Magic Ammunition Costs

[Rackhir]

,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KarinsDad
That's crap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds

You have this...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

(edited for length by Rackhir)

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

*Sigh*, It doesn't sound much like either of you is kidding or are showing much in the way of courtesy or respect for anyone. You've both made your point and are now degenerating into name calling and snide remarks.

If you two have your hearts set on squabbling over the dispel magic bit, please just start a new thread and move the debate over to that thread.

 

[KarinsDad]

So what?

Well, if you want to ignore the rule in your game, that's fine with me.

But, the base rule is that spells do not affect carried equipment unless the spell description states otherwise.

Dispel Magic in no way explicitly states that carried equipment is affected in a Targeted Dispel on a creature.

Hence, the base rule applies.

If you want to be purposely obtuse and stubborn on this one, fine. Say "but it doesn't" all you want.

You want to explain why Dispel Magic (giving quotes to back up your position would be nice) bypasses this particular rule, that would also be fine.

But, don't expect us to take your word and the Sage's word on it without rules to back it up. Typically, you are more intelligent than that.

 

[KarinsDad]

,
If you two have your hearts set on squabbling over the dispel magic bit, please just start a new thread and move the debate over to that thread.

Why?

The ammunition costs discussion is a bust and everyone is looking here for the dispel magic discussion (which of course applies directly to the magic ammunition discussion anyway).

 

[kreynolds]

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?

Both spells have their own mitigating circumstances. They function differently.

 

[kreynolds]

Well, if you want to ignore the rule in your game, that's fine with me.

I am following the rules. You and I just disagree.

But, the base rule is that spells do not affect carried equipment unless the spell description states otherwise.

That's right, but a targeted Dispel Magic (creature) also affects the creature's possessions as well. That's what I always thought the intent was, and the Sage backed me up on that. I'll agree that it would be nice to have that errata'd finally, but alas, maybe one day.

Dispel Magic in no way explicitly states that carried equipment is affected in a Targeted Dispel on a creature.

Right, but apparently, it was supposed to, and that's what the intent seems to be.

Hence, the base rule applies.

Not really. Like I said, it seems to me that Dispel Magic is the exception to the rule. Intent and clarification.

If you want to be purposely obtuse and stubborn on this one, fine. Say "but it doesn't" all you want.

You only perceive me as being stubborn and obtuse because I disagree with you.

You want to explain why Dispel Magic (giving quotes to back up your position would be nice) bypasses this particular rule, that would also be fine.

I believe I already gave you a quote. If there was a quote to give you in the core rules, we wouldn't be having this discussion, so it would all be a mute point anyway, as the core rules would clarify this argument, but they don't.

But, don't expect us to take your word and the Sage's word on it without rules to back it up.

I don't expect you to take my word for it. Some people recognize the intent of the spell. For those that do, a sage reply only further fortifies their position.

Typically, you are more intelligent than that.

You give me too much credit.

 

[kreynolds]

*Sigh*, It doesn't sound much like either of you is kidding or are showing much in the way of courtesy or respect for anyone.

Where do you get that idea?

You've both made your point and are now degenerating into name calling and snide remarks.

That doesn't mean that we are disrespecting each other. Besides, I don't remember calling anybody any names. If you are referring to the feat I posted, I even stated in that post that it was a joke, and believe me, if KarinsDad didn't take it as a joke, you would most certainly know.

 

[Numion]

So your problem isn't with archery, or with stacking, it's with OOBI?

Well, I first noticed the high bonuses when one player made a cleric archer. Straight archer with War & Elf domains. It got ludicrious. Divine favor just added insult to injury!

I'm an archer. Yes, my hit bonuses are high. Very high.

Surprise, surprise!

 

[Xarlen]

As for the Ammo/DR thingie, and why BOWS don't work, think of the Magic of the Bow making it more easy to hit. The Arrow, thereby, is the part that does the piercing. One makes the arrow get to the critter, the Other makes it hurt. Magical ARROWS can penetrate deeper. Magical BOWS are like seekers, but not so much so.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's right, but a targeted Dispel Magic (creature) also affects the creature's possessions as well. That's what I always thought the intent was, and the Sage backed me up on that. I'll agree that it would be nice to have that errata'd finally, but alas, maybe one day.

Ok, I can understand intent.

Of course I do not agree with it in this case, but I can understand it.

Do you agree with me that the rules and spell description as written backs up my point of view and not yours?

Or, are you going to be a rules literalist (which seems to be your schtick a lot) only when the rules support your point of view?

I could actually follow the intent you propose if there were any sentence in the spell description that implies that intent, but I do not see one. Can you quote me one?

To me, this appears to be a "well, it should work that way" type of intent as oppose to a "well, this sentence here in the spell implies that intent" type of intent.

But, for consistency sake, other spells do not work that way. Why should Dispel Magic?

 

[kreynolds]

Do you agree with me that the rules and spell description as written backs up my point of view and not yours?

Nope. The description is vague. It states "Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell."

Let's focus on "Targeted Dispel: one creature" first. As per the rules, the possessions of a creature are part of the creature in regards to spells. If you cast Telekinesis on a creature with a flaming burst longsword, both the creature and the sword are effected. Why is the sword effected? Because it's part of the creature. You could also specifically target just the flaming burst longsword if you wanted, in which case "Creatures who fall within the weight capacity of the spell can be hurled, but they are allowed Will saves to negate the effect, as are those whose held possessions are targeted by the spell", thus the sword would get a Will save against Telekinesis (although, technically, you get the Will save, not the sword). Why does you even get a save at all? Because it is in the creature's possession, thus it is part of the creature. Now, let's say that flaming burst longsword is just a plain old longsword, completely non-magical, and you target it with Telekinesis. What happens? It still gets a save. Why? Because it's part of you.

Now, let's look at "Targeted Dispel: one object". This shows that you can target a magical door as well, and clarifies that the spell is not merely limited to creatures. This is also what causes much of the ambiguity of the spell descrition. It implies that you can only target one object, such as a door, with a single casting, meaning you can't target two different doors with a "targeted dispel: object". But does it carry over to objects held by creatures? Following the clear intent of the rules, and the letter of the rules in regards to held or carried objects, no.

Now here's the kicker. We already know that if you cast Telekinesis on a creature, it's possessions are effected as well. We also know that you can cast dispel magic on a creature. So let's delve into what exactly your dispel attempt will actually dispel. The description specifically states that a "Targeted Dispel: creature" will affect "each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature". Now, is a +5 enhancement on a longsword an ongoing spell? No. Is the flaming enhancement on a magical weapon an ongoing spell? No. Is Greater Magic Weapon an ongoing spell? You bet your arse it is.

So, we have established that held or carried objects are part of the creature. We have also established that Greater Magic Weapon is an ongoing spell. We also know that Greater Magic Weapon is only castable upon weapons. So, if you have in your possession a weapon with Greater Magic Weapon on it, and you get popped with a "Targeted Dispel: creature", you might lose Greater Magic Weapon. Why? Because it's an ongoing spell, on a item in your possession, which is considered a part of you, and you were just targeted with a "Targeted Dispel: creature", and the creature is you.

There you go.