07-20-2005, 05:36 AM | #41 | ||
Grim Reaper
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Italy
|
Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
bye! -- Lut God of the Cult of Stat Normalization |
||
07-20-2005, 06:48 PM | #42 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Downunder, mate!
|
Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]
Quote:
Nice try, but none of those are as crippling as Death Vision. Additionally, many are much slower and more expensive to cast, and are at the end of mid-length pre-req chains, vs zero pre-reqs for Death Vision. Luther quoted chapter and verse as to what the real problem is - becoming un-stunned was a free action in 3e, and a full round action in 4e, and they didn't change the spell to suit the rules change. Your list does point out one interesting inconsistency: most spells that target equipment allow the holder to attampt a resistance roll (eg: Transform Object) while your examples don't. Why?
__________________
He was walking along the street when an ebola-infected monkey driving a pickup truck full of flaming gasoline drums... |
|
07-20-2005, 06:55 PM | #43 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
|
Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]
Quote:
If you want abusive, try using Explode on someone's belt buckle, cup, or boot. Quote:
Spells, all spells, in any system are a kludge, and 3e to 4e Magic was not properly updated. Have you looked at what it takes to use Banish successfully? |
||
07-20-2005, 07:34 PM | #44 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Downunder, mate!
|
Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]
Quote:
Quote:
There was a fantastic opportunity to do things like: Resist Fire protects against damage of type [Burn], other than damage that is also [electrical], which requires Resist ElectricityAll of the attack spells should have had their damage class specified. And spells / magic aren't always a kludge - D&D 3.5 is an example of a system where they're a well though out, integral part of the system. The core of D&D magic can be summed up on one page, listing damage types and amounts, the various spell categories, and the other allowable effects. The hundreds of pages of spell descriptions are really just flavour text. WotC are very good at writing consistent sets of rules that don't have fuzzy edge cases or require word by word interperation of every possible spell interaction. Anyway, at this point, we're arguing for the sake of it, and veering off-topic. Kromm thinks the spell works as intended, I think it's busted. Various people agree and disagree, with reasonable arguments (from their own perspective). And most of us would like a Magic 4e, Second Edition that was decent update.
__________________
He was walking along the street when an ebola-infected monkey driving a pickup truck full of flaming gasoline drums... |
||
07-20-2005, 08:11 PM | #45 | |
GURPS Line Editor
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
|
Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]
Quote:
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com> GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News] |
|
07-21-2005, 07:51 AM | #46 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Panama
|
Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]
Well I think that the thing is that you are asking for some kind of absolute rule on spells...
I also think thats is good to have a more consistent descripcion of the spells (including the "new" burn damage... by the way acid does burn, toxic or corrocive damage in G4e, was terated like a normal burn in G3e, actually Grimoire), that may have a problem... GURPS have no absolute rule for anything! D&D x.x need absolute rules... GURPS uses the same rules to bring lots diferent things (not a new book for ritual mages or shamans or rune mages, etc). Then it's your campaign make your homework and "fix" anything you want :) |
07-21-2005, 12:30 PM | #47 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]
Quote:
|
|
07-21-2005, 12:38 PM | #48 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]
Quote:
In 3ed, lasers were listed as doing impaling damage - not burning. Thus, Resist Fire had to specifically mention that it protects against them. In 4ed, lasers do burning damage, so by definition, Resist Fire protect against it - no need to list it, and a couple words less needed. There ARE problems with 4ed Magic, but make sure what you are quoting really is a problem. |
|
07-21-2005, 12:53 PM | #49 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
|
Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]
Quote:
You don't even have to be a minion. *bseg* BTW, I don't think there's anything bad about you being Kromm's Disciple, at the very least it's a significant step up over those plain ol'Krommheads... BTW, do you get to lead the Krommheads in preforming their secret rituals too? Inquiring minds want to know. |
|
01-16-2021, 12:42 AM | #50 | |
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Re: Spell: Death Vision [Erratum?]
Quote:
What's the point of using a spell with a longer casting time in case it does the exact same of the other two? And no, I don't think using the example of someone with Death Vision at SL 25 is justifiable for that, you end up suffering until you reach that point. What would you suggest? Keep it without resistance or reduce the cast time to 1s and add the resistance making it one more of the same stuff with a different flair?
__________________
No matter what is the problem, it's just a matter of time. |
|
Tags |
death vision, effigy |
|
|