@gorgonzola: Logic is always logic, if the start is fuzzy, the result will also be fuzzy. But if someone wants to care about it and play the game with their own set of rules or the original is something completely different. If you don't care about it, nothing wrong with that, it's probably more wrong of me to try to apply logic where there is none from the beginning. My point here was just to add a different view to the cheese debate, simply that if it goes against logic, it's cheese. And if someone wants to go my route, they would have to decide which possible explanations are possible for every situation and decide which path of logic is the most suitable, and in that decision, follow the same path as the one they have followed before. Changing path means abandoning the logic. In this case my path is "magic doesn't come from nothing" and that means one time items, charged items and spells would have to come from the original. And I must say that I have a hard time seeing any logic that would give me more freedom... Other than the path "It's magic, anything goes", and that path would destroy the rules completely.
Don't get me wrong, I see your logic. The problem is the start, that is fuzzy. If we assume that the power of a spell or scroll came from mana the logic lead to one result. Or better to two possible opposite results depending if a power to duplicate that mana is given or not to the clone. In the first case the clone can use the duplicate mana of memorized spells, scrolls and items. And the mage using directly the scroll consumes its embedded mana, both if he use it to learn the spell or to cast it using the scroll. Or the power of duplicate the mana is not given so no free spells, each clone's spell consume one memorization of the mage, charge of items or scrolls with the clone. If we assume that the power of a scroll came from something other the result is different. You have still to explain what is that something other, but in this case the result is your result. But no one assumed that the magic came from nowhere. Logic is always logic, but logic tell that starting from a fuzzy premise until the fuzziness is not resolved no other step can be made.
The game, as is implemented, let suppose that the magic came from the mana and to the clone is given the power to duplicate it, just like the simulacrum clone, but not the PI one, can duplicate a weapon with its enchanted benefits, that also came from mana embedded in it. So the fuzziness is resolved with an arbitrary assumption that the clone can duplicate for a short time the mana. Creating paradoxes like the one that lets recharge the spellbook using the spell trap and the PI. But the arbitrary assumption is the one that better explain the in game reality. I hope that you see both the logic and how in this way magic don't came from nothing.
But both your thesis and the one of who don't even let the clone cast spells have their inherent logic, simply resolve the fuzziness in different ways. That don't suit well with the in game reality. So some self limitations has to be made, in your case don't use the scrolls, in the other case don't use the PI (or use it and self erase the spell from the mage's spellbook as the clone cast it) and use the simulacrum only for physical attacks equipping it with an unenchanted weapon and armor.
@semiticgod , I agree and already told that is also my opinion. But now we are not debating about the rules of the game, or about balance issues. We are trying to establish if there is a logic, based on the fictional reality of the game, to let a clone use consumable scrolls. Something like debating if a thief can move undetected in full light and not at the back of the enemy after hiding in a dark area. More a philosophical question than something related to rules, but, as some people can want to self restrain themselves in things that are allowed by the rules but not logical, has impact on their gaming. My thesis is that depending on what you decide about the fuzzy premises the answer can be yes, no and even not allowing to the clones casting at all and using any enchanted item.
As always when discussing logic in fictional settings, the premises (or lack thereof) don't allow for "intuitive" reasoning, as reasoning as we know it is also contingent on the world working as we know it.
It's the same as people asking wacky hypothetical physics questions, like "what if the speed of light was 200mph?" - you can't make deductions from such statements because the statements themselves invalidate the entire system you would base your deductions on.
The solution is the so-called "miracle exemption" where you just assume one premise to be true axiomatically, and extrapolate from there; this is for entertainment value only, of course.
The problem with that in a setting like D&D is that we a) don't have enough objective in-depth information about the nature of the world; and b) that what information we do have is already full of logical errors and plot/logic holes solved by the equivalent of "a wizard did it" - which invalidates any form of reasoning.
So, in conclusion, you could just argue for anything, and find a justification that makes "sense", somehow. It's pointless to debate in "logical" terms, and the only thing that has any merit is thinking about what works FOR YOU, with reasons and justifications largely optional.
As always when discussing logic in fictional settings, the premises (or lack thereof) don't allow for "intuitive" reasoning, as reasoning as we know it is also contingent on the world working as we know it.
I agree. But the scientific method is based on setting some arbitrary premises and trough experimentation test if they produce the predicted result. If not they are discarded other way they are regarded as true and a theory is developed. Further experimentation can invalidate the theory and lead to a new one, but until that moment is regarded as the best explanation of the reality. Newton's theory was regarded as true until uncle Albert's speculations, that where confirmed by experimentation, showed that Newton's theory is false, space and time are not fixed variables in the equation and only light speed is. This is scientific method, based on logic. I try to do the same for BG2 reality, and my arbitrary premises, magic is based and originate from mana and clones can temporarily duplicate mana, seem to be confirmed by all the experimentation possible. Spell destroyed by learning (is not the words or the paper, but the mana embedded who is absorbed by the mage, when he has the requested level that give him the power to cast the spell) and direct use. Memorization of the spells (the mage don't memorize and somewhat forget for the rest of the day the formula, but charge himself with the mana trough concentration and rest). The clone duplicating mana explain how he can cast without consuming caster's mana, and use scrolls and enchanted items. And the enchantation of items is explained with mana embedded in them. Only how n. charges x day items are recharged resting is left unexplained, but other ways seems to be a coherent and logical theory, as it use scientific method to verify the premises, to see if the (fictional) reality is coherent with the predicted results.
@gorgonzola The problem with your attempt is that it is non-exclusive. The scientific method works because you find THE ONE explanation that makes the most sense. However, due to the limited nature of the information available in this case and huge amount of inferred and speculated premises, you can come up with any number of explanations that, on a logical level, all "make sense" fairly equally. In other words, you could develop alternative theories that you have no way of disproving, i.e. they are, for the most part, just as likely or unlikely as the one you give.
True, but at least is logical and coherent with the fictional reality, even if is not the only possible explanation of that reality. In a context (the boards) where people happily accept things like thieves remaining hidden in shadows in full light and not at the back of the enemy, strong fighters carrying in their backpack 5 complete suits of armor and halberds used in very close combat, but object as not logical about the use of scrolls with clones I am pretty satisfied of my little theory. I am more interested to balance issues then to a possible logical incongruity when I have to deal with such things in this highly illogical game, but if other people is interested in logical congruity I am happy to give my 2 cents.
Comments
Logic is always logic, if the start is fuzzy, the result will also be fuzzy. But if someone wants to care about it and play the game with their own set of rules or the original is something completely different. If you don't care about it, nothing wrong with that, it's probably more wrong of me to try to apply logic where there is none from the beginning.
My point here was just to add a different view to the cheese debate, simply that if it goes against logic, it's cheese.
And if someone wants to go my route, they would have to decide which possible explanations are possible for every situation and decide which path of logic is the most suitable, and in that decision, follow the same path as the one they have followed before. Changing path means abandoning the logic.
In this case my path is "magic doesn't come from nothing" and that means one time items, charged items and spells would have to come from the original. And I must say that I have a hard time seeing any logic that would give me more freedom... Other than the path "It's magic, anything goes", and that path would destroy the rules completely.
If we assume that the power of a spell or scroll came from mana the logic lead to one result. Or better to two possible opposite results depending if a power to duplicate that mana is given or not to the clone.
In the first case the clone can use the duplicate mana of memorized spells, scrolls and items. And the mage using directly the scroll consumes its embedded mana, both if he use it to learn the spell or to cast it using the scroll. Or the power of duplicate the mana is not given so no free spells, each clone's spell consume one memorization of the mage, charge of items or scrolls with the clone.
If we assume that the power of a scroll came from something other the result is different. You have still to explain what is that something other, but in this case the result is your result.
But no one assumed that the magic came from nowhere.
Logic is always logic, but logic tell that starting from a fuzzy premise until the fuzziness is not resolved no other step can be made.
The game, as is implemented, let suppose that the magic came from the mana and to the clone is given the power to duplicate it, just like the simulacrum clone, but not the PI one, can duplicate a weapon with its enchanted benefits, that also came from mana embedded in it.
So the fuzziness is resolved with an arbitrary assumption that the clone can duplicate for a short time the mana. Creating paradoxes like the one that lets recharge the spellbook using the spell trap and the PI.
But the arbitrary assumption is the one that better explain the in game reality.
I hope that you see both the logic and how in this way magic don't came from nothing.
But both your thesis and the one of who don't even let the clone cast spells have their inherent logic, simply resolve the fuzziness in different ways. That don't suit well with the in game reality. So some self limitations has to be made, in your case don't use the scrolls, in the other case don't use the PI (or use it and self erase the spell from the mage's spellbook as the clone cast it) and use the simulacrum only for physical attacks equipping it with an unenchanted weapon and armor.
But now we are not debating about the rules of the game, or about balance issues.
We are trying to establish if there is a logic, based on the fictional reality of the game, to let a clone use consumable scrolls. Something like debating if a thief can move undetected in full light and not at the back of the enemy after hiding in a dark area.
More a philosophical question than something related to rules, but, as some people can want to self restrain themselves in things that are allowed by the rules but not logical, has impact on their gaming.
My thesis is that depending on what you decide about the fuzzy premises the answer can be yes, no and even not allowing to the clones casting at all and using any enchanted item.
It's the same as people asking wacky hypothetical physics questions, like "what if the speed of light was 200mph?" - you can't make deductions from such statements because the statements themselves invalidate the entire system you would base your deductions on.
The solution is the so-called "miracle exemption" where you just assume one premise to be true axiomatically, and extrapolate from there; this is for entertainment value only, of course.
The problem with that in a setting like D&D is that we a) don't have enough objective in-depth information about the nature of the world; and b) that what information we do have is already full of logical errors and plot/logic holes solved by the equivalent of "a wizard did it" - which invalidates any form of reasoning.
So, in conclusion, you could just argue for anything, and find a justification that makes "sense", somehow. It's pointless to debate in "logical" terms, and the only thing that has any merit is thinking about what works FOR YOU, with reasons and justifications largely optional.
But the scientific method is based on setting some arbitrary premises and trough experimentation test if they produce the predicted result. If not they are discarded other way they are regarded as true and a theory is developed. Further experimentation can invalidate the theory and lead to a new one, but until that moment is regarded as the best explanation of the reality. Newton's theory was regarded as true until uncle Albert's speculations, that where confirmed by experimentation, showed that Newton's theory is false, space and time are not fixed variables in the equation and only light speed is.
This is scientific method, based on logic.
I try to do the same for BG2 reality, and my arbitrary premises, magic is based and originate from mana and clones can temporarily duplicate mana, seem to be confirmed by all the experimentation possible. Spell destroyed by learning (is not the words or the paper, but the mana embedded who is absorbed by the mage, when he has the requested level that give him the power to cast the spell) and direct use. Memorization of the spells (the mage don't memorize and somewhat forget for the rest of the day the formula, but charge himself with the mana trough concentration and rest).
The clone duplicating mana explain how he can cast without consuming caster's mana, and use scrolls and enchanted items. And the enchantation of items is explained with mana embedded in them.
Only how n. charges x day items are recharged resting is left unexplained, but other ways seems to be a coherent and logical theory, as it use scientific method to verify the premises, to see if the (fictional) reality is coherent with the predicted results.
In a context (the boards) where people happily accept things like thieves remaining hidden in shadows in full light and not at the back of the enemy, strong fighters carrying in their backpack 5 complete suits of armor and halberds used in very close combat, but object as not logical about the use of scrolls with clones I am pretty satisfied of my little theory.
I am more interested to balance issues then to a possible logical incongruity when I have to deal with such things in this highly illogical game, but if other people is interested in logical congruity I am happy to give my 2 cents.