[magic] casting spells of unknown cost

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

No. Beyond edk926's comment, I think there's a distinction at work. Many spells impose a magical constraint on their targets ... it's ongoing, it's a magical effect, it's held on by magic.

Spells like Flesh to Ice, by contrast, impose a permanent change of being: i.."

All of your comments apply to Flesh to _Stone_ but Flesh to Ice is a peculiar case.

Specifically there's a clause that allows you to reverse the spell just by letting the ice melt over time as well as defrosting by applying heat or even (carefully) chipping the target out of the icy shell.

I know all this requires crying "It's Magic!" but it seems to be an ongoing magic.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Specifically there's a clause that allows you to reverse the spell just by letting the ice melt over time as well as defrosting by applying heat or even (carefully) chipping the target out of the icy shell.

There is? Where?

It states under Duration that the spell is permanent unless reversed by another spell, or "substantial melting (or breakage) takes place," but that doesn't mean that the victim can be restored if there's melting or breakage. It means that you don't have an ice statue any more; what you have is a puddle or fragments, which really isn't to the poor bastard's advantage. The spell does, after all, specify that it "petrifies" the subject and all of his gear into ice, not that it sheathes the subject in ice.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

There is? Where?

It states under Duration that the spell is permanent unless reversed by another spell, or "substantial melting (or breakage) takes place," but that doesn't mean that the victim can be restored if there's melting or breakage. It means that you don't have an ice statue any more; what you have is a puddle or fragments, which really isn't to the poor bastard's advantage. The spell does, after all, specify that it "petrifies" the subject and all of his gear into ice, not that it sheathes the subject in ice.

Gee, if "substantial melting or breakage" _killed_ the subject you'd think they'd mention that. As you note "petrifies" is in quotes so it's not really petrification.

"Substantial melting or breakage" ends the Spell and what did the Spell do? It turned the target into an ice statue. Your position seems to be that only the "statue" part ends and the target remains ice or melted ice. My position is that both "ice" and "statue" end and the target is what they were before the Spell was cast (minus any limbs that got broken off).

It's probably jsut as well that we're in no position to physically game together. We'd argue too much.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

It states under Duration that the spell is permanent...

And Flesh to Stone is "Instantaneous" and that is the difference making Fred's interpretation the "more likely correct" one.

A Permanent spell can end, an Instantaneous one cannot* (except under specific circumstances, Flesh to Stone mentions that specific circumstance).


* It's technically already over. Thus when a Permanent spell ends the magic, and whatever the magic was doing, goes away.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

"Substantial melting or breakage" ends the Spell and what did the Spell do? It turned the target into an ice statue. Your position seems to be that only the "statue" part ends and the target remains ice or melted ice.

What if both are true and when the ice melts into a puddle, that's when the liquid H20 reverts into liquid flesh?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Plane

What if both are true and when the ice melts into a puddle, that's when the liquid H20 reverts into liquid flesh?

Then you've made a complicated and gory way to kill people and why did you do that?

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Then you've made a complicated and gory way to kill people and why did you do that?

... because there are a lot of folks who LIKE complicated and gory ways to kill people?

It'd describe half the Big Bads in supers and action-adventure fiction, anyway. Not to mention those who plunked down $ for GURPS Magic: Death Spells. Good grief, who would be contemplating casting Abominable Alteration who wasn't in the "BAHAHAHA!" camp?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

... because there are a lot of folks who LIKE complicated and gory ways to kill people?

It'd describe half the Big Bads in supers and action-adventure fiction, anyway. Not to mention those who plunked down $ for [I]GURPS Magic: Death Spells. [?

Then Death Spells is where it belongs. I got Death Spells to try and support Gurps in lean times but I haven't found it very useful. I wouldn't make assumptions about "real" demand for Death Spells.

[RGTraynor]

Well, come now. "Where it belongs" is in the hands of anyone who likes that sort of thing. You haven't found Death Spells of much use. No PC in my own campaign knows any, because they're almost universally proscribed. (What's more useful to me is the two pages of under-the-hood commentary about the creation of death spells, tidbits useful the sort of people who start threads on how to stat out new spells ... like the current thread here, and a similar thread on the GURPS Reddit.)

No, I wouldn't make assumptions about demand for such spells myself, except in so far that with so many other colleges for which SJ Games could've put out an expansion writeup, I like to assume that management didn't push Death Spells to the top of the queue without some indication of demand for it. After all, GURPS puts out a lot of products in a lot of styles, milieus and settings that are of interest to gamers who don't share my personal prejudices and preferences.