bae@fisher.UUCP (Shiva the Destroyer) (01/23/85)
<In Nomine Patris....> Key: > = Dave Pare (mr-frog@sdamos) >> = his quotes of me (bae@fisher) >It was never clear to me just how fire shield manages to do its >damage. Does it do fire damage? If so, would fire resistance >reduce the damage -- and would immunity to fire damage negate it >completely? Could a demon's magic resistance negate the damage? Fire/Cold damage. Yes, Yes, Yes. >Brian brands my 7th or 8th level fire shield spell as "silly". >I didn't just come up with that example...there are precedents >for such things. Take a look at "mass invisibility", for example. >It duplicates the second level spell "invisibility", but has the >minor additional effect of doing this to some 300 individual targets. >The spell, "invisibility, 10' radius" affects all people within >ten feet of the caster -- and that's only one level higher than >the second level invisibility spell. Not so much silly as ill-considered. >Like him, I agree that no DM "worth his salt" would allow such a >fire shield spell -- since a fourth level version is a "silly" >(too powerful) spell to begin with. I do not believe that the fourth-level version is overly powerful. It is easily dispelled, it has significant disadvantages (double damage taken by user if he/she fails saving throw vs. fire or cold, depending on the type of fire-shield used. >Brian had no response to the fact that a 4th level spell does damage >without giving the target a save (without requiring a "to hit" >roll AND lasting for many rounds). All he could do was insult the >victim's intelligence. Considering the quality of the rest of >his letter, I think that's most unfortunate: >> No problem - your saving throw in this case is determined by >> your intelligence - are YOU dumb enough to attack a Fire-Shielded >> individual. From the description of the spell, there is no reason why you should GET a saving throw versus the flames or cold surrounding the spell-user, if you are so rash as to attack. The rationale for saving throws in most cases is that you have a chance to dodge the spell, or that you are able (in the case of mind-influencing spells) to overcome the spell through sheer force of will, etc. In this case, you just get burned. I am indeed insulting the intelligence of he/she who attacks the fire-shielded individual directly - that's what the spell is designed to prevent. There are many, many ways to overcome a fire-shielded individual, most of which to not occur to the club-wielding barbarian thug. >Hmm. Dumb enough to attack a fire-shielded individual. Gee, what >happens when that individual is attacking YOU? I guess you chose >to ignore such a possibility. Use other methods than direct combat. Exploit the weaknesses of the spell, by casting fire/cold based spells against the user. Dispel his spell. Riddle him with arrows. Throw rocks. Run away. Many are your options. >> Fire Shield, by any reasonable interpretation of the rules, should >> only cause damage for actual physical damage inflicted, not magical >> or critical damage. What do you want to do, behead the poor guy >> with a burst of flame??? >To quote the author, "this is silly". Does a vorpal blade do >"actual physical damage" when it lops your head off? You bet it does! >It may be a magical effect -- but so is the +3 to damage on your >favorite +3,+3 mace. Does this "only physical" damage apply to the >+3 to damage on weapons too? Hmm...how interesting. A vorpal blade does not, in my interpretation, sever your head by magical power, it merely is very sharp, and directs your blows to critical areas. The head-lopping-off damage is only damage, but applied to a critical area. If your vorpal blade does 10 points of damage, and lops of the head of the victim, you take the consequences of the 10 points of damage ONLY from the fire-shield. The +3 damage from the mace causes +3 points of REAL damage, due to magically induced sharpness/hardness of the weapon. Thus you DO pay for this in the fire-shield analysis. >I try and keep a nice balance between the fighter and the magic user; >I think that fire shield upsets the balance tremendously. Perhaps in your campaign this is necessary, and fire-shield does upset the balance. In my campaign, I find that magic-users need every little thing they can get, to avoid being exterminated by fighters. I have the opposite play-balance problem: fighters seem to, after a few years of play, figure out ways of becoming essentially immune to magic, while magic users have a problem with becoming immune to sharp pointy objects. >Instead of removing the spell (which would be a really unimaginitive >thing to do), I think a better approach might be to increase the level >of the spell to ... oh, say 7th or 8th. In fact, that's what I think >I'll do! To each his own. -- Brian A. Ehrmantraut Ad Maioram Gloriam Hasturi! UUCP: {allegra, astrovax, princeton, twg} !fisher!bae BELL: (609) 452-8991 / (609) 734-7761 USnail: 184 Little Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544