Powerstones

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by hal

The existence of the Force Field enhancement itself PLUS the statement that such an enhancement could be purchased for Magic
Resistence is very specific don't you think?

It's equally specific to Vacuum Support. Would you say that Vacuum Support without Force Field doesn't protect the eyes because Damage Resistance without Force Field doesn't protect the eyes?

[hal]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

It's equally specific to Vacuum Support. Would you say that Vacuum Support without Force Field doesn't protect the eyes because Damage Resistance without Force Field doesn't protect the eyes?

Um...

I think you slipped a gear on your logic engine with that statement.

Reading the quoted section below (underlined words are my emphasis - not the writer's):

This enhancement coverts a defensive trait into a field projected a short distance from your body. The field engulfs and protects your entire body including your eyes - and everything you're carrying or wearing (up to Extra-Heavy encumberance), even if the unmodified trait wouldn't. Always apply its effects before those of armor, environmental suits, etc. See Extending Defenses (p. 173) for other benefits.

First, this enhancement can be used with any defensive trait - that isn't already a "Field" effect to begin with. It isn't an enhancement that only affects those "traits" listed as examples, it is for the generic "a defensive trait".

Second - how many defensive traits are there, where perhaps they (the defensive traits) do not protect the eyes? Those "traits" that already protect the eyes are not at issue. That traits that ordinarily do not include the eyes - are now covered by this enhancement - no exceptions.

Note too, that this "Field" has a termination limitation. Anything that is heavier than what the character can carry with up to extra heavy encumberance, can be affected by this field, while anything more massive than extra heavy encumberance will not. Thus, the planet that the character is standing upon, will not be covered by this effect.

In any event, the logic of your argument is self-contradictory.

If the advantage were a field advantage, ie one that extends beyond the subject himself to his possessions that he's in contact with or carrying, or holding - then one would not need the force field enhancement. It is already a "field" effect to begin with.

I agree that the wording in GURPS CHARACTERS can be read to the extent to possibly favor your interpretation. I also know that it is entirely possible that I am wrong in taking the stance that I am. It won't be the first time I've made a mistake, and I can assure you, it won't be the last time either. However? POWERS page 108 with its force field enhancement, adds more damning evidence against your stance - so much so, that you've been advised TWICE now (this post counts as the second time) to contact the powers that be and clarify this issue. It needs to be FAQ'd simply because you as a lead playtester, have been adamant about what it means - and that stance is in contradiction with GURPS POWERS itself.

Now, if you're right, that needs to be clarified and FAQ'd. If you're wrong, it needs to be clarified and FAQ'd. So why are you NOT contacting Sean Punch on this issue? I'm not sitting here salivating at the propect of rubbing your nose in it and watching you eat crow. No one (I hope!) is doing that either. I'm simply saying, if you feel that strongly about it, get it clarified and request Sean to clarify it for you or have him post on this thread outright.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by hal

Um...

I think you slipped a gear on your logic engine with that statement.

It's final part of a proof by contradiction and it's supposed to sound absurd. That's why I don't accept the principle that a base trait can't have any of the functionality that an enhancement grants.

Originally Posted by hal

This enhancement coverts a defensive trait into a field projected a short distance from your body. The field engulfs and protects your entire body including your eyes - and everything you're carrying or wearing (up to Extra-Heavy encumberance), even if the unmodified trait wouldn't. Always apply its effects before those of armor, environmental suits, etc. See Extending Defenses (p. 173) for other benefits.

First, this enhancement can be used with any defensive trait - that isn't already a "Field" effect to begin with.

Whoa there. Where is "that isn't already a 'field' effect to begin with" coming from? Not only do I not see such a qualification in the original text, you have underlined "even if the unmodified trait wouldn’t," meaning that it works on traits that don't do those things and it also works on traits that already do those things. The appearance of any trait on the list of legally modifiable traits doesn't mean that trait has or doesn't have any particular part of the enhancement's functionality, it only means that it doesn't already have all of the functionality.

Originally Posted by hal

Now, if you're right, that needs to be clarified and FAQ'd. If you're wrong, it needs to be clarified and FAQ'd. So why are you NOT contacting Sean Punch on this issue? I'm not sitting here salivating at the propect of rubbing your nose in it and watching you eat crow. No one (I hope!) is doing that either. I'm simply saying, if you feel that strongly about it, get it clarified and request Sean to clarify it for you or have him post on this thread outright.

1. I just finished subjecting him to a raft of similar nit-pickery and grandiose quibbling in recent playtests.
2. I'm not done perfecting my case as yet, the possibility someone could still dig up some overlooked precedent or previous ruling is still fairly likely.
3. It's not maliciously personal, but the prospect of besting someone with the reputation of a venerable Alaconius or Tinker on my own merit in a thaumatological debate is too good to pass up. :)

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I don't see that the issues are separable. If your solid, material possessions are fair game for any spell that comes along, then what's to say the air next to your body or a flake of dirt on your noggin can't be zapped with impunity, leaving you to suffer the side effects?

Not any spell. Spells that are designed to affect inanimate objects when directly targeted against them.

Actually the air next to your body can already be targeted. the whole hex of air you're in can be subjected to a Destroy Air and you suffer the effects there of. Likewise you're hex can be filled with Created Fire and the fact that the fire has to touch your skin to do so offers you no protection.

Likewise Acid can be Created just above your head and the ground under your feat can be turned into Air or made radioactive even if your shoes touch it. Note that there is no Resistance Roll to any of these occurrences.

There are a few spells that offer resistance rolls if cast on objects in a living subject's possession. Undo is one such spell. When this is the case it is noted in the spell's specific description. If it was general rule it wouldn't have to be.

If it was a general rule it would appear in the general rules section about casting spells rather than having to be deduced through tortuous logic by forum geeks.

It does not appear in writing and I reject all attempts to "deduce" it.

Now, this doesn't mean that you inflict flame or acid damage on every piece of a player's equipment but that's only convenience and spendign time wisely at the gaming table and not a rule. There is no "Aura of Proptection" extending from your body to things it touches, not even items limited by Encumbrance.

Jeff, the only way to "perfect your arguments" is to go back and remove the flawed premise you're starting with. Do not be surprised if I ignore further attempts to beat this dead horse.

[hal]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

It's final part of a proof by contradiction and it's supposed to sound absurd. That's why I don't accept the principle that a base trait can't have any of the functionality that an enhancement grants.

Ok, lets try this another way. Could you identify what precisely the enhancement "Force Field" grants to Magic Resistance, that isn't already present with the trait "Magic Resistance"?

To break it down into its component parts:

1) It protects the eyes if the eyes were not initially protected.
2) It protects held, carried, or worn items not intially protected.
3) It permits the encumberance level to reach Extra Heavy if the defensive trait was originally limited to levels other than Extra Heavy encumberance.


Item #3 only applies if item #2 is functional. Item #2 is separate from, or not dependent upon item #1.

Please identify which of those elements identified above, Magic Resistance does not have, and why Force Field enhancement would be applicable.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Whoa there. Where is "that isn't already a 'field' effect to begin with" coming from? Not only do I not see such a qualification in the original text, you have underlined "even if the unmodified trait wouldn’t," meaning that it works on traits that don't do those things and it also works on traits that already do those things. The appearance of any trait on the list of legally modifiable traits doesn't mean that trait has or doesn't have any particular part of the enhancement's functionality, it only means that it doesn't already have all of the functionality.

Would anyone waste character points buying an enhancement that grants zero extra abilities to a given trait - ie, the trait already has those enhancements built into the initial defensive trait? I believe you would have to agree that purchasing any enhancement that does not enhance an ability, is wasted and therefor, not even neccessary to write into the enhancement description.

The only reason you'd buy an enhancement with multiple properties to it, one in which your original trait already has some overlap with - is to purchase those enhancements already NOT present in the original trait. Thus, if you have functions A, B and C, with the enhancement option adding functions C and D - then you might purchase the enhancements - not for function C (which you already have), but for function D which you do not have.

Problem is? Of the three easily identifiable "functions" that the Force Field enhancement grants, we can already eliminate the "Eyes" bonus feature. The "encumberance" feature only comes into play if the "affects carried/worn objects" is functional AND the limit is presumed to be one less than "Extra Heavy encumberance". Magic Resistance never even mentions the limitation of encumberance - therefor, the Force Field benefit of increasing the encumberance levels to Extra Heavy does not apply.

If you eliminate two of the three possible functions that the enhancement seeks to grant as an enhancement, as Sherlock Holmes was reputed to have said "Eliminate the possible, and what remains, however improbable, is the truth" (or words to that effect - I'm growing old and forgetful these days).

Now, in recognition of your desire to claim otherwise, and specifically because you are the lead playtester of so many GURPS Products, I think it would be wise to consult the powers that be to resolve this issue. Your persistance in believing that the original trait of MAGIC RESISTANCE applies to carried/worn objects is valid if and only if MAGIC RESISTANCE did not apply to the eyes, or if it stated that the limit of a given encumberance level to carried objects applies within the trait description in GURPS CHARACTERS. Both of those conditionals are false, leaving only one possible "true conditional" resolving around the need to extend the trait of "Magic Resistance" to objects carried or worn.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

3. It's not maliciously personal, but the prospect of besting someone with the reputation of a venerable Alaconius or Tinker on my own merit in a thaumatological debate is too good to pass up. :)

Um, much as this may seem to be a self-depreciating statement, the truth is, my status as the creator of the Alaconius lectures is pretty much "worthless" when it comes to debates on GURPS MAGIC. For you to think of me as "venerable" and worthy of being a temptation you can't pass up, is surprising to say the least, and truth be told, a wee bit uncomfortable. I already know the value of my opinions - which, along with a Dollar, might purchase me a small cup of liquid refreshment. I do not believe that when I express an opinion on anything to do with GURPS, that my opinions hold more or less value than any one else in the Forum. But that's just me. ;)

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

It's equally specific to Vacuum Support. Would you say that Vacuum Support without Force Field doesn't protect the eyes because Damage Resistance without Force Field doesn't protect the eyes?

I'm not following you. Magic Resistance and Vacuum Support both protect your eyes already. They don't need the Force Field enhancement for that, they need it to protect carried and worn items.

This isn't topical to the original point of the thread. Maybe we should split it off into a new one if we are to continue.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

This isn't topical to the original point of the thread. Maybe we should split it off into a new one if we are to continue.

So shall "Magic Resistance and Force Field" be written; so it shall be done.

[Not another shrubbery]

Are there any remaining questions (from this thread) regarding Powerstones which have not been resolved?

What about the economics of Manastone? Has anyone done a breakdown on how that spell compares to Powerstone in terms of cost efficiency?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

What about the economics of Manastone? Has anyone done a breakdown on how that spell compares to Powerstone in terms of cost efficiency?

Manastones and Powerstones are in different categories of cost efficiency.

A Powerstone is a durable investment with a cyclic return on that investment. There are expenses fro security and special handling if you have multiple stones but anything worth stealing imposes security costs.

A Manastone is a one-use item as are any potions of Luck or other similar appendages to Charge Powerstone schemes. They've got to give value to you worth what you paid for them the one time that you use them.

Powerstones provide value over and over. In the long run Powerstones (and mages may need to look at very long runs) will always be a better investment. Alternatives to Powerstones need to be used for things Powerstones can't do.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

A Powerstone is a durable investment with a cyclic return on that investment. There are expenses fro security and special handling if you have multiple stones but anything worth stealing imposes security costs.

A Manastone is a one-use item as are any potions of Luck or other similar appendages to Charge Powerstone schemes. They've got to give value to you worth what you paid for them the one time that you use them.

Hmm... I've assumed that most of Powerstone's value is in its "flash" capacity; how much it increases your ability to cast a really big spell. The cyclic part amounts to just one extra FP per day, regardless of the size of the stone... a trivial advantage to the bearer (the self replenishment makes it a little more valuable). This suggests that the enchantments ought to be comparable without a great effort. I suppose I should do it myself... I was just hoping that someone might have done the legwork already.