What it says on the tin. Discuss.
thanks to polymorph any object and make whole you can reuse the same raw materials over and over rather than have to keep flawed prototypes.
The ability to mostly ignore the laws of physics/science. With enough magic, you can make your hypothesis true by sheer force of power.
The ability to mostly ignore the laws of physics/science. With enough magic, you can make your hypothesis true by sheer force of power.
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed... unless you're a 5th level mage. ...
I rather doubt any mage worries too much about the number of replications he has, or the variance, or the power of his study, or outliers, or....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic, in the game, is not just exerting your will to achieve whatever you want. Spells require specific steps to achieve specific results. That's why a wizard can't just write down any gobbledy-g00k he wants to be a spell. He has to do research and find/polish technique. In this way, magic is very similar to science - the only difference is that the laws of reality in a magical world are different from the laws of reality in a scientific world.
Sorcerers would like to have a word with you ;)
The main difference is that some actions work different for different people. A wizard and a commoner can take the exact same set of actions, but do to the lack of understanding/mystic whatever the commoner gets no noticeable result while the wizard cast a spell. Science/engineering depend on the idea that you get the same result every time regardless of who did it. If you leave the boards without nails to hold them up they fall. Magic has he exact OPPOSITE approach/facts - it depends on WHO leaves the board, and if they cast anything.
A second but less pronounced difference is that science/engineering can be shown to exist, without certain people being present or during certain events. Anyone can walk and is a see a computer working, or a that water boils, etc. Someone from a low magic area could very well doubt that magic existed, even if is a probable fact at a Wizard school over the mountains.
The process is exactly the same for one simple reason: even in Golarion, even with magic, things behave in a predictable way. In our world, this is the only thing that makes the scientific method possible. The same is true of any world that is not structured on absolute chaos.
As I recall d&d magic is less hard science then art. There are fundamental laws that have to be learned until they're second nature, but each caster has to develop their own methods and styles. Every casters' formulae are different, hence the difficulty in deciphering others spells to recreate them in the caster's own idiom. (Spellcraft checks as opposed to free on level up.) A bard is thinking in terms of their performance skills or emotion, a sorceror feels the heritage of their blood or force of will, wizards using advanced geometry or philosophy or ancient mysteries, and all sorts of other variations.
Some casters might believe they've found a universal theory of greater truths and use scientific theory to prove it, but unlike actual science their methods are no more reliable then someone that posits an invisible flying spaghetti monster empowers them and just visualizes pirates and pasta.
Snowflakes are all unique as well but they conform to the laws of physics. Scientists have their own styles as well, which allows us as a species to explore many different avenues of reality in many different ways.
So long as there is a way to describe what you're doing so that others can replicate it (ie: via scrolls or spellbooks), you have the scientific method.
Wizards can turn anything into a magnet and will still know how it works.
I thought scientific method was using experiments to prove a hypothesis. Given that a skilled mimic can't just copy every gesture and sound a caster makes and produce a spell, and a caster cannot simply repeat their own actions to recast a spell if they're out of slots, then spellcasting is not scientific, even if its elements are. Much like creating a work of art requires technical skill, but technique on its own is not enough.
I thought scientific method was using experiments to prove a hypothesis. Given that a skilled mimic can't just copy every gesture and sound a caster makes and produce a spell, and a caster cannot simply repeat their own actions to recast a spell if they're out of slots, then spellcasting is not scientific, even if its elements are. Much like creating a work of art requires technical skill, but technique on its own is not enough.
The thing that separates the commoner and mimic from the caster isn't a lack of duplicability, but a lack of knowledge on how to actually cast a spell. Once they gain the knowledge, they would be able to cast (and would be multiclassed).
Looking the same and being the same are not the same. Commoners trying to mimic casters are going to fall short because somewhere along the line they messed up the spell.
Unless your argument is that a commoner can't move his hands, speak, or hold spell components because the RAW doesn't say he can you don't have much of a argument.
It doesn't matter that you can't play a piano, anyone can walk up and hit the play button of a recording and those sound repeated. Sound doesn't react diffidently to different people.
Magic however does. Only certain people are able to to cast spells, even if they are smart. A 20th level commoner with a 20 intelligence, maxed out spell craft, maxed out knowledge arcana, skill focus of both of those skills, holding the spell components, who studied a spell book for an hour that morning, and a tape recording of the verbal spell still can't cast any spell. Even one without somatic components, while not wearing armor. Because he's not a spell caster.
Anything about it being a result of learning a certain set of skills (moving your hands in a certain way that others can't, saying words others can't pronounce, etc.) is added fluff. Not only is not RAW it isn't in any provided fluff.
There's a big difference between being the world's greatest expert on music theory and being the world's greatest musician. The skill sets are not equivalent - in exactly the same way that spellcraft and knowledge arcane are not the same skill set as wizardry.
Wizardry is a learned skill, though, and anyone can learn it (it involves changing classes)
Just not much support for this. RAW maybe anyone can be a Wizard. I wouldn't agree, but MAYBE. Not anyone can be an wizard who casts spells, RAW. You have to have a 10 intelligence to cast a zeroth level spell and gets harder from there. So right off the bat no one with a score under 10 can be a Wizard who casts spells. RAI I'd say that NPC classes aren't really supposed to take PC levels, but that is up for debate. I just don't think 9 intel fighters multiclassing into non-casting wizards shows anything, nor is RAI.
Even if being a Wizard IS a learned skill it doesn't change that it treats some people have differences because of magic. Which was my point to the OP. Some people just cast spells. No one in the real world just happens to have the ability to live by a different set of physical laws. A first level sorcerer or oracle does. Other study to do this, but they are still studying to
Even if you insist in arguing by analogy, someone without limbs just isn't going to be able play piano. It's not fair, and it sucks but it's just how it is. Same way with magic.
What point are you getting anyway? What you are suggesting is that magic works EXACTLY like science, just with a different set of physics so anyone can learn to use it? If so why are we even calling it magic?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no difference between science and magic except what the observer believes is possible.
By definition, what a sorcerer/oracle can do is natural, because they are natural beings. Somewhat mutated, yes, but natural. They don't behave in ways that defy understanding. Their powers aren't wildly unpredictable or variable from one day to the next. There is nothing about their power that makes it impossible to learn things or predict things. Therefore, they exist within what is natural and within the realm of scientific understanding.
It depends on the laws of Magic.
If they are predictable and reproduceable, they are scientific.
|
It depends on the laws of Magic.If they are predictable and reproduceable, they are scientific.
Maybe. Let me ask this, if they are predictable then are they magic?
If a magician can cast the same spell as another mage but has to use a different manner to get a similar result, could that still be scientific?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought scientific method was using experiments to prove a hypothesis. Given that a skilled mimic can't just copy every gesture and sound a caster makes and produce a spell, and a caster cannot simply repeat their own actions to recast a spell if they're out of slots, then spellcasting is not scientific, even if its elements are. Much like creating a work of art requires technical skill, but technique on its own is not enough.
Actually, you try to disprove your hypothesis in proper scientific experimentation. If you don't try hard enough, your work is ridiculed at worst, considered inconclusive at best. Trying to prove your hypothesis lends itself too easily to bias. Or so I was told as I worked on my MS :)
It depends on the laws of Magic.If they are predictable and reproduceable, they are scientific.
Maybe. Let me ask this, if they are predictable then are they magic?
If a magician can cast the same spell as another mage but has to use a different manner to get a similar result, could that still be scientific?
You can melt ice by lighting a fire, putting it out in the sunlight, putting it in the microwave, holding it in your hand, putting it in water, etc. Different method, same result, all easily explained. What makes it scientific is that no matter which method you use on the ice, it always melts.
Pretend one day, just for kicks, it suddenly bursts into cold flame instead of melting. That sort of behavior would make science impossible. That is not how magic behaves, therefore magic must obey the laws of science.
|
|
It depends on the laws of Magic.If they are predictable and reproduceable, they are scientific.
Maybe. Let me ask this, if they are predictable then are they magic?
If a magician can cast the same spell as another mage but has to use a different manner to get a similar result, could that still be scientific?
You can melt ice by lighting a fire, putting it out in the sunlight, putting it in the microwave, holding it in your hand, putting it in water, etc. Different method, same result, all easily explained. What makes it scientific is that no matter which method you use on the ice, it always melts.
Pretend one day, just for kicks, it suddenly bursts into cold flame instead of melting. That sort of behavior would make science impossible. That is not how magic behaves, therefore magic must obey the laws of science.
That depends on the world that your playing in. If the rules say that sometimes the ice will get colder and expand, well that's magic.It doesn't even have to be internally consistent, just obey the rules of the game.
The main difference is that some actions work different for different people. A wizard and a commoner can take the exact same set of actions, but do to the lack of understanding/mystic whatever the commoner gets no noticeable result while the wizard cast a spell.
The difference is due to a lack of TRAINING, a lack of skill.
The piano-playing example is a good one. Anyone can play a piano, wave his arms around, or swing a sword. Only training will get you a sonata, a spell, or a dead enemy.Science/engineering depend on the idea that you get the same result every time regardless of who did it.
Engineering absolutely does not. Let's have an automobile-building contest -- I'll take a 30-year mechanic, and you take an intelligent 8-year-old child.
Sound fair to you? I would hope not, because it's all about training.As has already been pointed out, anyone with the appropriate aptitude can learn magic if they receive the proper training. RAW doesn't require anything special about a wizard other than a high intelligence and taking the time to learn it. Same as engineering.
If you leave the boards without nails to hold them up they fall.
Magic has he exact OPPOSITE approach/facts - it depends on WHO leaves the board, and if they cast anything.
In construction, if you leave the board against the wall, whether they fall depends on WHO leaves the board, and whether they correctly applied the right sort of fastenings. Same thing.
A second but less pronounced difference is that science/engineering can be shown to exist, without certain people being present or during certain events. Anyone can walk and is a see a computer working, or a that water boils, etc. Someone from a low magic area could very well doubt that magic existed, even if is a probable fact at a Wizard school over the mountains.
... just as someone in a low-technology area could doubt that a computer exists, or an automobile, if he never sees one. Again, training, aptitude. No demonstrable difference.
That depends on the world that your playing in. If the rules say that sometimes the ice will get colder and expand, well that's magic.It doesn't even have to be internally consistent, just obey the rules of the game.
Such rules would be a GM's nightmare, because they would require constant adjudication on the random results of everything in the natural world. Sometimes the sun would rise normally, sometimes in the west, and sometimes not at all. Sometimes rain would spontaneously fly out of the ground into the sky.
This unpredictability would include your spells, too. Such rules would require your fireball spell to sometimes cast fireball, sometimes conjure pink elephants, etc.
|
|
My grand father had a great story, he grew up in the rural area of south central Louisiana. He walked to school down dusty back roads. One day as he is walking home he sees a dust plume and a thing coming his way. He ran the rest of the way home. Went in the the house and screamed bloody murder that there was a monster in the yard. Great Grandma then calmly took him outside and introduced him to his first car.
|
|
That depends on the world that your playing in. If the rules say that sometimes the ice will get colder and expand, well that's magic.It doesn't even have to be internally consistent, just obey the rules of the game.Such rules would be a GM's nightmare, because they would require constant adjudication on the random results of everything in the natural world. Sometimes the sun would rise normally, sometimes in the west, and sometimes not at all. Sometimes rain would spontaneously fly out of the ground into the sky.
This unpredictability would include your spells, too. Such rules would require your fireball spell to sometimes cast fireball, sometimes conjure pink elephants, etc.
Please forgive me, I think you are over thinking it. This is not always something that needs to be consistent in the GM's application.
The Valley of Dorf has strong winds and stepping off of the cliffs of the maiden can propel you to the other side, of the cliffs.
Drinking potion A, gives you great strength unless drank on Goblin day, which happens to move around the days of the calendar, makes you spotted pink for a week.
Only for the need of the GM does the RAW show it in a mostly logical manner. The GM is under no constraints to keep it this way, other than if your going to change something, it is nice to let the players know most of the time.
Most magical experimentation is really more along the lines of engineering than science. You take a set of principles that you kind of understand, often mostly at the gut level and you tweak the parameters that you can kind of control and see what you get. Sometimes you find someting that is kind of useful. Once there, you usually refine it again and again until you've got something you consider worthwhile. Only a few magi do something akin to the actual scientific method (i.e. make a theory of how things work at a high level and then try to demolish it---frankly most scientists don't presently either, they start with a theory and generally look to confirm it, because that's what gets you grant money).
This is pretty close to how I do it, but I add a heavy dose of Chaos Theory.
Magic works according to a very complex set of rules. A set of gestures, words, materials, and thoughts combine together to create a spell. A huge part of a mage's training is learning to focus their thoughts to be able to tap into arcane pathways. Spells are more than just a set of gestures and words, the casters thoughts are part of the process of shaping the spell. This is why a commoner trying to duplicate a spell doesn't get anything or why a low level mage cannot cast high level spells.
From a high level view, magic is very predictable. X + Y + Z will always give you a certain result. The problem is that the actualy equations are extremely complex, and the caster has no way to know for certain what some of the values are. The mages tries to compensate on the fly for some of the variables, but the mage cannot control everything to precision needs to duplicate exacting results. This is where the randomness and unpredictibility in magic comes from.
I don't mind. I'm just trying to illustrate that in the world you're describing, science is less possible than this one. Unless there is a way to calculate when Goblin Day falls, and an explanation as to why and how it alters the effects of a potion, then it truly is unpredictable, and the scientific method can't apply.
In a world where the scientific method doesn't apply, magical experimentation would similarly suffer, and there's really no way of knowing (unless you're the GM) the extent of the randomness.
So are proteans horrible scientists then.
So are proteans horrible scientists then.
I dunno. Some of them might decide to go hardcore science, just to rock the boat.
|
|
I don't mind. I'm just trying to illustrate that in the world you're describing, science is less possible than this one. Unless there is a way to calculate when Goblin Day falls, and an explanation as to why and how it alters the effects of a potion, then it truly is unpredictable, and the scientific method can't apply.
In a world where the scientific method doesn't apply, magical experimentation would similarly suffer, and there's really no way of knowing (unless you're the GM) the extent of the randomness.
Good, I was afraid my example was poorly worded.
Having a bit of unknown and randomness can be very entertaining. They do not always have to fit that mold of quantum entanglement "as above, so below" magic. However, I have read stories and played in games where magic was just that, very rigid rules with specific scientific reasons why the ice got colder because you tugged the fire magic away from it. It gives a much different feel to it. It actually comes across very "the last airbender" in it's function in a lot of ways.
Most games by their very nature, for play balance and ease of use are a little of both but ere on the side of a scientific approach. Just beware those Rods of wonder.
|
|
Some of you all are too young to remember 2e Wild Magic and the Wild Mage class. That's a shame, because it was a fun class (though privy to GM abuse). The Wild Mage does a good job of illustrating science with regards to magic.
Take any spell cast by a Wizard and you'll have the same effect over and over again. A fireball spell will create a fireball, not a wall of ice. This is because the spell makes use of techniques based on repeatable phenomena - technique and phenomena studied by the Wizard when the Wizard is researching the spell and refining the spell. This is science.A Wild Mage, on the other hand, reaches into the jaws of chaos, rips out a dollop of anarchy, and plops it right into the middle of the spell casting like a stray blob of grape jelly on a notebook page. When the Wild Mage casts a fireball, he may get a wall of ice, or an elemental, or a rain of feathers, or teleport the entire adventure party to the bridge of the US Enterprise.
Had a short game where the GM only allowed some basic magics and Wild Magic. Only Arcane casters had this issue. Which is why everyone hated casters and they had to keep real quiet about their abilities.
When the Wild Mage casts a fireball, he may get a wall of ice, or an elemental, or a rain of feathers, or teleport the entire adventure party to the bridge of the US Enterprise.
Wild Mage: Uh, hi.
Picard: WTF?
Worf: Arrrgh!
Am Barbarian: Arrrgh!
Data: Intriguing.
Wesley: *squeeks*
Everyone: SHUT UP WESLEY!
When the Wild Mage casts a fireball, he may get a wall of ice, or an elemental, or a rain of feathers, or teleport the entire adventure party to the bridge of the US Enterprise.Wild Mage: Uh, hi.
Picard: WTF?
Worf: Arrrgh!
Am Barbarian: Arrrgh!
Data: Intriguing.
Wesley: *squeeks*
Everyone: SHUT UP WESLEY!
Ahhhhhhhhhhh.