Past Scientist discoveries magic/or not ? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Past Scientist discoveries magic/or not ?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
mindcrusher
May 04, 2009 7:12:17 Are the discoveries created by a Scientist magic or not. I having this argument with my DM.

it all started when I ask to become a artificer, which requires the character to "cast" a 2nd level spell. I said I can mimic a second level spell that seems to me an equivalent ability. He said no because what I create is not magical.

I feel they are magical because of the following...

1. I can mimic dispel magic, how can you do that w/o some sort of magic?
2. summon monster how can you summon monsters with a "scientific" device.
3. Acolyte(cleric) spells I can mimic. This is all strictly magical, animate dead.

In addition I lost exp points when I create a device just like I would creating a magical item. I'm just like a mage/cleric. I have almost the same spell progression just like a mage/cleric and access to the same spells.

If this is not magical I don't know what is.

Furthermore I also think the class is broken because it looks like almost an exact copy of GNOME Artificer without the limitations.

Any Ideas on this subject are welcome.
#2
TheRealOrion
May 04, 2009 11:34:21 I could come up with all kinds of explanations for why a pulp scientist could dispel magic (he's discovered that magic operates on a certain phlogistonic wave-length, and he can cancel that wave) or summon monsters (by tapping into the morphogenic field, she can create hard-light constructs that perfectly mimic animals). The real question is, for your fellow players and your GM, does it fit in your game to treat pulp-science and magic as effectively the same thing, the same way the Psionic's handbook says that you can treat psionics and magic as if they were the same thing, for game purposes. Personally, I like to keep them separate, but it's I think a table-by-table call.
#3
narukagami
May 04, 2009 12:05:26 I've always been of the school of thought that if magic existed, it would be another school of science.

That said, you must realize that what you're dealing with are game mechanic terms. Mimicking an ability is not the same as having that ability. You don't qualify for an AdC that requires 4 ranks in Knowledge: Nature just because you have a device that gives a +4 bonus to Nature, you know?
#4
AnimeSniper
May 04, 2009 15:38:21
I've always been of the school of thought that if magic existed, it would be another school of science.

Same here and kinda reminds me of Full Metal Alchemist.... I mean they had factories to produce their firearms but an alchemist could mimic that by transmutating items like in the episode with the red water and stones.
#5
TheRealOrion
May 04, 2009 17:11:44 That all depends on whether you want to build a world in which "magic" is just an idiosyncratic form of technology, or one in which it encompasses everything else, including art, language, and science. Which you place in the dominant role really just reflects what kind of game-world you want to play in.

In my modern games, super-science and magic exist side-by-side, and by virtue of the rule system, they bear some resemblance to one another, but they're basically different things. Science might think it can explain magic, and magic might think it can explain science, but who's "right"? Hell, it's my game world and I don't know!
#6
AnimeSniper
May 04, 2009 17:54:40 Like the anime Straightjacket.... they used magic to create everything from the brief factory scene of ammunition
#7
Ragitsu
May 05, 2009 1:01:14 I like the thought that science is just another form of magic (or that magic created the scientific principles we know), and that magic itself was the first lost art.
#8
TheRealOrion
May 05, 2009 1:41:44 That's Alan Moore's theory. Sort of. I mean, it wasn't until the Enlightenment that we separated "magic" and "science." Used to be that most "scientists" were also alchemists and mysticists.
#9
Ragitsu
May 05, 2009 1:58:00 Interesting. I'll have to look him up sometime.
#10
TheRealOrion
May 05, 2009 2:16:45 Alan Moore. The guy who wrote Watchmen and From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen...? That Alan Moore.
#11
Ragitsu
May 05, 2009 2:22:19 I've had the Watchmen comic book for nearly two years now, but have not read it and I didn't bother to look at the author's name :P.
#12
backstabbist
May 05, 2009 7:50:38 "I use mana to form visions of psychic sendings in ether clouds"
"I use electricity to form visions of EM transmitions on plasma screens"
"I use dexterity and slight of hand to show kids I stole their nose, then have them pull my finger"

Which would the roman centurians call Magic?
Which would 5yo Timmy call magic?
#13
TheRealOrion
May 05, 2009 11:13:49
I've had the Watchmen comic book for nearly two years now, but have not read it and I didn't bother to look at the author's name :P.

Fair enough. I just figured that around here, with a high concentration of nerds, that Alan Moore's name would be more recognisable. Give Watchmen a read (and then weep for how badly Zach Snyder screwed it up).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mindcrusher May 04, 2009 7:12:17	Are the discoveries created by a Scientist magic or not. I having this argument with my DM. it all started when I ask to become a artificer, which requires the character to "cast" a 2nd level spell. I said I can mimic a second level spell that seems to me an equivalent ability. He said no because what I create is not magical. I feel they are magical because of the following... 1. I can mimic dispel magic, how can you do that w/o some sort of magic? 2. summon monster how can you summon monsters with a "scientific" device. 3. Acolyte(cleric) spells I can mimic. This is all strictly magical, animate dead. In addition I lost exp points when I create a device just like I would creating a magical item. I'm just like a mage/cleric. I have almost the same spell progression just like a mage/cleric and access to the same spells. If this is not magical I don't know what is. Furthermore I also think the class is broken because it looks like almost an exact copy of GNOME Artificer without the limitations. Any Ideas on this subject are welcome.
#2 TheRealOrion May 04, 2009 11:34:21	I could come up with all kinds of explanations for why a pulp scientist could dispel magic (he's discovered that magic operates on a certain phlogistonic wave-length, and he can cancel that wave) or summon monsters (by tapping into the morphogenic field, she can create hard-light constructs that perfectly mimic animals). The real question is, for your fellow players and your GM, does it fit in your game to treat pulp-science and magic as effectively the same thing, the same way the Psionic's handbook says that you can treat psionics and magic as if they were the same thing, for game purposes. Personally, I like to keep them separate, but it's I think a table-by-table call.
#3 narukagami May 04, 2009 12:05:26	I've always been of the school of thought that if magic existed, it would be another school of science. That said, you must realize that what you're dealing with are game mechanic terms. Mimicking an ability is not the same as having that ability. You don't qualify for an AdC that requires 4 ranks in Knowledge: Nature just because you have a device that gives a +4 bonus to Nature, you know?
#4 AnimeSniper May 04, 2009 15:38:21	I've always been of the school of thought that if magic existed, it would be another school of science. Same here and kinda reminds me of Full Metal Alchemist.... I mean they had factories to produce their firearms but an alchemist could mimic that by transmutating items like in the episode with the red water and stones.
#5 TheRealOrion May 04, 2009 17:11:44	That all depends on whether you want to build a world in which "magic" is just an idiosyncratic form of technology, or one in which it encompasses everything else, including art, language, and science. Which you place in the dominant role really just reflects what kind of game-world you want to play in. In my modern games, super-science and magic exist side-by-side, and by virtue of the rule system, they bear some resemblance to one another, but they're basically different things. Science might think it can explain magic, and magic might think it can explain science, but who's "right"? Hell, it's my game world and I don't know!
#6 AnimeSniper May 04, 2009 17:54:40	Like the anime Straightjacket.... they used magic to create everything from the brief factory scene of ammunition
#7 Ragitsu May 05, 2009 1:01:14	I like the thought that science is just another form of magic (or that magic created the scientific principles we know), and that magic itself was the first lost art.
#8 TheRealOrion May 05, 2009 1:41:44	That's Alan Moore's theory. Sort of. I mean, it wasn't until the Enlightenment that we separated "magic" and "science." Used to be that most "scientists" were also alchemists and mysticists.
#9 Ragitsu May 05, 2009 1:58:00	Interesting. I'll have to look him up sometime.
#10 TheRealOrion May 05, 2009 2:16:45	Alan Moore. The guy who wrote Watchmen and From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen...? That Alan Moore.
#11 Ragitsu May 05, 2009 2:22:19	I've had the Watchmen comic book for nearly two years now, but have not read it and I didn't bother to look at the author's name :P.
#12 backstabbist May 05, 2009 7:50:38	"I use mana to form visions of psychic sendings in ether clouds" "I use electricity to form visions of EM transmitions on plasma screens" "I use dexterity and slight of hand to show kids I stole their nose, then have them pull my finger" Which would the roman centurians call Magic? Which would 5yo Timmy call magic?
#13 TheRealOrion May 05, 2009 11:13:49	I've had the Watchmen comic book for nearly two years now, but have not read it and I didn't bother to look at the author's name :P. Fair enough. I just figured that around here, with a high concentration of nerds, that Alan Moore's name would be more recognisable. Give Watchmen a read (and then weep for how badly Zach Snyder screwed it up).