Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: Spelljammer: Pirates of Realmspace
Next Message: PSA from the List Administrator
Month Index: September, 1996


From:     Matt Tong <mtong@???.???????.???.??.us>
Date:     Wed, 18 Sep 96 19:01:05 -0500
Subject:  Re: the last Re: Nifty Idea
-- [ From: Matt Tong * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --



>>>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?

Can you please explain this?

>>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?

Ok. There's where our oppinion differs slightly. In my mind Glassteel is
like Mending and Erase. It all depend in how you picture the spell working.
Closing the door after the cat gets out(something I've had a lot of
experience with) does little good. Your way works too. I was just explaining
my interpretation and why which is just as right as yours.


>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?

Ok. MY interpretation is that Glassteel is no longer magic. Some DM's would
do it that way. Some would treat it either as a magic item or a spell(like
you do). In any case a glassteel sword should not hurt enemies affected only
by magic items or such.

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.

IWhy would having one spell that is basically only used for roleplaying(I
have yet to find a way to use it in combat and 16+ level mages have better
ways to make money) non-dispellable weaken Dispel Magic.

>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,

The point that I was trying to make is that I see Poly spells as ongoing
while spells like Mending, Erase, Glassteel, and Stone are instantaneus.


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

I argued that Stone to Flesh was non-dispellable.

>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.

I don't trust me. :) The reason is that I'm viewing Glassteel as an
individual spell. I don't see it weakening another spell or any more
powerful than existing eigth level spells. You seem to care more that some
permenent spells are dispellable. So, some aren't big deal!

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

Exactly. An eigth level spell shouldn't be as weak as the way you discribe
it. That is just an opinion. Everything is just an opinion. The rulebooks
themselves are just opinions. None of them are mor right than any others. As
long as there's a reason for them.


>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.

This question is far to philosophical to answer without making a long post.

>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
..

Actually, yes you do. You changed the mend and erase spells from spells that
according to the rules should be dispellable and changed them. You saw a
problem and fixed using your opinion of how it should be(your patch). I've
played under DM's who went exactly by the rules and let these spells be
dispelled. TSR knows that there are problems with their system. On the AOL
site, they have places for House Rules. If the rules were perfect to begin
with, why do they keep changing them? They argue every chance they get that
DM's should change rules as they see fit to fix game balance and fun. I felt
that dispel magic, for such a low level spell with so little roleplaying
involved in finding a use for, offered way to big an advantage against a
higher level spell that needs creativity to find a way to make up for its
difficulty since ordinary steel works just as well except for appearence,
can be made by anyone, and can't be dispelled. So I made it a little more
useful.

>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.

Now these is where is seems you might have it backwards. :) My very first
posts defending my theory said that they were my opinion. You challanged my
opinion with your own. That I respect. That's why lists like this exist to
argue out theories and ideas. However you seem to have taken this too
seriously. The world is not out to get you:) However the fact of the matter
is that you yelled at me for breaking the same rules you did when you made
Erase and Mending nondispellable(a decision all but the hardiest rules
lawyer would agree with). You see, there are things in the rules that you
disagree with, yet you use those same untrustworthy rules as your defense
against my comments. This is the first time I have come even close to
attacking your opinion. Until now I have respected you as a fellow debator
that was helping people think out their own opinions by offering good
arguements. The arguements are getting old. I've respected you opinion the
whole time until you took on this you're-wrong-and-why-is-everybody-picking-
on-me attitude. If you can't take other peoples arguements, don't express
your own. If I had known you started the whole Thri-Kreen debate that drove
so many from the list, I wouldm't have gotten this involved in this
arguement. I've always looked forward to answering your post. I enjoy a
friendly debate but I guess your side wasn't as friendly as I thought. So
I'm stopping it before people get more ticked then they are.

Don't respond to this.




Previous Message: Re: Spelljammer: Pirates of Realmspace
Next Message: PSA from the List Administrator
Month Index: September, 1996

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