Magic Ammunition Costs

[KarinsDad]

A common misconception.

That's crap.

The spell description explicitly states the exact opposite.

Yet again the Sage with his head up his butt. I hate when he changes what is explicitly written in black and white. Either way is fine, but not everyone has access to his bag of Emails.

If it isn't in the book and it isn't in the FAQ, then it's not yet a rule. In fact, the exact opposite rule is the rule until they change it.

The Sage just ticks me off when he pulls this type of sporadic crap.

 

[kreynolds]

That's crap.

You have this...

Hate The Sage [General]
You hate Skip Williams more than your own reflection.
Prerequisites: Jackass, Piss & Moan, Schmuck, must not have the Grow Up And Live With It feat.
Benefit: You have the uncanny ability to throw temper tantrums like a 4-year old whenever someone shows you a Sage Reply that disproves your argument. Additionally, you have the ability to automatically refute any Sage Reply, claiming that it is not errata, and this is your entire defense against his reply. No longer do you need logic to argue a Sage Reply, nor must you be clear headed, fair minded, even tempered, or mature. Yes, you can finally act like a child and scream at the top of your lungs, or reply in big, bold, fat letters, “I hate the Sage!”.
Normal: Without this feat, you just piss and moan about the Sage as if he tossed you out like a used towel after a one-night stand, “Why doesn’t that bastard call me!?”.
Special: They make special medication for people like you.

...don't you? (You know I'm kidding though)

The spell description explicitly states the exact opposite.

If it did, I wouldn't be arguing with you.

Yet again the Sage with his head up his butt. I hate when he changes what is explicitly written in black and white.

See first answer.

Either way is fine, but not everyone has access to his bag of Emails.

Hey, nobody's perfect.

If it isn't in the book and it isn't in the FAQ, then it's not yet a rule. In fact, the exact opposite rule is the rule until they change it.

The Sage just ticks me off when he pulls this type of sporadic crap.

See first answer.

Anyways, I've always seen Dispel Magic as functioning in two (or three, for those that are counting) ways: 1) Targeted Dispel (creature) - affects the creature and all their crap 2) Targeted Dispel (creature's weapon) - affects only the creature's weapon 3) Area Dispel - blah.

Note, that I didn't include "Targeted Dispel - 1 spell out of 27 on creature".

 

[Pax]

Not really. It doesn't apply to throwing axes, daggers, shurikens, etc. The DR limitation only applies to ranged ammunition.

Well sure it does; thrown weapons are their OWN ammunition.

 

[kreynolds]

Well sure it does; thrown weapons are their OWN ammunition.

I would almost believe that if I was drunk enough. Almost, but not quite.

 

[KarinsDad]

Anyways, I've always seen Dispel Magic as functioning in two (or three, for those that are counting) ways: 1) Targeted Dispel (creature) - affects the creature and all their crap 2) Targeted Dispel (creature's weapon) - affects only the creature's weapon 3) Area Dispel - blah.

Sounds like a house rule to me.

If Fireball affects the creature, but not the stuff he is carrying, why should Dispel Magic?

Especially when the spell explicitly states that it affects the creature.

"Some spells have a target or targets. The character casts these spells directly on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. The character must be able to see or touch the target, and the character must specifically choose that target."

"Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried and worn are assumed to survive a magical attack."

The Sage is plain out wrong on this one. And, so are you btw. But, nobody's perfect.

 

[Petrosian]

That's crap.

The spell description explicitly states the exact opposite.

Actually no...

the spell description defines how you temporarily can shut down a magic item's properties by directing a tagrtted dispel magic against an object.

The spell lists different types of targets.

Nowhere does it say that if a creature is selected then spells on its equipment are immune to being shut down.

A MAGIC ITEM is an enchanted item, not just one that has been spelled on. A brick with an invisibility spell cast by a mage is not a magic item.

Do other spells which affect "the creature" have a chance to affect his equipment, yes. Any failed 1 save can subject your items to saves... vs area spells like fireball or lightning bolt or even for specific spells like rays say disintigrate.

As long as you dont suddenly diveine from the clouds that MAGIC ITEM means any thing with a spell cast on it as opposed to "enchanted items" then there is no contradiction between spell and response. The poster did not ask about magic items, just GMWed equipment.

Now, if the sage were to also rule that when you are hit by a targetted dispel all your true MAGIC ITEMS get the dispel check for d4 rounds... then he would be IMO incorrect or changing the spell.

As of yet, that is not the case.

 

[KarinsDad]

Nowhere does it say that if a creature is selected then spells on its equipment are immune to being shut down.

Thanks for proving my point for me Petrosian (hate when that happens, don't you ).

"Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried and worn are assumed to survive a magical attack."

Since Dispel Magic does NOT explicitly state that carried equipment is immune or not immune, then this rule takes precedence.

Thanks again!

 

[Crothian]

I would almost believe that if I was drunk enough. Almost, but not quite.

It's Friday, you can start drinking early today.

 

[kreynolds]

Sounds like a house rule to me.

It would be if I was wrong, but I'm not, so it isn't.

If Fireball affects the creature, but not the stuff he is carrying, why should Dispel Magic?

Read the description of fireball. Notice any special targeting methods explicitly mentioned? Nope. Besides, that's how Dispel Magic works. If you don't like it, oh well.

"Some spells have a target or targets. The character casts these spells directly on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. The character must be able to see or touch the target, and the character must specifically choose that target."

So what?

"Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried and worn are assumed to survive a magical attack."

And?

The Sage is plain out wrong on this one.

Yeah, yeah.

And, so are you btw.

But of course I am! If I wasn't, that would mean you were dead ass wrong, and there's no way you can be wrong, right?

But, nobody's perfect.

Exactly.

 

[DarkJester]

So, the sage said that the equipment on a creature is part of a creature? Didn't he say a while back that disentegrate didn't get rid of the victems equipment because it was not part of the creature?