Magic Ammunition Costs

[KarinsDad]

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.

Which rule is that?

I hate when you make things up. It's so freaking annoying.

The rule explicitly states the opposite of that:

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

This is the only rule in the book concerning objects carried and spells on a target creature.

Please show us another rule.

If you cast Telekinesis on a creature with a flaming burst longsword, both the creature and the sword are effected.

Nope. Wrong. If you drop the sword while being TKed, it still falls out of your hand as per the rule I quoted above.

The only reason it goes with you is that you are carrying it, hence, just like with any other type of normal movement (i.e. non-dimensional), your carried items go with you. For example, if someone Trips you, your items go with you.

Nothing in the TK spell states that it affects the items you are carrying.

So, I guess the rest of your long post was worthless since it was based on an incorrect assumption.


Please, prove me wrong. Show us another rule concerning carried items and spells. Show us a rule from the TK spell that states that it affects the items you are carrying as opposed to it affecting you and you affecting your items.

I hate it when you blow smoke.


And, that's why dimensional movement such as Dimension Door and Teleport explicitly state that they affect touched items along with the target. Why? Because otherwise, this rule would have you Teleport naked.


I know you hate being wrong. I do too. But please, stop making stuff up. That's lame.

 

[kreynolds]

I hate it when you blow smoke.

I hate it when you throw temper tantrums, so what's your point?

I know you hate being wrong. I do too. But please, stop making stuff up. That's lame.

Actually, I think your problem is that you're so terrified of being proven wrong that you can't bring yourself to actually read my argument. Oh well.

If you must resort to blatantly non-playful insults, why should I even waste my time with someone so immature? Answer: I won't.

 

[kreynolds]

Nothing in the TK spell states that it affects the items you are carrying.

Using your teleportation example, if TK didn't affect the items you are carrying, you would be TK'd away from your stuff naked. I'll leave you with that.

 

[Pax]

Using your teleportation example, if TK didn't affect the items you are carrying, you would be TK'd away from your stuff naked. I'll leave you with that.

IF the equipment isn't atatched, then, you're right. If your equipment is a hat, it can blow off in the wind as easily while being TKed as while not being TKed; however, if the TK specifically grabebd the hat AND the person, then,the wind would have to exceed the strength fo the TK spell/effect first.

If my character is TKed, and I cut the straps onmy backpack ... teh backpack falls.

If TK affected the gear AND me suimultaneously, the backpack wouldn't fall.

The gear goes with you when you are TKed only because physics prevents you from, like an incorporeal creature, moving through the straps, sleeves, or whatnot of your equipment.

 

[Xarlen]

That's right. His Items Survive A Magical Attack.

Doesn't seem to say Spells on those items survive a magical attack.

Furthermore, a Dispel Magic isn't an attack. He isn't making a saving throw, but simply a cancelation to a spell in effect. That's like saying 'Counterspelling' is an attack.

 

[EOL]

Well I have obviously come onto the battle field long after the dead have already been buried and Lincoln has come in and given a short address, but hopefully before they start planning a national park.

I can certainly see where a literal interpretation of the rules would indicate that the weapons affect by a GMW are not affected with a targeted dispel, but balance wise ruling this way would be bad. I'm not trying to argue one intrepetation of the rules or another I merely want to look at it from a balance standpoint.

A Pearl of Power (Level 3) is worth 9,000 gp. Moving from even a +2 weapon to a +3 is worth 10,000 gp and it just gets worse. GMW has a duration of an hour per level. So a level 12 Wizard could cast a GMW and take a +1 Flaming Keen weapon (for example) to a +4 Flaming Keen weapon adding 54,000 gp in value or 6 times as much as the cost of the pearl of power. This math already bothers me to then take away the most reliable way of getting rid of this spell and the imbalance (IMHO) becomes huge.

I ran a campaign from 1st level to 15th and my players never had a weapon above +2 because GMW was so much cheaper and easier. Targeted dispel (because the 6 other buffs were also important) was really the only way to make combats difficult, and make DR a factor.

 

[Nail]

Seems like KarinsDad has it in th' "strict rule interp." department and KRey has it in th' "game balance is good" area.

My mind was made-up before I read you two. Now it's as muddy as a Cthulu plot hook. Nice job, guys!

Well I have obviously come onto the battle field long after the dead have already been buried and Lincoln has come in and given a short address, but hopefully before they start planning a national park.

Nice image...but yer way wrong. These two haven't even finished rattling th' sabers yet.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's right. His Items Survive A Magical Attack.

Doesn't seem to say Spells on those items survive a magical attack.

The fact is, we have no other rule to go on.

So, if his items survive the attack, they are not affected by the Dispel.

Just like if his items survive a Fireball attack, they are not damaged by the Fireball.

If an item is not affected by the dispel, nothing on it gets dispelled.

Another way of looking at it is that if something or someone completely survives a magical attack, then for all intents and purposes, it's as if the magical attack fizzled. It did not affect them in any way, shape, or form.


One other note on this for the "balanced" camp.

What if a Wizard is unconscious and the party is being hit with arrows. Fortunately, the Wizard has a Stoneskin spell up.

The Fighter picks up the Wizard and starts leaving with him.

The enemy Cleric casts a Targeted Dispel Magic on the Fighter, so if that Dispel affects items carried by the Fighter, it would affect the spells on the Wizard.

So, the Stoneskin goes down. An arrow hits the Wizard and kills him.

The Cleric managed to change a Targeted spell for one into a Targeted spell for two.

This is not balanced and fair.

Area Dispel, sure. You can get one spell per target.

Target Dispel, nope. You should only get the spells that are specifically on that target, be it a creature, or an object.

Furthermore, a Dispel Magic isn't an attack. He isn't making a saving throw, but simply a cancelation to a spell in effect. That's like saying 'Counterspelling' is an attack.

PHB: page 275

Attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent.

What if a caster is Levitating in the air? Is the Dispel Magic not intended to harm him?

What if a caster is underwater? Is the Dispel Magic not intended to harm, disable, or neutralize him?

Intent is the key to whether you are attacking or not.

No, this is not an attack that does actual damage in all cases. It falls under the category of attempting to disable an opponent. Just like swinging a sword might do 8 points of damage and not actually yet disable an opponent, the intent is still clear. And, just like casting Magic Missile to take out Mirror Images, it is an attack intended to remove magic from the game as opposed to one whose intent is to do harm.

Adversely affecting someone must be considered an attack. Dispel Magic must be considered adversely affecting someone.

Note: For those that want to debate further, I'm sure someone will look at the next sentence on page 275:

"The result of an attack is determined by an attack roll."

Fireball does not have an attack roll. But, it is still an attack. It can still adversely affect someone.

Not all attacks have attack rolls. All melee and missile attacks have attack rolls, but not all spell attacks.

 

[Vaxalon]

The Fighter picks up the Wizard and starts leaving with him.

This is a unique and ambiguous situation.

The Cleric managed to change a Targeted spell for one into a Targeted spell for two.

No he didn't, the Fighter did - in cahoots with a DM that has a rather contrived view of the rules.

I'd be willing to bet that a character carried by another character doesn't count as equipment. If you cast a magic missile at someone who's carrying someone else, it wouldn't affect both of them, likewise charm person or anything else.

 

[KarinsDad]

I hate it when you throw temper tantrums, so what's your point?

Here’s the problem KR.

If the rules support your position, you will quote page and verse. Nothing wrong with this. You are succinct in these cases. You are clear in these cases. It's like talking with Caliban.

When you are in this frame of mind, it is like talking with a college professor or a professional.


If the rules do not support your position, you disseminate.

You talk around the issue, but do not address it. Basically, you BS.

You make things up (like TK affecting the entire target when nothing in the spell states that it does), you avoid key points in the conversation, you jab people with little inane feat listings, or just little pokes like “so what?” when someone quotes the relevant rule or “and your point” and “I already said the answer to that” when you didn’t.

You do anything you can think of to muddy the waters without saying anything of real substance. Yes, you throw in some tidbits that appear to be relevant and on topic, but generally, they are not. They are just so much BS. That's what BS is: the ability to appear to talk about relevant issues when you are in reality, not doing so.

And, unless you are purposely BSing us and not really being sincere, I’ll bet good money that you do not even see that you are doing that. It seems to be beyond your perceptive ability to notice when you are doing that (unless of course it is just all a snow job).

When you are in this frame of mind, it is like talking to my 5 year old daughter as opposed to the college professor.

You ramble from irrelevant point to irrelevant point.

And in your mind, I’ll bet you think these points are relevant. Such as your rambling about TK when your base premise was totally invalid. It’s like watching a drowning man attempt to grab a life preserver that is just outside of his reach. You flail around, avoiding key points in the conversation, talking about your perception of intent as if it is the actual rule, etc.


So yes, it is frustrating to be talking with someone intelligently one moment and then watch them go off on a non-sequitor tangent the next. Especially when they cannot perceive that it is non-sequitor, or they are purposely BSing and pretending to be sincere (I haven’t yet made up my mind as to which of these it is in your case).

And quite frankly, I do not get frustrated with anyone else on these boards. Why is that? It’s because they do not pull this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde stuff in the middle of a thread like you do.

And, I’m convinced that either:

1) you do not even see that you are doing it because it does not seem rational OR

2) you are totally BSing us on purpose for whatever reason.

Maybe it is a pride thing where you can never admit that you are wrong. I notice that you claim that I am the one afraid of being wrong:

Actually, I think your problem is that you're so terrified of being proven wrong that you can't bring yourself to actually read my argument. Oh well.

Actually, when I am wrong, I’m the first to admit it. I have done it a lot of times here on the board and the people that have been on the various boards here a long time (2+ years now) know that for a fact.

For example, just the other day, I forgot the maximum 5 HD on the Sleep spell in a thread and right away admitted that I screwed up.

You, on the other hand, disseminate the moment someone quotes a rule that disagrees with your point of view. And, you do this every time from what I can tell.

If you must resort to blatantly non-playful insults, why should I even waste my time with someone so immature? Answer: I won't.

This from the King of Insults?

Are they only playful because you write them, or because you put a smiley face behind them?

You really should look in the mirror long and hard before calling someone else immature.