Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: PSA from the List Administrator
Next Message: Re: PSA from the List Administrator
Month Index: September, 1996


From:     "Thomas O. Magann Jr." <tomjr@???.com>
Date:     Wed, 18 Sep 96 16:37:18 PDT
Subject:  Re: he last Re: Nifty Idea
>>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?

Sure, a ram attack is one one ship runs into another with their ram. Gravity fiedls iover lap,
the ships touch, and the larger ship determines the gravity plane for both ships until the ships
pull apart.

A shearing attack is when one ship uses it's hull and gravity field to rip and tear apart another
ships rigging, reducing manueverability. Again, the ships come close enough for the gravity
planes to alter.



>>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.

I've used it in combat, so has TSR (in the Mystara setting. Red Steel, at least) by making glass
swords into Glassteel swords. Quite effective. TSR also mentions Glassteel Armor.

In fact, as I check the RS box, it says that Glassteel items radiate magic, so I guess I'm not
the only one to believe as I do, the designers do, as well. (Page 91, for those who would like to
verify it.)


>>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,

Odd, I thought you were the one saying it wasn't a change. It is, and as fundamental a change as
Glassteel makes.

>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 why do Glassteel Items radiate magic? Why do Glassteel weapons count as magic weapons?

>>Then explain Stone to flesh, a dispellable spell. Someything Poly Any
>Object also does.
>
>I argued that Stone to Flesh was non-dispellable.

But it isn't. At least according to the rules we are discussing. If you want to change the rules
for your campaign, fine, but don't change them in the middle of the argument and expect others to
abide by them for the argument.


>>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!

Yes, and you seem bent on deciding that it should be non dispellable because you think it should
be. Fine, for your world, but the rules state that it is ongoing magic, and that would seem to
make it dispellable.



>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.

It's no weaker than an equivalent 8th level spell designed to do the same thing.


>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).

By no means. I acknowledged your point about them. I've never had the situation come up, so I
haven't had to worry about it. Frankly, I probably would allow both to be dispelled if someone
tried.

They argue every chance they get that
>DM's should change rules as they see fit to fix game balance and fun.


Exactly, and I don't see the need, but you seem to be arguing that I should because *you* do.


>>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.
>


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.

No, there aren't, actually. I use the rules as written, albiet I'm more familiar wuth them than
most, I simply conceded that you might have a point about certain spells, and altered my
arguments to include that concession. Your the one to find the rules untrustworthy, and the one
to take a temporary concession and turn it into something it isn't.

Odd debating style you have.

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.

So are yours, but they haven't changed. I still don't unerstand how you can say a "changed
nature" spell has more in common with repair and destruction spells than other "changed nature"
spells, but you keep insisting on it, and it's getting equally 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.

I wasn't complaining about the arguements, but the complaints, including some whining of your
own. If you don't read my posts, could you at least read 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.

Wrong there too. James Perry started it, and asked for comments. I commented, as did several
others. Deviant choose to respond to me, and tell me hpw wrong I was, and then blame me for
attacking him. He's done this before.

All of this is easily verefied in the archives. Could you try for *some* accuracy in things that
are so easily verified?


 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.

Odd, have you looked at your own post, complete with false accusations and gross errors? Hardly
seems to show you in the angelic light your trying to shine on yourself.

>Don't respond to this.

Why not? You seem to think it permissible to respomnd to my posts, aren't I allowed to respond to
yours?

Or did you just want to avoid having me point out your errors andf false accustaions?

Thank You For Your Time,

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

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




Previous Message: PSA from the List Administrator
Next Message: Re: 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 ]