« first day (2925 days earlier)      last day (2057 days later) » 

12:16 AM
Well I'm exhausted
0
A: How should this homebrew class be rebalanced?

David CoffronI've got a lot to go over so I'm going to break it down by level. I do a lot of homebrewing (including full classes), so I will walk you through some of the balance checks I do on my own work (usually I build a class based purely on flavor and what sounds cool and then bring it into line with the...

This took me about two hours to plan out and another hour to write
RIP wrists
 
Yeah I have that problem very often when I post here
I take a while to think of it, take a long time to write it, and I think often times I then make it longer than it has to be XD
@doppelspooker oh just saw this now, what stack is that from?
 
1:16 AM
hey there @nitsua60?
 
1:40 AM
@Shalvenay hey-ooo
 
@nitsua60 see the back room, btw
 
[shuffle shuffle shuffle]
 
2:15 AM
2
Q: Why was this homebrew question held as Too Broad?

David CoffronThis recent question was held as Too Broad, but it just as narrow in scope as many of the other good homebrew questions are. It provided one homebrew creation and asked for an evaluation. We've left many questions just like this open: Is this homebrew terran race balanced? Is this homebrew whip...

 
3:07 AM
@DavidCoffron Even though I really do think the question is too broad, I still wish I could answer it xD
 
3:58 AM
This is just bugging me; I can't seem to find any way other than becoming a lich to attempt star travel.
 
Ben
@Joshua Buy a spacehip?
 
@Ben: At medieval tech level?
 
@Joshua what, Spelljammer wasn't invented over where you live? :P
 
Ben
@Joshua What system are you using. Lol
 
I agree lol. Been trying to find a way to pull it off in D&D 5e.
 
Ben
4:01 AM
Well, there is a section in 5e that can accommodate "future" tech in game.
 
I got one assuming a chaotic lich is possible. (It is at lvl17 by true polymorph)
 
@Joshua as long as you don't wind up taking a wrong turn at the outer planet and finding an entrance to Nova :P
 
Ben
I believe it talks about lazer weapons... and I once had a game with a giant autonomous robot bird
And Warp travel is a whole other ball game
 
@Ben: Warp travel is simply not available; I'm plotting it out the hard way.
the amount of delta v in a wand of fly is ridiculous
 
@Joshua just how much delta-v are you getting out of that thing? XD
 
4:06 AM
100km/s
 
@Joshua that's pretty decent :)
at least for getting off your rock
@Joshua going to need something to get some lambda (i.e. a significant fraction of c) if you're going to go interstellar w/o a warp drive tho
 
my original plan was to take a backpack of them and hope my aim was good
if I find a target planet with a moon without an atmosphere I can get on its surface easily: feather fall doesn't care if you would hit the surface with a high lambda
 
@Joshua heheheh.
 
I haven't found any stupid tricks to get an actually high lambda in a reasonable amount of time though; 100 wands is believeable, 10,000 is not
general plan: shove one of a pair of teleportation rings into a bag of holding and take it with me
I only need to make the interstellar journey once
 
4:23 AM
@Joshua probably a good idea to set up a stargate, yeah
 
 
3 hours later…
Ben
7:19 AM
Off to Darwin... Where the heat is hot and humidity is hotter!
 
 
3 hours later…
10:13 AM
Tmw someone tries to sell some oil thing in a D&D forum.
Should that be considered a compliment because they considered that the forum is big enough for that? xD
Also @doppelspooker Morning Doot
 
@Ghiojo My guess is that they latch to sites discussing "magic", "spells" or somesuch.
 
Lol
 
We also get quite a lot of phony witch doctors who say they can cure your HIV or make someone fall in love with you.
 
Kek
 
10:31 AM
@Ghiojo doot!
Good morning! o/
 
 
2 hours later…
12:51 PM
\o
 
doot
 
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
 
Is that a squadron of TIE fighters coming my way?
 
@MikeQ >< >< ><
 
@nitsua60 Stay on target!
 
12:53 PM
Two fishes making out?
 
@nitsua60 two fighters and a TIE interceptor, excuse you
 
Oh, no--X-wings.
(Still making out, though.)
 
|-o-| = = X--
pew pew
 
@Carcer Yeah, I've never (cared to) know the designations of all the various ships.
One big-triangular-ship's as good as another, in my book.
 
there's the X-wing that's X-shaped, the A-wing that's A-shaped, and the B-wing that isn't B-shaped
 
12:55 PM
Gotcha =)
 
@nitsua60 I can remember four kinds of TIE craft, because I played the old TIE Fighter game yonks ago. Fighters, bombers, interceptors and defenders
don't forget the Y-wing!
 
which is kinda Y-shaped
 
yeah, that one makes sense.
 
I also never got terribly interested in military hardware IRL, so I don't have those brain-shelves to store the info on.
 
and isn't the Z-Wing an X-Wing except that the things don't actually open into an X?
 
12:57 PM
shrug... I used to know all this from spending hours in Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds
 
> In class descriptions, "you" sometimes refers to players, sometimes to characters. This is patently clear from reading almost any paragraph in any class description. As an example, look at the second paragraph of Tides of Chaos:

you roll on the Wild Magic Surge table immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell...

The first "you" clearly refers to the player, as the table is absolutely a metagame construct. The second "you" clearly refers to the character, as the player doesn't actually know how to cast any spells.
@KorvinStarmast on second thought, I'm starting to come around to the idea of the surge table being an in-game object =)
[Sorcerer does something OP]
[Sorcerer pulls out journal where they've kept a log of "ways to blow off excess energy", picks one at random.]
 
Ah, the eternal TTRPG question of "How much are the characters aware of the game mechanics"
 
0
Q: Why did this question allow one answer after hold but not mine?

BloodcinderI was in the middle of writing an answer to this question when it was held for being a duplicate. (This meta is not about the duplicate status, just that it was and still is held as of this meta.) Once the question was held, the SE interface refused to let me post the answer I was already compos...

 
Also, congrats on the reordering in the top 10, @KorvinStarmast! (I'd noticed a month or so ago that this was likely coming, but it looks like it happened recently?)
 
1:12 PM
@nitsua60 reordering?
 
@ColinGross Korvin recently passed me in the reputation league.
 
@nitsua60 denied
 
gasp
 
@nitsua60 There's a league? Is this going to be like fantasy football? because if it is, I'll just tell you right now that I'm out.
 
1:14 PM
Though all I have to do is delete a handful of specially-identified users and then trigger a rep recalc on @KorvinStarmast to rectify the situation =)
 
@nitsua60 oh. I just chose two of your answers to upvote at random
 
@Carcer I've barely answered any questions this year--it's not surprising.
 
seemed easier
 
@Carcer (I dunno, wouldn't "all" be easier?)
=D
 
@Carcer Okay. Looks like somebody chipped in the buy in for me already. Let me just get this out there, "you cant have my QBs or RBs or R&Bs or whatever other Bs are involved."
 
1:15 PM
@MikeQ It's much less eternal in DnD 4e where the game explicitly says that they are aware, stop :>
 
@nitsua60 That's the worst way to take the temperature of a situation
 
That's one way to resolve the debate and in 4e's context, it works quite well.
 
@kviiri I usually read that as "are the players aware of how the world works?"
If it's something they should have encountered previously, yes.
 
The rules explicitly say stuff like "the monsters and characters are aware of how the conditions, eg. Marked, work"
 
So does a barbarian know how many rages they have left?
"Me think me can get angry 2 more times before me need long nap"
 
1:19 PM
Yeah. You gotta know how much you have left in you.
Could split the ability into the description and the effects. The character could be as angry, but their body just doesn't have it to get the effects of rage again.
 
@nitsua60 My edit to your answer was just for a little format. I really like the way you covered the bases on that.
 
Overall the idea of separating the players or even their characters from all game-mechanic knowledge seems like a very misguided idea to me. Not that I've seen anyone seriously suggest it, but every time I see a question like "are characters aware of <X>?" I get this nagging feeling that someone's eventually going to suggest that "no, it's metagaming and hence bad".
 
@nitsua60 Uh, do I now get a coupon for a free cup of coffee? Do I get into Letterman's Top Ten List? (Wait, he's off the air, never mind).
@kviiri that's not an easy one to answer, and really think that it needs to stay table dependent. At some tables, where people try for more immersion and verisimilitude, it's a great way to play. At others, where IC/OC cross talk is common and enjoyed, not so much. It's not a "yes/no" answer, as I see it.
 
@KorvinStarmast Yes--thanks for the cleanup =)
@KorvinStarmast Next time you're in the Northeast, for sure =)
 
@DavidCoffron Dude, you rock!
 
1:30 PM
(Or I'm down there.)
 
@KorvinStarmast But I mean, I don't really know how much verisimilitude one actually gets from tossing away all the numbers needed to play a character "normally"
Eg. not knowing how many spell slots they have, if they're an active caster
 
There are three towers in Houston that are worth visiting....
 
@kviiri Wouldn't that require the DM to track that?
 
@ColinGross That's often the consequence of hiding information from the players, yes :)
If there's only one person who knows everything, they're in charge of knowing everything
 
there's a fun way to do this, which is where you take players who are experienced with a system and give them zero information about their characters, then have them try to reverse engineer their stats from what you tell them
 
1:39 PM
Yeah, that's another point I've been thinking about --- won't people just reverse-engineer the numbers? :P
 
@kviiri It's also that many systems are resource decision games. If you don't know your resources, that could get frustrating quickly. Unless the table is all in on that type of game. In which case it'd be fun.
 
@kviiri Some would, but that seems like a lot more to put on the GM for table top.
@NautArch Good point. How would you adjust or play encounters so that they aren't resource decisions?
or not so dependent on it that the players are encouraged to keep track?
 
@ColinGross I'm not sure you can...unless it's unlimited resources and actions?
 
Also, the NPCs and opponents don't know their own stat blocks either.
 
@NautArch Ah, 4th edition
 
1:46 PM
@ColinGross I don't think the point is shifting encounters away from being resource allocation problems... I think the point is embracing them as such
 
@SirCinnamon 4e isn'ta resource allocation game?
 
@NautArch Less so than 5e I guess? I was just poking fun at the "at-will" spells which seemed almost equal to the encounter or daily spells at lower levels at least
you always had a move, you never basic attacked. (Which I now realize I dont like)
 
@SirCinnamon Mind if I ask why? I found the fact that even your basic attack is somewhat special rather refreshing.
And I mean, casters' "basic attack" is using cantrips in 5e too isn't it?
@NautArch It's to a large extent less so than 5e.
 
@kviiri Right, which makes casters feel different to martial classes to me
 
@SirCinnamon So the problem is that Martials get At-Will powers too?
 
1:50 PM
@kviiri Hmm, interesting. Is 13th Age in the same vein (as I was told they are quite similar.) I'm still thinking about trying to do a run with that system.
 
@kviiri Kind of - I guess I like resource allocation. Combat in 4e felt like it was a lot of "I use my at-will again because its really strong"
 
@kviiri Mechanically, and for the sake of playability, it makes no sense to remove that. (It is a game )
 
every class had the same resources - encounter powers and daily powers. They all recharge the same way
 
@NautArch 4e goes quite far in that one's combat and non-combat abilities are "separate". You can't for example forgo combat abilities for utility. Every daily power and encounter power recharges separately, so you wind up using all of them instead of blowing all your slots on the one power you actually like :>
@SirCinnamon Minor nitpick - some of the psionic classes don't. Doesn't really matter to me because I don't run them.
@KorvinStarmast Aye
 
@kviiri Yeah I never played with any of those so could be they adressed some of those issues
 
1:55 PM
@SirCinnamon Hmm, afaik the general consensus is that the psionic system falls a bit flat
But I guess it's one of those things where your mileage may vary :)
 
@kviiri That's just all rpgs, people like different things
 
And well, some classes have more interesting twists to how they spend their abilities
 
@kviiri I've never liked psionics... but I have a player who is absolutely enamored with it. Also, the player is an optimizer.
 
Eg. the barbarian can also "sacrifice" their daily powers to make stronger melee strikes
@ColinGross Yeah, for some reason it doesn't really work well for me either. There's already Magic (Wizard), Magic but Different (Sorcerer), Magic but it's Music (Bard), Magic but it's god (Clerics and Paladins), Magic but it's the raw force of nature (Druid and Shaman)... the psionics thing isn't really earning it place in this very crowded room.
(AFK for a while-->)
 
@kviiri I always ask, "how does psionics interact with magic?"
 
2:00 PM
@ColinGross I'll be happy to discuss this soon :)
 
I have yet to find a convincing, copacetic, and comforting answer.
 
@ColinGross I mean, the real answer is "psionics is the word science fiction uses when it wants to have wizards."
4
 
I have yet to find a convincing, copacetic, and comforting answer.
 
I liked the 4e version, myself.
(I mean, lore-wise. Mechanically it was a good idea executed in a mediocre fashion.)
 
@SirCinnamon My two cents about the 4e thing is, I'm happy that they made martials interesting to play. I'm happy with basic attack being a rarity since it's boring. But I think there should be more tangible differences between different classes --- many have cool distinctive features but some are very alike.
 
2:11 PM
Some varieties of psionics just state that it's a different way to access the same magic, so psionics and magic interact the same way magic interacts with magic (dispel magic === dispel psionics, detect psionics === detect magic, etc)
 
@KorvinStarmast I guess. Now that I look at it again it is probably Too Broad as written
Shouldve waited for a more narrow question
 
@kviiri I can agree with all of that
 
As an example, Wizards and Invokers are lore-wise veey different but play very similarly.
 
I think 5e made basic attacks pretty dynamic, in the higher levels for martial classes. Adv/Dis, multiattack and class specific stuff
 
4e's lore for psionics is that it's the kind of power used in the Far Realm. Creatures like mind flayers use it because they're derived from the Far Realm, and native humanoids developed psionic abilities as nature's way of providing a tool for defending against Far Realm invasions.
Mechanically, instead of having low-effect powers they can use more frequently and high-effect powers they can use less frequently (the model for all other power sources in 4e), psionic classes have low-effect powers they can use at will and a small pool of points to increase the effect of single uses of those powers.
 
2:17 PM
@Delioth At that point, psionics are spells nobody else can have? So a warlock?
 
@ColinGross In many games, everybody's spells are unique to their class/specialty; the 'shared spellbooks by magic type' concept isn't even universal across D&D editions.
 
@BESW How does dispell magic or antimagic shell interact with psionic powers in that system?
 
@ColinGross They work like spells, they're just a different way of using them. They're channeled from inner power (power point pool) and mental gymnastics (or emotions). Because of the difference in power source, the magic is a bit different - in the same way Druids get different spells than a Bard, who gets different spells from a Sorcerer
 
@BESW If psionics are spells, they would fit into that characterization.
 
@ColinGross Powers don't have "strong against/weak against" types in 4e.
And the concept of "spells" as a mechanic really doesn't apply to 4e either.
 
2:20 PM
@Delioth That's a nice thematic skining of you get your power from X.
 
The magic-psionic transparency also happens to be convenient for stuff like anti-magic zone or dispel magic et. al.
 
Spells are what a wizard calls his powers.
"Power" is the mechanical term for the cool stuff characters can do, and classes are grouped by the flavor of where they get their power: arcane, divine, martial, elemental, shadow, psionic, primal, etc.
 
@BESW So antimagic field/shell/zone in 4e suppresses psionic powers as well?
@Delioth transparency? you mean psionics as magic? or the interaction is transparent because it's explicitly stated?
@BESW Gotcha. Everything is powers. The powers have a tag. Mechanics specify which tags they affect.
 
psionic-magic transparency means that they can be treated as the same thing
 
4e doesn't really... do... an "anti-magic" aura.
 
2:24 PM
@ColinGross It's the name of the rule - there's transparency because they're just different veils over the same "energy", and the interactions are explicit - you can replace every instance of the word "psionic" with "magic" and nothing changes
 
@Carcer I think equivalency might be a better term.
 
no, equivalency is a slightly different implication
 
"Transparency" is actually just the name of the rule (at least in Pathfinder's 3pp source for it, which IIRC is mostly a copy-paste from 3.5's rules on the matter)
 
There's Dispel Magic, a level 6 Wizard utility power that attacks and (if successful) destroys a single zone or conjuration.
 
@Delioth Gotcha. The authors chose poorly.
 
2:26 PM
It targets a kind of effect, regardless of whether that effect is caused by a warrior shouting really loud, or a psion imagining shards of mental force so well they're real, or a druid conjuring a swarm of bees.
 
@ColinGross saying "psionic-magic transparency" makes intuitive sense to me
possibly because I'm used to using the word transparent in a computing context
 
@ColinGross Not really - transparency I think is the right word for it. They're not 100% equivalent, obviously, because they have slightly different effects (if they were equivalent, we'd give psions a pool of power points and spells known to use). They're transparent because they're different shades of the same thing, like looking at a photo through blue glass or yellow glass, and interactions with them at a fundamental level always work the same
 
@Carcer Okay. Transparency does not have that connotation nor denotation for me. What you describe is the swapping of one word for another. To me, that's more along the lines of "alias", "substitution", "equivalent", or "synonymous"
 
@DavidCoffron I liked the way you compared it to cleric domains and to other class features, level by level.
 
The power types are different from each other in their flavor and the kinds of effects they most often create, but none is set apart as special in how it interacts with any other because that's not fun as often as it means you don't get to be part of the fun.
 
2:29 PM
transparency in a computing context at least usually means that the details of the implementation are not relevant, the behaviour is the same
 
My interpretation of D&D 4e's handling was that magic is all-pervasive: it's in everyone and everything, and everybody uses it, the heroes of the story especially so. Paladins, clerics and their deities use magic to cast their spells, Fighters and Warlords use magic to perform remarkable or superhuman feats. There is no "can use magic" and "cannot" dividing line between the classes.
 
@BESW Yeah, I think we have a Q&A somewhere around here that makes a similar point.
 
@Delioth Not 100% equal but pretty close I think is closer to "congruent" or "functionally equivalent"
 
@KorvinStarmast to be perfectly honest, I would've made the beguiler as a subclass if I had to port it for one of my players. It just doesn't feel different enough for a new class. The new classes I've made are very different than the PHB classes
 
Much like our world runs on physics and there isn't a type of person or thing that "can't use physics" or "doesn't have physics", in D&D 4e's setting everyone and everything is permeated with magic. Some creatures can use it to do things.
 
2:31 PM
@ColinGross Yeah, but "Magic-psionic congruency" or "magic-psionic functional equivalency" doesn't have the same ring to it, where "magic-psionic transparency" makes sense and rolls off the tongue too
 
@doppelspooker Interesting. Are there non-magic permeated attacks?
 
Explicitly? The system doesn't care.
 
@Delioth I disagree. The path from the meaning of transparent to the definition seems like a bridge too far from my perspective.
 
Yeah the system doesn't care and doesn't define it this way. This is how I interpret its world and mechanics privately.
 
But there's a thing called a 'basic attack' which probably qualifies. It's the minimum-effort, everyone-can-do-this-but-won't-unless-it's-their-only-option attack.
 
2:32 PM
@BESW or unless a particularly tricky person runs past them once a day.
 
@doppelspooker I accept your interpretation, and add that magic is the yolk of the world-egg.
 
@BESW nice :)
 
@DavidCoffron Sub class of sorcerer?
 
@ColinGross It makes enough sense to be intuitive once you get it, but it isn't so perfect so that you never read the rule - the goal is to make you still read the rule at least once and not jump to conclusions
 
Jun 19 at 8:48, by BESW
Magician and I also came up with the idea that the reason there's only ever one tarrasque is that it's an unhatched Far Realm creature, and Creation is its egg, and aberrations are parasites and symbiotes living in the egg.
 
2:33 PM
@BESW Ooooh, in that sense :D
 
@KorvinStarmast probably would do wizard
 
In that interpretation, all non-psionic magic is just poorly-mastered psionics, because psionics is the physics of the Far Realm and we're just a Far Realm egg.
 
@Carcer Even then lots of classes have a power they can use when they'd be allowed to make a basic attack. So a Warlock prompted to make one instead zaps you with an eldritch blast.
 
Maybe cleric. I've made a cleric domain before that changed the Spellcasting ability at level 1
 
@BESW Psions would likely agree with that.
 
2:35 PM
@KorvinStarmast lol!
 
@DavidCoffron We already have Trickery Cleic, and we have Illusion Wizards. Beguiler as sub class of either seems to be redundant.
 
@Delioth The goal of the name of the rule is to not be an accurate summation to force readers to carefully go over the text?
 
@doppelspooker I am referring once more to Bloody Path, which makes creatures resolve basic attacks against themselves
 
@KorvinStarmast which is why I'm not sure why the player didn't choose one of the already existing subclasses. There is the college of whisper for bards and the shadow sorcery for sorcerers as well
 
@ColinGross I've read that twice, and I barely grok that statement. Is the name of a rule the worm on a hook?
 
2:36 PM
@ColinGross I think that's probably stretching it. I'd just argue that the name does make sense without explanation if you are familiar with that use of the word transparency
 
The right multiclass can basically have all of beguilers abilities
 
@Carcer I think I may have a different definition of transparency.
 
"College of [whisper]" just means you got one of those shady degrees from a predatory online university.
 
@DavidCoffron My guess: the Player wanted to be (something like)OP and was coming from 3.5 and probably did not yet have a "feel" for what 5e's basis is.
 
@ColinGross a word can have more than one meaning, especially in different contexts.
 
2:37 PM
@Carcer That is a true statement.
 
@DavidCoffron That too, and it might be a good way to answer the question. :)
 
This statement is false.
 
The +2 spell DC leaped out at me at level 9 as OP.
 
@KorvinStarmast Which question was being answered?
 
@ColinGross It is an accurate summation. Interactions between magic and psionics are transparent. There's just always the danger in writing rule names so succinctly that a reader can read the name of the rule and think they have the whole picture
 
2:39 PM
Morning all
 
@KorvinStarmast like... A conjuration wizard (with some reflavouring)/shadow sorcerer is basically exactly what the beguiler is
 
Plus it's not really "carefully going over the text". The entire description of the magic-psionic transparancy in the book is like, 2 sentences
 
@ColinGross I was answering David, sorry, clicked on the wrong message.
 
@Delioth They are transparent because they're explicitly stated? or that they're easy to perceive? or that there are no hidden mechanics?
 
@ColinGross No hidden mechanics, and also explicitly stated, and also easy to perceive.
 
2:40 PM
@Delioth I would expect the reader skipping the body after reading the heading is true regardless of the heading.
 
@ColinGross "transparent" because there is no visible difference between them
or perceivable, I should say
 
@Delioth So all rules could then have "transparency" added to their titles.
 
oh nevermind
 
David, I wonder if I can sit down and build a Beguiler that is a multiclass which fits the needs of the Dm and the Player. Maybe if the question gets reopened.
 
@Carcer No visible difference is not a definition of transparent for me. I think that might be the difference in our interpretation of the term.
 
2:42 PM
That's... actually pretty much one definition for transparent
 
@DavidCoffron as he was unsatisfied with the way 5e had no suitable (in his opinion) ways to do something similar to the Beguiler (from, I believe, 3.5)
 
@Delioth I was unaware.
 
@KorvinStarmast would be a good frame challenge
 
The problem is that he wants 1d8, and I really think that one of the Bards might be a better fit. Or a Warlock/Bard multiclass.
 
Part of the whole idea of having transparent glass is so there's no visible difference between viewing what's behind it with the glass or with a different piece of (also transparent) glass, or with no glass. No visible difference is the goal
 
2:43 PM
@KorvinStarmast we certain do answers that challenge the premises. You could also ask and self answer a "how to play a beguiler in 5e?" question if you can find a way to word it to be on topic
 
@DavidCoffron But he has to go Sorcerer to get that meta magic feat, Subtle, which appears to be an important element of the class idea.
 
@Delioth That's one way to get the phrase "no visible difference" into a sentence with transparent.
@Delioth Are clones transparent?
 
@DavidCoffron So maybe a Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass. (I'll need to check invocations to see which ones support trickery and illusion)
 
@ColinGross For some definitions of "transparent" (and some clone personalities), yes - absolutely
 
Kickstarter in its final day: Something Is Wrong Here: A Roleplaying Game. Uncanny surrealist roleplaying, inspired by TWIN PEAKS, MULHOLLAND DRIVE, and the other dark works of DAVID LYNCH.
2
 
2:46 PM
@KorvinStarmast there are quite a few. People don't really use them because there are better options but they exist
 
@Delioth which one of those defs is about two things being visually the same?
 
@KorvinStarmast problem is, the shadowcrafter element seems to want to be able to create weapons and crestures which is the realm of spells (which sorcerer gets very few of). That's why i suggested conjuration wizard
 
@Delioth Is a magnifying glass transparent?
 
@ColinGross Using the strict definition, since we're apparently on pedantry level 100%? No, a magnifying glass is not transparent.
 
2:51 PM
@Delioth By which definition is a magnifying glass not transparent?
 
The first one in Merriam-Webster " having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering ..."
Where scattering is defined as "deviation from the straight line" per wiki on light scattering
Magnifying glasses cause appreciable scattering by refracting light in such a way that images viewed appear larger
 
@Delioth I think we disagree on many terms. I think magnifying glasses don't appreciably scatter light so much that what's on the other side can't be seen clearly. Especially since I use them to see small things more clearly.
 
Magnifying glasses wouldn't be very useful if they weren't transparent
 
@doppelspooker they magnify your appreciation of having sight
 
In short, I find the use of "transparency" to mean "two things are indistinguishable" too far of a stretch.
There are plenty of other words that more precisely mean "nearly indistinguishable" or "functionally indistinguishable" or "approximate". I think the author's choice was poor for the naming of the rule.
 

« first day (2925 days earlier)      last day (2057 days later) »