Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 4773916" data-attributes="member: 23977">Sure, I understand your comment, but I was responding to your comment about the sword swipe.He said a sword swipe takes control of the enemy by saying that enemy HAS to take damage.I was commenting on your response.&nbsp;Maybe this would be easier if you listed what you thought the characteristics of spells vrs mundane must be? (Or did you do this and I missed it? I was out yesterday so I admittedly hurredly cought up on the thread.)What are the characteristics of something mundane in the game?&nbsp;So then conversely, if we had a spell that has many of the characteristics of a mundane effect then it would be mundane?I don't really agree with this viewpoint, as for instance, a &quot;car&quot; has many of the characteristics of a living creature, but it's still not a living creature.Even from the viewpoint of rules describe the game world, I think it's possible for two effects to have many of the same characteristics and still not be the same.Please understand, Imaro, I'm not looking to make your argument prove 'wrong.&quot; If this is how you view things, I'm cool with it. It's just alien to how I view game rules, so I don't instinctively jive to your way of seeing the rules. As I've said before, my view of the rules is that they do not describe the game world so for me it doesn't matter if two different effects utilize the same rule set. So in effect it doesn't matter to me that the in game &quot;rules&quot; effectively allow the player to &quot;take control&quot; of the NPC because that's not how I'm seeing it or describing it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scribble, post: 4773916, member: 23977"] Sure, I understand your comment, but I was responding to your comment about the sword swipe. He said a sword swipe takes control of the enemy by saying that enemy HAS to take damage. I was commenting on your response. Maybe this would be easier if you listed what you thought the characteristics of spells vrs mundane must be? (Or did you do this and I missed it? I was out yesterday so I admittedly hurredly cought up on the thread.) What are the characteristics of something mundane in the game? So then conversely, if we had a spell that has many of the characteristics of a mundane effect then it would be mundane? I don't really agree with this viewpoint, as for instance, a "car" has many of the characteristics of a living creature, but it's still not a living creature. Even from the viewpoint of rules describe the game world, I think it's possible for two effects to have many of the same characteristics and still not be the same. Please understand, Imaro, I'm not looking to make your argument prove 'wrong." If this is how you view things, I'm cool with it. It's just alien to how I view game rules, so I don't instinctively jive to your way of seeing the rules. As I've said before, my view of the rules is that they do not describe the game world so for me it doesn't matter if two different effects utilize the same rule set. So in effect it doesn't matter to me that the in game "rules" effectively allow the player to "take control" of the NPC because that's not how I'm seeing it or describing it. [/QUOTE]

Verification