Mixing
Is future technology that is indistinguishable from magic considered a “Magical Effect�
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
My players are currently in a futuristic setting where they are being shot at by lasers and such. One of my players tried to justify that an antimagic field should be able to disable future tech because its "basically magic". My understanding is that all magic comes from The Weave, and anything outside of that is just considered technology (like an electric light bulb). Am I wrong in this assumption?
dnd-5e
edited 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
asked 1 hour ago
Payton Mock
312
New contributor
Payton Mock is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
My players are currently in a futuristic setting where they are being shot at by lasers and such. One of my players tried to justify that an antimagic field should be able to disable future tech because its "basically magic". My understanding is that all magic comes from The Weave, and anything outside of that is just considered technology (like an electric light bulb). Am I wrong in this assumption?
dnd-5e
edited 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
asked 1 hour ago
Payton Mock
312
New contributor
Payton Mock is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Are the lasers you are using custom ones or the ones listed in the DMG?
– Rubiksmoose
29 mins ago
I used lasers as a general statement. There are several aspects of a future world that one might consider "magic" if they didn't know any better.
– Payton Mock
24 mins ago
But the way you have been running tech is in a way that you consider to be completely non-magical correct? In other words your tech does not rely on the weave at all?
– Rubiksmoose
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
My players are currently in a futuristic setting where they are being shot at by lasers and such. One of my players tried to justify that an antimagic field should be able to disable future tech because its "basically magic". My understanding is that all magic comes from The Weave, and anything outside of that is just considered technology (like an electric light bulb). Am I wrong in this assumption?
dnd-5e
edited 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
asked 1 hour ago
Payton Mock
312
New contributor
Payton Mock is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
My players are currently in a futuristic setting where they are being shot at by lasers and such. One of my players tried to justify that an antimagic field should be able to disable future tech because its "basically magic". My understanding is that all magic comes from The Weave, and anything outside of that is just considered technology (like an electric light bulb). Am I wrong in this assumption?
dnd-5e
dnd-5e
edited 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
asked 1 hour ago
Payton Mock
312
New contributor
Payton Mock is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
asked 1 hour ago
Payton Mock
312
New contributor
Payton Mock is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
edited 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
edited 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
40.4k5197305
asked 1 hour ago
Payton Mock
312
New contributor
Payton Mock is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
Payton Mock
312
asked 1 hour ago
Payton Mock
312
312
New contributor
Payton Mock is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Payton Mock is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Payton Mock is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Are the lasers you are using custom ones or the ones listed in the DMG?
– Rubiksmoose
29 mins ago
I used lasers as a general statement. There are several aspects of a future world that one might consider "magic" if they didn't know any better.
– Payton Mock
24 mins ago
But the way you have been running tech is in a way that you consider to be completely non-magical correct? In other words your tech does not rely on the weave at all?
– Rubiksmoose
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
Are the lasers you are using custom ones or the ones listed in the DMG?
– Rubiksmoose
29 mins ago
I used lasers as a general statement. There are several aspects of a future world that one might consider "magic" if they didn't know any better.
– Payton Mock
24 mins ago
But the way you have been running tech is in a way that you consider to be completely non-magical correct? In other words your tech does not rely on the weave at all?
– Rubiksmoose
12 mins ago
1
1
Are the lasers you are using custom ones or the ones listed in the DMG?
– Rubiksmoose
29 mins ago
Are the lasers you are using custom ones or the ones listed in the DMG?
– Rubiksmoose
29 mins ago
I used lasers as a general statement. There are several aspects of a future world that one might consider "magic" if they didn't know any better.
– Payton Mock
24 mins ago
I used lasers as a general statement. There are several aspects of a future world that one might consider "magic" if they didn't know any better.
– Payton Mock
24 mins ago
But the way you have been running tech is in a way that you consider to be completely non-magical correct? In other words your tech does not rely on the weave at all?
– Rubiksmoose
12 mins ago
But the way you have been running tech is in a way that you consider to be completely non-magical correct? In other words your tech does not rely on the weave at all?
– Rubiksmoose
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
Technology is not considered to be a magical effect unless it is powered by magic
A player's perception of what appears to be magical or not has no bearing on the rules for whether it actually is considered to be magical by the rules. The only thing that matters is the magical nature of the object.
Something must be connected to the weave to be considered magical regardless of the technological level of your campaign/item.
Sage Advice gives us the rules for determining if something is considered magical:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell
that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
By the book - lasers/future tech are non-magical
If you are going by the future tech as outlined in the DMG on p. 268 (including laser rifles and other such items) then these definitely are not magical because the weapons do not pass any of the tests listed above for magical items.
If you are making your own technology - it is up to you
If you are making your own custom setting/tech then you get to decide the answers to these questions with regards to how technology works in your world.
If you decide that technology is powered by spells or magic then they would be magical.
If you decided that your technology is based off of in-world science (and completely devoid of any connection to the weave or any kind of spells) then it would not be considered magical.
Only magic and magical effects are affected by an anti-magic field.
Either way, the perception that something is magical has nothing to do with what the rules consider to be magical.
answered 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
I think the answer would flow more naturally if you put the book reference at the beginning and then use that as a basis to justify the rest of your point.
– Adam
30 mins ago
@Adam well that only works if the lasers they are using are from the DMG. That was not my initial reading of it. A DM certainly could make lasers that were magical if they wanted to.
– Rubiksmoose
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
D&D 5e hasn’t released any supplements detailing how futuristic technology works, so there really isn’t any kind of official or authoritative answer to your question. Ultimately, since you have introduced these concepts to the game at your table, it is up to you (and/or your table) to define them.
You could easily go either way with these. The flip-side of Clarke’s Third Law is that “Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science,†as Agatha Heterodyne put it. If we take a magical world à la D&D and advance it into the future, magic is going to be just as serious a discipline of scientific study as physics or chemistry. Actually, it is very likely to be more so, considering the power and convenience of magic. Just think how many early “scientistsâ€Â1 in our own history were primarily bent on studying the various magics they believed in, despite the fact that no magic is known to exist here! When magic is provably a real thing, it would only garner that much more attention.
So scientists would study magic. Their findings and solid conclusions would be streamlined and taught to architects and engineers. The world would be built upon a foundation that relied on magic as much as it relied on gears, electricity, chemical reactions, and the like.
Thus any particular thing may well have been implemented with magic.
On the other hand, maybe it wasn’t: maybe dispelling or suppressing magic was a severe enough risk to be worth the effort of doing things without magic. Or maybe, once non-magical means were discovered, there was little reason to use magic—maybe magic isn’t amenable to mass production and industrialization and so it became cheaper to implement things non-magically.
Either way is entirely plausible. You could easily decide on a case-by-case basis, too. And while there may be things that your players could object to on the grounds that they aren’t possible without magic, part of the point of playing a futuristic fantasy is to have them know how to do things we currently consider to be impossible. We, of course, have no way of knowing what things we are wrong to consider impossible, so that leaves all of them potentially up for being hand-waived away.
Ultimately, the real criterion you should use is “what will make the game better?†Players who bitterly feel as though you’re cheaply obviating their characters’ skills are not good for the game. Giving in to the players’ every demand, however, tends not to make a good game either. This is a great opportunity for a table discussion about how you all want to handle this. Have a discussion, divorced from any specific example, bring up some of the points I’ve raised here, and get feedback from your players. Look for what they want, consider what you want, and try to find a compromise.
- Quotations because the “scientific method†hadn’t been invented yet and there are many, many ways in which these early researchers are rather distinct from what we would consider a scientist today.
answered 55 mins ago
KRyan
211k26528915
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
No. Clarke's third law is not a 5e rule.
Magic also does not have any sort of paradigmatic basis in 5e (like in some games). It doesn't care who the caster is or what they believe about the world, it just does what it says it does in the description. If it did, then Antimagic Field would protect a Hill Giant from a Crossbow bolt.
answered 48 mins ago
MarkTO
60312
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
Technology is not considered to be a magical effect unless it is powered by magic
A player's perception of what appears to be magical or not has no bearing on the rules for whether it actually is considered to be magical by the rules. The only thing that matters is the magical nature of the object.
Something must be connected to the weave to be considered magical regardless of the technological level of your campaign/item.
Sage Advice gives us the rules for determining if something is considered magical:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell
that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
By the book - lasers/future tech are non-magical
If you are going by the future tech as outlined in the DMG on p. 268 (including laser rifles and other such items) then these definitely are not magical because the weapons do not pass any of the tests listed above for magical items.
If you are making your own technology - it is up to you
If you are making your own custom setting/tech then you get to decide the answers to these questions with regards to how technology works in your world.
If you decide that technology is powered by spells or magic then they would be magical.
If you decided that your technology is based off of in-world science (and completely devoid of any connection to the weave or any kind of spells) then it would not be considered magical.
Only magic and magical effects are affected by an anti-magic field.
Either way, the perception that something is magical has nothing to do with what the rules consider to be magical.
answered 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
I think the answer would flow more naturally if you put the book reference at the beginning and then use that as a basis to justify the rest of your point.
– Adam
30 mins ago
@Adam well that only works if the lasers they are using are from the DMG. That was not my initial reading of it. A DM certainly could make lasers that were magical if they wanted to.
– Rubiksmoose
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Technology is not considered to be a magical effect unless it is powered by magic
A player's perception of what appears to be magical or not has no bearing on the rules for whether it actually is considered to be magical by the rules. The only thing that matters is the magical nature of the object.
Something must be connected to the weave to be considered magical regardless of the technological level of your campaign/item.
Sage Advice gives us the rules for determining if something is considered magical:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell
that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
By the book - lasers/future tech are non-magical
If you are going by the future tech as outlined in the DMG on p. 268 (including laser rifles and other such items) then these definitely are not magical because the weapons do not pass any of the tests listed above for magical items.
If you are making your own technology - it is up to you
If you are making your own custom setting/tech then you get to decide the answers to these questions with regards to how technology works in your world.
If you decide that technology is powered by spells or magic then they would be magical.
If you decided that your technology is based off of in-world science (and completely devoid of any connection to the weave or any kind of spells) then it would not be considered magical.
Only magic and magical effects are affected by an anti-magic field.
Either way, the perception that something is magical has nothing to do with what the rules consider to be magical.
answered 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
I think the answer would flow more naturally if you put the book reference at the beginning and then use that as a basis to justify the rest of your point.
– Adam
30 mins ago
@Adam well that only works if the lasers they are using are from the DMG. That was not my initial reading of it. A DM certainly could make lasers that were magical if they wanted to.
– Rubiksmoose
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Technology is not considered to be a magical effect unless it is powered by magic
A player's perception of what appears to be magical or not has no bearing on the rules for whether it actually is considered to be magical by the rules. The only thing that matters is the magical nature of the object.
Something must be connected to the weave to be considered magical regardless of the technological level of your campaign/item.
Sage Advice gives us the rules for determining if something is considered magical:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell
that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
By the book - lasers/future tech are non-magical
If you are going by the future tech as outlined in the DMG on p. 268 (including laser rifles and other such items) then these definitely are not magical because the weapons do not pass any of the tests listed above for magical items.
If you are making your own technology - it is up to you
If you are making your own custom setting/tech then you get to decide the answers to these questions with regards to how technology works in your world.
If you decide that technology is powered by spells or magic then they would be magical.
If you decided that your technology is based off of in-world science (and completely devoid of any connection to the weave or any kind of spells) then it would not be considered magical.
Only magic and magical effects are affected by an anti-magic field.
Either way, the perception that something is magical has nothing to do with what the rules consider to be magical.
answered 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
Technology is not considered to be a magical effect unless it is powered by magic
A player's perception of what appears to be magical or not has no bearing on the rules for whether it actually is considered to be magical by the rules. The only thing that matters is the magical nature of the object.
Something must be connected to the weave to be considered magical regardless of the technological level of your campaign/item.
Sage Advice gives us the rules for determining if something is considered magical:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell
that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
By the book - lasers/future tech are non-magical
If you are going by the future tech as outlined in the DMG on p. 268 (including laser rifles and other such items) then these definitely are not magical because the weapons do not pass any of the tests listed above for magical items.
If you are making your own technology - it is up to you
If you are making your own custom setting/tech then you get to decide the answers to these questions with regards to how technology works in your world.
If you decide that technology is powered by spells or magic then they would be magical.
If you decided that your technology is based off of in-world science (and completely devoid of any connection to the weave or any kind of spells) then it would not be considered magical.
Only magic and magical effects are affected by an anti-magic field.
Either way, the perception that something is magical has nothing to do with what the rules consider to be magical.
answered 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
edited 18 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
answered 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
answered 1 hour ago
Rubiksmoose
40.4k5197305
40.4k5197305
I think the answer would flow more naturally if you put the book reference at the beginning and then use that as a basis to justify the rest of your point.
– Adam
30 mins ago
@Adam well that only works if the lasers they are using are from the DMG. That was not my initial reading of it. A DM certainly could make lasers that were magical if they wanted to.
– Rubiksmoose
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I think the answer would flow more naturally if you put the book reference at the beginning and then use that as a basis to justify the rest of your point.
– Adam
30 mins ago
@Adam well that only works if the lasers they are using are from the DMG. That was not my initial reading of it. A DM certainly could make lasers that were magical if they wanted to.
– Rubiksmoose
27 mins ago
I think the answer would flow more naturally if you put the book reference at the beginning and then use that as a basis to justify the rest of your point.
– Adam
30 mins ago
I think the answer would flow more naturally if you put the book reference at the beginning and then use that as a basis to justify the rest of your point.
– Adam
30 mins ago
@Adam well that only works if the lasers they are using are from the DMG. That was not my initial reading of it. A DM certainly could make lasers that were magical if they wanted to.
– Rubiksmoose
27 mins ago
@Adam well that only works if the lasers they are using are from the DMG. That was not my initial reading of it. A DM certainly could make lasers that were magical if they wanted to.
– Rubiksmoose
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
D&D 5e hasn’t released any supplements detailing how futuristic technology works, so there really isn’t any kind of official or authoritative answer to your question. Ultimately, since you have introduced these concepts to the game at your table, it is up to you (and/or your table) to define them.
You could easily go either way with these. The flip-side of Clarke’s Third Law is that “Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science,†as Agatha Heterodyne put it. If we take a magical world à la D&D and advance it into the future, magic is going to be just as serious a discipline of scientific study as physics or chemistry. Actually, it is very likely to be more so, considering the power and convenience of magic. Just think how many early “scientistsâ€Â1 in our own history were primarily bent on studying the various magics they believed in, despite the fact that no magic is known to exist here! When magic is provably a real thing, it would only garner that much more attention.
So scientists would study magic. Their findings and solid conclusions would be streamlined and taught to architects and engineers. The world would be built upon a foundation that relied on magic as much as it relied on gears, electricity, chemical reactions, and the like.
Thus any particular thing may well have been implemented with magic.
On the other hand, maybe it wasn’t: maybe dispelling or suppressing magic was a severe enough risk to be worth the effort of doing things without magic. Or maybe, once non-magical means were discovered, there was little reason to use magic—maybe magic isn’t amenable to mass production and industrialization and so it became cheaper to implement things non-magically.
Either way is entirely plausible. You could easily decide on a case-by-case basis, too. And while there may be things that your players could object to on the grounds that they aren’t possible without magic, part of the point of playing a futuristic fantasy is to have them know how to do things we currently consider to be impossible. We, of course, have no way of knowing what things we are wrong to consider impossible, so that leaves all of them potentially up for being hand-waived away.
Ultimately, the real criterion you should use is “what will make the game better?†Players who bitterly feel as though you’re cheaply obviating their characters’ skills are not good for the game. Giving in to the players’ every demand, however, tends not to make a good game either. This is a great opportunity for a table discussion about how you all want to handle this. Have a discussion, divorced from any specific example, bring up some of the points I’ve raised here, and get feedback from your players. Look for what they want, consider what you want, and try to find a compromise.
- Quotations because the “scientific method†hadn’t been invented yet and there are many, many ways in which these early researchers are rather distinct from what we would consider a scientist today.
answered 55 mins ago
KRyan
211k26528915
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
D&D 5e hasn’t released any supplements detailing how futuristic technology works, so there really isn’t any kind of official or authoritative answer to your question. Ultimately, since you have introduced these concepts to the game at your table, it is up to you (and/or your table) to define them.
You could easily go either way with these. The flip-side of Clarke’s Third Law is that “Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science,†as Agatha Heterodyne put it. If we take a magical world à la D&D and advance it into the future, magic is going to be just as serious a discipline of scientific study as physics or chemistry. Actually, it is very likely to be more so, considering the power and convenience of magic. Just think how many early “scientistsâ€Â1 in our own history were primarily bent on studying the various magics they believed in, despite the fact that no magic is known to exist here! When magic is provably a real thing, it would only garner that much more attention.
So scientists would study magic. Their findings and solid conclusions would be streamlined and taught to architects and engineers. The world would be built upon a foundation that relied on magic as much as it relied on gears, electricity, chemical reactions, and the like.
Thus any particular thing may well have been implemented with magic.
On the other hand, maybe it wasn’t: maybe dispelling or suppressing magic was a severe enough risk to be worth the effort of doing things without magic. Or maybe, once non-magical means were discovered, there was little reason to use magic—maybe magic isn’t amenable to mass production and industrialization and so it became cheaper to implement things non-magically.
Either way is entirely plausible. You could easily decide on a case-by-case basis, too. And while there may be things that your players could object to on the grounds that they aren’t possible without magic, part of the point of playing a futuristic fantasy is to have them know how to do things we currently consider to be impossible. We, of course, have no way of knowing what things we are wrong to consider impossible, so that leaves all of them potentially up for being hand-waived away.
Ultimately, the real criterion you should use is “what will make the game better?†Players who bitterly feel as though you’re cheaply obviating their characters’ skills are not good for the game. Giving in to the players’ every demand, however, tends not to make a good game either. This is a great opportunity for a table discussion about how you all want to handle this. Have a discussion, divorced from any specific example, bring up some of the points I’ve raised here, and get feedback from your players. Look for what they want, consider what you want, and try to find a compromise.
- Quotations because the “scientific method†hadn’t been invented yet and there are many, many ways in which these early researchers are rather distinct from what we would consider a scientist today.
answered 55 mins ago
KRyan
211k26528915
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
D&D 5e hasn’t released any supplements detailing how futuristic technology works, so there really isn’t any kind of official or authoritative answer to your question. Ultimately, since you have introduced these concepts to the game at your table, it is up to you (and/or your table) to define them.
You could easily go either way with these. The flip-side of Clarke’s Third Law is that “Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science,†as Agatha Heterodyne put it. If we take a magical world à la D&D and advance it into the future, magic is going to be just as serious a discipline of scientific study as physics or chemistry. Actually, it is very likely to be more so, considering the power and convenience of magic. Just think how many early “scientistsâ€Â1 in our own history were primarily bent on studying the various magics they believed in, despite the fact that no magic is known to exist here! When magic is provably a real thing, it would only garner that much more attention.
So scientists would study magic. Their findings and solid conclusions would be streamlined and taught to architects and engineers. The world would be built upon a foundation that relied on magic as much as it relied on gears, electricity, chemical reactions, and the like.
Thus any particular thing may well have been implemented with magic.
On the other hand, maybe it wasn’t: maybe dispelling or suppressing magic was a severe enough risk to be worth the effort of doing things without magic. Or maybe, once non-magical means were discovered, there was little reason to use magic—maybe magic isn’t amenable to mass production and industrialization and so it became cheaper to implement things non-magically.
Either way is entirely plausible. You could easily decide on a case-by-case basis, too. And while there may be things that your players could object to on the grounds that they aren’t possible without magic, part of the point of playing a futuristic fantasy is to have them know how to do things we currently consider to be impossible. We, of course, have no way of knowing what things we are wrong to consider impossible, so that leaves all of them potentially up for being hand-waived away.
Ultimately, the real criterion you should use is “what will make the game better?†Players who bitterly feel as though you’re cheaply obviating their characters’ skills are not good for the game. Giving in to the players’ every demand, however, tends not to make a good game either. This is a great opportunity for a table discussion about how you all want to handle this. Have a discussion, divorced from any specific example, bring up some of the points I’ve raised here, and get feedback from your players. Look for what they want, consider what you want, and try to find a compromise.
- Quotations because the “scientific method†hadn’t been invented yet and there are many, many ways in which these early researchers are rather distinct from what we would consider a scientist today.
answered 55 mins ago
KRyan
211k26528915
D&D 5e hasn’t released any supplements detailing how futuristic technology works, so there really isn’t any kind of official or authoritative answer to your question. Ultimately, since you have introduced these concepts to the game at your table, it is up to you (and/or your table) to define them.
You could easily go either way with these. The flip-side of Clarke’s Third Law is that “Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science,†as Agatha Heterodyne put it. If we take a magical world à la D&D and advance it into the future, magic is going to be just as serious a discipline of scientific study as physics or chemistry. Actually, it is very likely to be more so, considering the power and convenience of magic. Just think how many early “scientistsâ€Â1 in our own history were primarily bent on studying the various magics they believed in, despite the fact that no magic is known to exist here! When magic is provably a real thing, it would only garner that much more attention.
So scientists would study magic. Their findings and solid conclusions would be streamlined and taught to architects and engineers. The world would be built upon a foundation that relied on magic as much as it relied on gears, electricity, chemical reactions, and the like.
Thus any particular thing may well have been implemented with magic.
On the other hand, maybe it wasn’t: maybe dispelling or suppressing magic was a severe enough risk to be worth the effort of doing things without magic. Or maybe, once non-magical means were discovered, there was little reason to use magic—maybe magic isn’t amenable to mass production and industrialization and so it became cheaper to implement things non-magically.
Either way is entirely plausible. You could easily decide on a case-by-case basis, too. And while there may be things that your players could object to on the grounds that they aren’t possible without magic, part of the point of playing a futuristic fantasy is to have them know how to do things we currently consider to be impossible. We, of course, have no way of knowing what things we are wrong to consider impossible, so that leaves all of them potentially up for being hand-waived away.
Ultimately, the real criterion you should use is “what will make the game better?†Players who bitterly feel as though you’re cheaply obviating their characters’ skills are not good for the game. Giving in to the players’ every demand, however, tends not to make a good game either. This is a great opportunity for a table discussion about how you all want to handle this. Have a discussion, divorced from any specific example, bring up some of the points I’ve raised here, and get feedback from your players. Look for what they want, consider what you want, and try to find a compromise.
- Quotations because the “scientific method†hadn’t been invented yet and there are many, many ways in which these early researchers are rather distinct from what we would consider a scientist today.
answered 55 mins ago
KRyan
211k26528915
answered 55 mins ago
KRyan
211k26528915
answered 55 mins ago
KRyan
211k26528915
answered 55 mins ago
KRyan
211k26528915
211k26528915
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
No. Clarke's third law is not a 5e rule.
Magic also does not have any sort of paradigmatic basis in 5e (like in some games). It doesn't care who the caster is or what they believe about the world, it just does what it says it does in the description. If it did, then Antimagic Field would protect a Hill Giant from a Crossbow bolt.
answered 48 mins ago
MarkTO
60312
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
No. Clarke's third law is not a 5e rule.
Magic also does not have any sort of paradigmatic basis in 5e (like in some games). It doesn't care who the caster is or what they believe about the world, it just does what it says it does in the description. If it did, then Antimagic Field would protect a Hill Giant from a Crossbow bolt.
answered 48 mins ago
MarkTO
60312
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
No. Clarke's third law is not a 5e rule.
Magic also does not have any sort of paradigmatic basis in 5e (like in some games). It doesn't care who the caster is or what they believe about the world, it just does what it says it does in the description. If it did, then Antimagic Field would protect a Hill Giant from a Crossbow bolt.
answered 48 mins ago
MarkTO
60312
No. Clarke's third law is not a 5e rule.
Magic also does not have any sort of paradigmatic basis in 5e (like in some games). It doesn't care who the caster is or what they believe about the world, it just does what it says it does in the description. If it did, then Antimagic Field would protect a Hill Giant from a Crossbow bolt.
answered 48 mins ago
MarkTO
60312
answered 48 mins ago
MarkTO
60312
answered 48 mins ago
MarkTO
60312
answered 48 mins ago
MarkTO
60312
60312
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Payton Mock is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Payton Mock is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Payton Mock is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Payton Mock is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134550%2fis-future-technology-that-is-indistinguishable-from-magic-considered-a-magical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Are the lasers you are using custom ones or the ones listed in the DMG?
– Rubiksmoose
29 mins ago
I used lasers as a general statement. There are several aspects of a future world that one might consider "magic" if they didn't know any better.
– Payton Mock
24 mins ago
But the way you have been running tech is in a way that you consider to be completely non-magical correct? In other words your tech does not rely on the weave at all?
– Rubiksmoose
12 mins ago