Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

[Wilfred_Death]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

Except the wording is "Percievable by 3 Sense Groups" which implies the Sense Group must work to "notice" the Power.

Yes it sure can.. be read that way, and that is probably the correct way.

The other way just makes more sense to me

Semantics, sure, but Semantics are very important. Especially in a language with over 50 ways of saying "large" and all of them slightly different. I say "Percievable" and "Detectable" in this case are not interchangeable very easily.

Yes, your point is logically correct, and then backed up by a ridiculous example......which would seem to refute itself.

.........2) a large man big' date=' burly, heavy, tall, bulky, thickset, chunky, strapping, hulking, hefty, muscular,.........[/quote']

ah, but then if language was used like in a thesaurus Rich people would live in pudgy houses and drive buxom cars.

 

I just suggested one functional - even if semantically incorrect - way of dealing with the problem, in a way that non sophists can accept.

It might not be 'book legal' but it seems to work.

 

Except the wording is "Perceivable by 3 Sense Groups" which implies the Sense Group must work to "notice" the Power.

Which I say is like Detecting Smell, "ooh odourless" is as distinct as "phew",

or detecting gravity "ooh we're floating in zero G", "oh no we're turning into Jam"

but then again.................. Maybe all powers turn invisible in dark rooms......

[ghost-angel]

Re: Stealth Characters - **SMACKS HEAD**

 

Yes, your point is logically correct, and then backed up by a ridiculous example......which would seem to refute itself.

 

ah, but then if language was used like in a thesaurus Rich people would live in pudgy houses and drive buxom cars.

Ah no ... that was my point - you can't safely interchange synonyms. Taken out of context all words lose meaning.

 

In this case Percievable and Detetable.

 

Line up everyone, some have invisibility ... in the big line there are a few places where there are no Percievable People by your logic they have been dectected due to a lack of comparible detection - Person:Person:NoPerosn:Person:Person "AH! the Invisible Person much be where there is NoPerson."

 

Works nicely in a Controled Environment. (Good Theory)

 

Take it into the real world and does a lack of smell from an area automatically mean a Invisible To Smell object is there? Or does it simply mean there's no smell in that area? Or to continue with the Invisible Person line, does the fact that you can to NoPerson under the street lamp mean the Invisible One is there instead, or that maybe there's no one under the street lamp. Theory Fails Real Life Test.

 

Detectable (or lack of being Detectable) does not substitute for Percievable in this instance. No more that Buxom Car substitutes for Luxurious Car.