Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: Nifty Idea
Next Message: Re: Spelljammer: Pirates of Realmspace
Month Index: September, 1996


From:     "Thomas O. Magann Jr." <tomjr@???.com>
Date:     Sun, 15 Sep 96 16:29:12 PDT
Subject:  Re: Nifty Idea
>
>        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.

Or a larger ship. Such as in combat.


>        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.

Sure, and some, from reading the spell Permanency, would conclude that they could be, and that
lower level spells wouldn't be stronger than the Permanency spell.

Go figure.


>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.

Not really. If altered, it seems like a Stone to Flesh effect, if strengthened, a Wizard Lock
effect.

Either one should be dispellable.


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.

By no means. Mend restores, Erase destroys. Glassteel changes. That puts it in the Polymorph
category, which we both agree *can* be dispelled.


 I was trying to say that the final effects of
>dispel magic on glassteel were up to the DM.

Why didn't you say so? Instead you used rules to illustrate ytour points, and I responded to the
rules and examples you used.


>> 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.

And your other example state that they can't be dispelled. Glassteel has neither, which leaves
us with referring to Dispel to see what it says. And it is quite specific about the difference
between how it effects an item, and how it effects a spell. As magical Items are made with a
6th level spell, and permenant magic items are made with a 6th and an 8th level spell, and
glassteel is mage with simply an 8th level spell, it seems to fall under "spell", not "item".


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.

Easy: Stone to Flesh is a guarantee, Dispel is probmatical and based on the level difference of
the casters in question. IE, one's a stronger spell (StF).


>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.


Again, it makes and maintains a basic change in the nature of the material, like the Polymorhs
do. It doesn't "heal" or destory, like mending or erase, but fundanentally changes, like the
Polys. Sounds to me as though it's permanent, not instantaneous.



>>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.

And is dispellable.

 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.

I didn't. I said that it would be more powerful *IF* it was non dispellable, as Permanency IS
dispellable, easily so on objects.

 Can it make
>other spells permenent? No. It itself is permenent, like thousands of other
>spells. So what?

At the same level as a spell that makes other spells permanent. Therefore, as you've pointed
out, it's the same level and not more powerful.

That would make it Dispellable, wouldn't it.

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.

I am. If the spell says it isn't dispellable, it isn't, if it doesn't say so, I assume that the
rules written under the Dispel Magic spell apply. What's inconsistant?



>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.

Yes. It says all types other than those used as part of an Enchant an Item.. It's a little
harder to dispel spells on creatures other than objects.


>>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?

Because DM is probmatical and doesn't always work, depending on level difference, and the other
spells work more dependably, making them more powerful, and thus, of higher level. Disjunction
can even destroy magic items, which Dispel can't, and sometimes Artifacts and Relics.

Sounds useful to me.



>
>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.

That depends on why the ship was attacked, doesn't it? In a defensive fight, I'm not as worried
about the other guys ship remaining. If I'm the type to use Greek fire, I don't think there's
much difference between burning a ship to ashes, and magicing it to splinters.

I can wait a couple of hours for the crew to suffocate if I want them dead, and a shattered ship
does less damage to cargo than a burnt one. I've no problem floating thru the debris looking for
the cargo. Or survivors, if it was someone on the ship I ewanted. And there will be more
survivors if I destroy the ship rather than the crew, or, in the case of fire, both ship and
crew.


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

That's nice. I discussed this with folks in my game two years ago, the one time it came up, and
they thought my logic bore out. They never did replace the ship though. Their Shai'ir had died.
(tasked genies are cheaper than mages)




Thank You For Your Time,

Thomas O Magann Jr
http://www.sfo.com/~tomjr/

<tomjr@???.com> or my back-up: <TMagann@???.com>




Previous Message: Re: Nifty Idea
Next Message: Re: Spelljammer: Pirates of Realmspace
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

[ SPJ-L@Cornell.edu ] [ Spelljammer@Leicester.ac.uk ] [ Spelljammer@MPGN.com ] [ Spelljammer-L@Oracle.Wizards.com ]