jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves

[sullivan]

Sullivan: You didn't phrase it as a third option.



The above quote is begging the question. You can qualify all you like, but that statement is begging the question.

Yes, sorry that was poor word choice on my part. I'll go change that text. But my intention was to provide the 3rd possibility, not proof that #2 was wrong. You'll see that I did suggest he go find something better, not that he was definately wrong.

EDIT: If you you hate pointing out the flaws as much as you proclaim you certainly don't need to do it when they are inmaterial to the point at hand.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Under your logic— The spell targeted metal when first cast, a valid target. Then it began its duration. Suddenly the metal was turned into dust by disintigrate. The spell is still active, but now that the target is invalid (it's dust), it doesn't heat up.



Why not?

I think it does just vanish because it can't exist except on metal. I postulate that a change of state into which a spell cannot exist means the spell does not exist, not that the spell still exists and is dampered.

joe b.

If this were the norm, don't you think that Antimagic effects should eliminate the spell permanently? The system has precedent for suppression of effect while the spell is still active due to invalid circumstances for the spell to show effect. There is not precedent of which I know towards dispelling effects prematurely when the target changes form.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Yes, sorry that was poor word choice on my part. I'll go change that text. But my intention was to provide the 3rd possibility, not proof that #2 was wrong. You'll see that I did suggest he go find something better, not that he was definately wrong.

EDIT: If you you hate pointing out the flaws as much as you proclaim you certainly don't need to do it when they are inmaterial to the point at hand.

Nothing to apologise about in the word choice of the fallacy. The only part for which I didn't care was the second post where you sort of implied I was spouting out these fallacies where they don't apply.

EDIT: Addressing your edit- I didn't even realise that you meant it to be worded as a third option rather than a refutation since it was so strongly couched in the assumption of correctness. Also, it makes the assumption that the rules distinguish spell effects in a way which we have no precedent that they do.

 

[Hypersmurf]

EDIT: If you you hate pointing out the flaws as much as you proclaim you certainly don't need to do it when they are inmaterial to the point at hand.

You you hate and inmaterial? Now you're just poking him with a stick!

-Hyp.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You can't have bird flu if your not a bird. Even bird flu caused by magic.


joe b.

Tell that to Health Canada. Avian Flu scare is pretty bad around here.

[edit]

I'd just like to join Rystil in pointing at Anti-magic field as an example of a situation in which there is no conceivable way that a spell effect could still be in place, but the spell remains in place and the duration left on the spell elapses. In the Heat Metal example, you can at least imagine that the metal-item-gone-wood can carry the useless Heat Metal dweomer, but in an anti-magic area there's not even that left over. However, leave the anti-magic area and you'll find that the spell was there all along, even though the anti-magic area "cancels magic altogether".

If anti-magic can't kill a spell, what the hell else is going to?

 

[Rystil Arden]

EDIT: If you you hate pointing out the flaws as much as you proclaim you certainly don't need to do it when they are inmaterial to the point at hand.

Oh its not that I hate having the flaws pointed out, its just that I hate to be the one who has to do it, and the same for grammar and spelling flaws. It has been ingrained in me as not a good idea to bring up the fallacies from trouble I had when I did point out logical fallacies in less intellectual forums, and this caused my supporters and detractors alike to decide that I was just being erudite and band together in deciding that I must be wrong. Fortunately, it seems like people here on ENWorld know what they are, which is good.

As for grammar and spelling, I still won't bring them up, even rouge for rogue. I just try to do my absolute best to keep my writing as civil as possible, even making sure I used the right form of affect and effect in this thread...

 

[jgbrowning]

If this were the norm, don't you think that Antimagic effects should eliminate the spell permanently? The system has precedent for suppression of effect while the spell is still active due to invalid circumstances for the spell to show effect. There is not precedent of which I know towards dispelling effects prematurely when the target changes form.

I don't think a change in type is like antimagic, I think it's like trying to make any spell affect something that is immune to it's effects. Also, since type and subtype explictly say what and what not can effect a creature of that type, i have to say the magic does not function just like it wouldn't function upon casting and not as it wouldn't function in an antimagic zone. As a change in type or subtype doesn't explictly say follow the antimagic rules, i don't think you should.

You're coming from the view that there is a suppression effect because of anti-magic while I think there is no supression because the suppression effect isn't explicitly stated in a type change, like it is stated in antimagic.

I don't think heat metal ever works on wood, you think it can, but only because of antimagic. I don't think that view is as elegent and easily understandable as saying heat metal never works on wood because it's not metal.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Tell that to Health Canada. Avian Flu scare is pretty bad around here.

Yeah, scary stuff. I didn't pick the best metaphor, but oh well... that's why I'm a "professional."

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

even making sure I used the right form of affect and effect in this thread...

rofl! I tried for about a post. Ok, maybe 1/2 a post.

joe b.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I don't think heat metal ever works on wood, you think it can, but only because of antimagic. I don't think that view is as elegent and easily understandable as saying heat metal never works on wood because it's not metal.

Because my view of my view isn't quite the same as your view of my view, here it is: Heat Metal cannot target wood. If some weirdo uses magic to turn a valid target into wood after it has already been targeted, then the spell is already in effect but doesn't do anything anymore, at least unless the wood is returned to metal.

there is no supression because the suppression effect isn't explicitly stated in a type change

Well, cancellation, as you suggest, is also not stated in the type change. By this logic, the spell still works at full power. Nothing is stated, so why not go with the less extreme option?