Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: Nifty Idea
Next Message: Re: Re:
Month Index: September, 1996


From:     "Thomas O. Magann Jr." <tomjr@???.com>
Date:     Mon, 16 Sep 96 13:52:17 PDT
Subject:  Re: Nifty Idea
>>Or a larger ship. Such as in combat.
>>
>
>Maybe if it were super close. However much glass is brittle, it is hard. It
>shouldn't break unless it were made with very thin walls.

Like a Shearing or Ram attack?


>>Go figure.
>>
>
>I still don't see why you keep coming back to the permenecy spell.

Because It seems to apply better than Mending or Erase to the situation? Because it's the same
power level as the Glassteel? Because it's dispellable, and we're talking about dispelling a
permanent sell?


 Oh well.
>I see the connection your making. I just don't happen to agree 100% with it.
>The reason permenency is sometimes dispellable is to protect game balance.
>Without it, it would be way to powerful a spell. I mean being able to make
>undispellable walls of fire, I think not. Polymorph is dispellable because
>otherwise it would unbalance the game. However with or without
>dispellability Glassteel does not unbalance the game.

Spells that can make non-dispellable magic items in moments instead of weeks don't unbalance the
game?


The amount of glass it
>transforms is small. It's effect is small (see through cheaper steel).
>Having it be dispellable would put it down to about the fifth level spells.

Your opinion. Having it nondispellable seems to weaken Dispel Magic. Being able to amke a magic
sword in moments with a single spell seems a rather *large* effect to me.

>Another reason for more choice was my picture of how the magic worked.
>Polymorph traps someone in another form. It doesn't actually 'change' them
>it just locks them into that form. The chance of the new mentality taking
>over increases the reson for this.

Doesn't the fact that a new mentality takes over eventually make for a "change"? If not, how do
you define "change"? Apparently turning someone into a gold fish isn't a change to you.

Sorry, but to me, changing a form *is* changing. Add the fact that the Mentality *will*
eventually change to match the form, and it seems to be an even larger change. Saying that it
isn't a change rather seems like you are creating nonsensical arguments to support your point,


 If it just changed form, there would be
>no reason for the mind to change. My mental picture would be bars around the
>creature keeping in the desired shape. Mend reestablishes a former bond then
>goes away. Erase destroys a small amount of matter. Glassteel changes the
>matter than goes away. The material is not strenghened, it is changed. It is
>not locked into the new form. Instead it just is the new form.

That is what a polymorh or a Stone to Flesh does. It rahter seems that you are arguing my point,
now.



>        As above I see Polys mantaining a form but not Stone or Glassteel
>these one just make the change and go a way leaving nothing to dispell.

Then explain Stone to flesh, a dispellable spell. Someything Poly Any Object also does.

>The main difference is in our view of Glassteel. You seem to picture it as a
>possible unbalacing of the game and compare it to 'permenent' spells like
>polymorph. I view it is a fairly weak spell and compare it to such spells as
>mend and erase. Much of our arguements are the same just pointed
>differently. The fact of the matter is that there are lots of holes in the
>AD&D system. It's up to the DM to find the right patch. Your patch on the
>hole is different from mine but both work fine. it's important to remember this.

Ignoring the comment about fire raging thru a nonflammable ship, Whu is it that you, who claim
Blasteel is nondispellable, are the one who finds it fairly weak, and I, who claim it to be
Dispellable am the one to find it strong? Frankly, I think you have it backwards.

You are the one viewing it as the strong, nondispellable spell, amd I was simply pointing out how
weak it was.

Ands, as far has our arguments bieng the same, well, where I learned english, I was taought that
arguements that said opposite things were oppposite, not similar.

Firther, I have no idea what you mean by inconsistantcies and patches, I find nothing
inconsistant itn letting a spell be dispelled according to the rules under Dispel Magic when the
spell is not listed as being immune to it. And, I find no need to apply a patch to something that
isn't broken.

It's important to remember that different DMs do things differently, and some of us are satisfied
with using the rules as written, yet I feel as though you've forgotten this, and that I've come
under attack for doing so. Hell, the moderator even got on the band wagon and sent me a private
little attack for using the written rules, and defending them when they were attacked.

Just like Deviant did when I responded to James Perry's requests for comments on his Thri-keen
theory.

Grow up folks. If you want folks to realize that different DMs do thing differently, make a
stronger effort to keep it in mind yourselves. OTH, if you want to attack someone for applying
the rules different ly than you do, expect the same from them. And don't insult folks because
they can manage to apply and enjoy the rules as written, even if you can't.


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: Re:
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 ]