherwise we lock other people out of features... And here I think it's obvious to everyone that magic does not follow this at all. Because magic is not exclusive. For example, no one argues that because the knock spell exists, rogues cannot lock pick doors.The conclusion is that we cannot design a non-magic feature that allows someone to do Y, because doing this prevents people without the feature from even attempting Y, but we are allowed to create a spell that does Y because the spell does not restrict people who do not have the spell.So clearly spells are superior, because they are allowed to do anything without concern for any restrictions imposed on people not using magic.</blockquote>