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.