Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: Ground attacks from spelljammers
Next Message: Re: Nifty Idea
Month Index: September, 1996

From:     Matt Tong <mtong@???.???????.???.??.us>
Date:     Sun, 15 Sep 1996 19:14:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:  Re: Nifty Idea
At 08:26 PM 9/13/96 GMT, you wrote:
>>>Dispel ia an area effect spell (it's a spell, not an item being dispelled).
>>The area of effect
>>>is 30x30. Woc lists that as the equivalent of a 10 ton ship. (Book 1 ,
page 65)
>>>The bad news is, the shrapnel from a hit on regular glass, such as after a
>>dispel, would
>>>probably cause an effect similar to Shrapnel Shot, or the like.
>>True but the point I was making was that singlehandedly it wouldn't destroy
>>the ship.
>Single handedly? That depends on the sive of the ship, and the area hit. It
actually stands a
>fair chance, especially if it hits the middle of the ship. Definately on
smaller ships, such as
>about 30 tons or less, where 1/3 or more of the ship becomes much weaker,
and quite fragile.
>Hell the weight of the ship might do the rest.

        I doubt the ship would tear itself apart. The gravity that affects
ships is the ship itself. That's why some ships have decks on both sides. So
gravity would help keep the ship together. If it were close enough to a
planet the effects would be different and possibly quite spectacular.

>>Ok. The question is, does glassteel actually alter the item or not. Does
>>lead turned to gold remain magic? or is it just gold? I would say that since
>>it is alteration and says it turns glass to glassteel(not merely enchants it
>>to steel like strengh).
>Well, at the risk of sounding like a rules lawyer, the Plymorph spells
disagree with you, as
>does stone to flesh.

        Exactly, but as I said before, the descriptions for these spells
specifically say that they can despelled despite the fact that they are
permenent. *Some* DM's would conclude that that means that some permenent
spells can't be dispelled.

>Also, the glass is still Glass, it hasn't been changed, just strengthened
abnormally. Sounds
>like ongoing maic.

This is where you seem to really miss the point. The point I was making was
that the DM had to decide whether glassteel strenghened the glass or altered
it. If it strenghened the glass then it could easily (as easy as any other
spell at least) be dispelled. However if the DM says that it alters the
glass than that puts glassteel in the catagory of mend and erase, which we
both agree can't be dispelled. I was trying to say that the final effects of
dispel magic on glassteel were up to the DM.
> The spell just alters the glass and then stops(same
>>as mend and such).
>And Stone to Flesh, Poly Other, and Poly Any object. The Difference:
Mending *returns* an object
>to the state it used to be. The others, Glassteel included, alter the very
nature of the
>material. Not just the shape, but the nature.

True but the Poly spells have specific directions about what to do if dispel
is cast. Flesh to stone I feel shouldn't be dispelled. It's reverse's, stone
to flesh, a sixth level spell, main purpose is to return creatures turned to
stone to life. Why would it be needed if a simple dispel magic, a mere third
level spell could be used. Again, neither my feelings nor yours have any
relevence; it's up to the DM. Maybe our discussion will help DM's make a
decision, but I doubt either one of us will affect the others opinion.

> Also think of the magic web(or whatever your world uses)
>>Does it make sense to have a spell that lasts forever or a spell that's
>>effects last forever. A tree destroyed by a fireball is still destroyed if a
>>dispel magic is cast at the stump.

Exactly. The question is, is glassteel instaneous or permenent. If its
instaneous than it can't be dispelled unless you also allow such 'permenent'
spells such as mending and erase to be dispelled. Technicaly, these spells
should be instantaneous, not permenent. Of course the final decision is up
to the DM.

>Yes, but a Fireball is an Instantaneous spell, not a permanent one. It
summons energy that acts
>one other things, it doesn't act on them directly, much less directlt alter
>>I can see your point here. I was saying that some DM's would rule this way.
>>However there are more ways than enchant an item to enchant an item. (All
>>depending on the DM's decretion of course). I would rule that if glassteel
>>is considered still magic then glassteel is enchanted glass. Remember that
>>it is an eighth level spell, which is a higher level than limited wish, and
>>only a level lower than the wish itself. Thinking about it, if anything it
>>should be a lower level. If the instantaneus method is not used, it should
>>at least be a magic item.
>Why? It's the SAME level as Permanency, and does more inthat it doesn't
need another spell to be
>made permanent. And Permanency can be dispelled. Yes, it's an eighth level
spell, so I looked at
>other 8th level spells to determine Displeability, and found one that
*directly* applied.
Why does the fact that it is permenent have anything to do with permency at
all?!? Continual light is permenent and goes into your definition of
on-going magic. Is it more powerful then permenency?!? Permenency is one of
the most useful books in the whole spells. it, combined with enchant an item
are the usual way to create magic items. How can you say that glassteel is
more pwerful than permenency merely because it is permemnt. Can it make
other spells permenent? No. It itself is permenent, like thousands of other
spells. So what? I can see why you can argue that permenent spells can be
dispelled. After all it says in the PHB that they can. However, if so than
erase and mend should be dispellable also. You need to be consistant.
>>Spells such as polymorph make it seem as though maybe it could be
>>dispelled(polymorph can). However the desciption of polymorph spends a
>>paragraph telling us how it *can* be dispelled so maybe it's an exception
>>rather than the rule.
>Well, then, Look at Permanency. It says it can be dispelled as well, and
tells us that nothing
>spell is required. At the same level.

Permenency, in my mind, is another instaneous spell. It's affect is that it
makes another spell permenent. In my mind that's instaneous. It also says
specifically which types of permenency can be dispelled and how to dispell it.

>>>Remeber, Glassteel is the same level as permanency, and does a touch more,
>>as permanency makes
>>>another spell permanent, Glasteel makes itself permanent. It shouldn't be
>>*harder* to dispel
>>>than Permanency, or in any way stronger.
>>This I really disagree with. Lots of spells make themselves permenent.
>>Permenency is making non-permenent spells permenent. That's really powerful!
>>Even some 1st level spells make themselves permenent(Does erase erase a
>>message or merely hide it? Can it be dispelled? Or mending? Depends on the
>For the most part, I apply a simple rule: If the spell destroies material,
such as Erase,
>Dispel Won;t *create* material. Other than that, if the spell doesn't
specifically say that
>Dispel doesn't effect it, then it does. Otherwise what's the point of the
Dispel Magic Spell?

The point of the Dispel Magic Spell is trendous. It can temporarily negate
magic items, destroy potions, disrupt most spells. It is one of the most
useful spells. But it is only third level. There are more powerful spells to
get rid of magic. What are the use of those if Dispel Magic can get rid of
all magic anyway?

>>>>So the amount of damage a dispel magic would do would far less damage than
>>>>other 3rd level spells.
>>>I'm not so sure about that. More, I think.
>>I think it's about the same. Consider fireball and lightning bolt, if not to
>>the ship itself than to the crew. Without the crew the ship means little.
>>However with your description of its effects on the ship rather than mine, I
>>can see how it could be considered more deadly.
>I did consider them. At their maximum they do 10d6. A really good roll does
60 points,
>equivalent to 6 tons, but they average 35 points, 3 tons. 17 or 1 ton if
save made.
>Disple magic affects everything in a 30x30 area if it works at all. 10
tons. severely weakening
>the structure of larger ships, possibly causing them to tear themsleves
apart, and making
>smaller ships flying death traps.

The thing is though that most other spells would kill the crew but leave the
ship, and a very good ship at that, intact. Dispel magic would leave the
crew alive but destroy the ship(and probabably any treasure). By destroying
the ship, most of the reason for attacking the ship is gone.

I've talked with several other people and my views are basically their views.

I hope the readers of the list are reading and enjoying this debate since
the point of debates on lists is not just the entertainment and
enlightenment of the people involved but hte whole list. If people would
prefer, we could take this into private e-mail with people interested still
recieving new posts.

Previous Message: Re: Ground attacks from spelljammers
Next Message: Re: Nifty Idea
Month Index: September, 1996

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Nifty Idea    Matt Tong    10 Sep 1996 00:07:02
Re: Nifty Idea    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    10 Sep 1996 00:28:55
Re: Nifty Idea    Alvin Lee    10 Sep 1996 05:30:53
Re: Nifty Idea    Jamie McGarty    10 Sep 1996 18:51:27
Re: Nifty Idea    Alvin Lee    11 Sep 1996 03:46:11
Re: Nifty Idea    Toby Mekelburg    11 Sep 1996 04:47:12
Re: Nifty Idea    Matt Tong    12 Sep 1996 02:38:08
Re: Nifty Idea    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    12 Sep 1996 02:51:10
Re: Nifty Idea    Alvin Lee    12 Sep 1996 05:33:52
Re: Nifty Idea    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    12 Sep 1996 05:40:48
Re: Nifty Idea    Jamie McGarty    12 Sep 1996 19:31:42
Re: Nifty Idea    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    12 Sep 1996 21:21:27
Re: Nifty Idea    Ian Bowley    13 Sep 1996 02:04:00
Re: Nifty Idea    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    13 Sep 1996 02:25:30
Re: Nifty Idea    Matt Tong    13 Sep 1996 19:07:37
Re: Nifty Idea    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    13 Sep 1996 20:09:10
Re: Nifty Idea    Matt Tong    15 Sep 1996 23:14:35
Re: Nifty Idea    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    15 Sep 1996 23:29:12
Re: Nifty Idea    Matt Tong    16 Sep 1996 20:08:32
Re: Nifty Idea    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    16 Sep 1996 20:52:17

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]