Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 379237" data-attributes="member: 284">Please describe this &quot;hypocrasy&quot;, because I do believe I am using the spirit of the rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; Mage Armor&nbsp; a defense spell, not an offense spell.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is intended to protect you, it is not intended to make you better able to inflict damage.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's what spells like magic fang and magic weapon are for (in this context). The part where it gives exactly as much protection a chain shirt does&nbsp; (i.e. +4 armor bonus).&nbsp; &nbsp; Since it gives an armor bonus, it seems to be intended to be nothing more than the equivalent of an invisible, weightless chain shirt composed of force.&nbsp;&nbsp; (It is obviously not shaped exactly like a chain shirt, but claiming that it covers your fists and helps you attack incorporeal creatures is stretching it beyond all reason.)If it gave a deflection bonus I might be more willing to consider your interpretation, but the mage armor just doesn't work that way.&nbsp; I'm just not sure how to respond to someone who is obviously trying to stretch a spell well beyond it's intended effects.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think I have proven my point.&nbsp; And please explain how my example was a straw man.&nbsp; It used exactly the same type of reasoning you did in your attempt to have Mage Armor empower your unarmed attacks. I've seen you and exactly two others, one of which seemed to be on the fence.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's a whole lot of &quot;others&quot; there. And I never said that, did I?&nbsp;&nbsp; But this use of this spell is nowhere near the intent of the spell. &nbsp; Did I say that?&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't think so.&nbsp; You are getting quite rude here. &nbsp; I do try to adhere to the spirit of the rules whenever I'm the one who has the authority to make the choice.&nbsp;&nbsp; What form of the &quot;spirit of the rules&quot; are you using to turn a spell intended to help protect you from incorporeal creatures into a spell that helps you attack them?&nbsp; &nbsp; Actually, in this case its the rules that make me right.&nbsp; It sure does.&nbsp;&nbsp; It helps protect you from them by blocking their attacks.&nbsp;&nbsp; Where does it say it let's you attack them in return? Seriously.&nbsp; The spell is pretty clear on what benefits it gives you. I apologize if I have somehow offended you to the point that you are unwilling to be reasonable.&nbsp;&nbsp; That was not my intent.&nbsp; &nbsp; I ask you to stop making personal attacks on me, because I have made none upon you.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think your interpetation is wrong, and I will say so in no uncertain terms, but I think you have somehow confused that with a personal attack upon your character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caliban, post: 379237, member: 284"] Please describe this "hypocrasy", because I do believe I am using the spirit of the rules. [i]Mage Armor[/i] a defense spell, not an offense spell. It is intended to protect you, it is not intended to make you better able to inflict damage. That's what spells like [i]magic fang[/i] and [i]magic weapon[/i] are for (in this context). [b][/b] The part where it gives exactly as much protection a chain shirt does (i.e. +4 [b]armor bonus[/b]). Since it gives an armor bonus, it seems to be intended to be nothing more than the equivalent of an invisible, weightless chain shirt composed of force. (It is obviously not shaped exactly like a chain shirt, but claiming that it covers your fists and helps you attack incorporeal creatures is stretching it beyond all reason.) If it gave a deflection bonus I might be more willing to consider your interpretation, but the mage armor just doesn't work that way. [b][/b] I'm just not sure how to respond to someone who is obviously trying to stretch a spell well beyond it's intended effects. [b][/b] I think I have proven my point. And please explain how my example was a straw man. It used exactly the same type of reasoning you did in your attempt to have Mage Armor empower your unarmed attacks. [b][/b] I've seen you and exactly two others, one of which seemed to be on the fence. That's a whole lot of "others" there. [b][/b] And I never said that, did I? But [b]this[/b] use of [b]this[/b] spell is nowhere near the intent of the spell. [b][/b] Did I say that? I don't think so. You are getting quite rude here. [b][/b] I do try to adhere to the spirit of the rules whenever I'm the one who has the authority to make the choice. What form of the "spirit of the rules" are you using to turn a spell intended to help protect you from incorporeal creatures into a spell that helps you attack them? [b][/b] Actually, in this case its the rules that make me right. [b][/b] It sure does. It helps protect you from them by blocking their attacks. Where does it say it let's you attack them in return? [b][/B] Seriously. The spell is pretty clear on what benefits it gives you. I apologize if I have somehow offended you to the point that you are unwilling to be reasonable. That was not my intent. I ask you to stop making personal attacks on me, because I have made none upon you. I think your interpetation is wrong, and I will say so in no uncertain terms, but I think you have somehow confused that with a personal attack upon your character. [/QUOTE]

Verification