More invisible door shenanigans.
Charleson Mambo
after a close call with a very nasty vampire.
They are fairly certain that the vampire is lurking behind a
particular door.
They sneak up to the door, the vampire has his ear to the door
and gets ready to pounce.
At the unspoken signal the party's wizard casts "Invisible "on
the door and the Cleric casts "Sunbeam". (Let's assume they get to act
before the vampire.)
Does the vampire get a terminal sun tan? Or just a harmless
surprise? :)
Charleson Mambo
--
----------- To confuse, inveigle, and obfuscate. -----------
The Alt.Cyberpunk.Chatsubo Anthology website: www.accanthology.com
"The Alt.Cyberpunk.Chatsubo Anthology" = http://tinyurl.com/ay5nt
"The Alt.Cyberpunk.Chatsubo Anthology 2" = http://tinyurl.com/8nddb
Bradd W. Szonye
> [PCs cast /sunbeam/ through an invisible door, at a vampire.] Does the
> vampire get a terminal sun tan? Or just a harmless surprise? :)
The latter. The door blocks line of effect. While the light will be
visible through the invisible door, the harmful effects cannot pass
through it.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Justisaur
Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Charleson Mambo <mambo...@prtc.net> wrote:
> > [PCs cast /sunbeam/ through an invisible door, at a vampire.] Does the
> > vampire get a terminal sun tan? Or just a harmless surprise? :)
>
> The latter. The door blocks line of effect. While the light will be
> visible through the invisible door, the harmful effects cannot pass
> through it.
I will agree that this is mechanically correct. I'm not too sure it
makes sense though.
- Justisaur
Ed Chauvin IV
>after a close call with a very nasty vampire.
>
> They are fairly certain that the vampire is lurking behind a
>particular door.
>
> They sneak up to the door, the vampire has his ear to the door
>and gets ready to pounce.
>
> At the unspoken signal the party's wizard casts "Invisible "on
>the door and the Cleric casts "Sunbeam". (Let's assume they get to act
>before the vampire.)
>
> Does the vampire get a terminal sun tan? Or just a harmless
>surprise? :)
BTRAW, the door still stops Line of Effect and the vampire would be
unaffected. But, as DM, I'd rule otherwise for two reasons. A, it
makes sense that light passes through invisible objects (duh). And B,
it rewards the players creative thinking.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
WDS
Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Charleson Mambo <mambo...@prtc.net> wrote:
> > [PCs cast /sunbeam/ through an invisible door, at a vampire.] Does the
> > vampire get a terminal sun tan? Or just a harmless surprise? :)
>
> The latter. The door blocks line of effect. While the light will be
> visible through the invisible door, the harmful effects cannot pass
> through it.
Suppose the light WAS the harmful effect. What then?
Nockermensch
> Charleson Mambo <mambo...@prtc.net> wrote:
> > [PCs cast /sunbeam/ through an invisible door, at a vampire.] Does the
> > vampire get a terminal sun tan? Or just a harmless surprise? :)
>
> The latter. The door blocks line of effect. While the light will be
> visible through the invisible door, the harmful effects cannot pass
> through it.
Suppose instead that there's REAL sunlight on the outside and the
vampire is hiding inside.
--
@ @ Nockermensch, Vampire Hunter
Mark Blunden
The vampire is showered with illusory sunshine, and must make a Will save to
disbelieve or be turned to ashes.
Or something.
--
Mark.
Aaron
m.blundenAT...@address.invalid says...
Ya, the invisibility is an illusion, not an altaration... so the real sunlight
isn't actually making it through the solid doorway... merely an illusion of it.
So easy to explain the vampire being fine on the other side of the invisible
door... though perhaps a bit shocked.
Harmless surprise for the win!
Ed Chauvin IV
>m.blundenAT...@address.invalid says...
>>
>>Nockermensch wrote:
>>> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>>> Charleson Mambo <mambo...@prtc.net> wrote:
>>>>> [PCs cast /sunbeam/ through an invisible door, at a vampire.] Does
>>>>> the vampire get a terminal sun tan? Or just a harmless surprise?
>>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> The latter. The door blocks line of effect. While the light will be
>>>> visible through the invisible door, the harmful effects cannot pass
>>>> through it.
>>>
>>> Suppose instead that there's REAL sunlight on the outside and the
>>> vampire is hiding inside.
>>
>>The vampire is showered with illusory sunshine, and must make a Will save to
>>disbelieve or be turned to ashes.
>
>
>Ya, the invisibility is an illusion, not an altaration... so the real sunlight
>isn't actually making it through the solid doorway... merely an illusion of it.
Um, we *just* went over this less than a fucking week ago.
Invisibility is an Illusion (Glamer) which means that it's effects are
Real Actual Changes®, and that means light does actually pass through
the doorway.
"Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making
it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even
seem to disappear." D20 SRD (Magic Overview)
>So easy to explain the vampire being fine on the other side of the invisible
>door... though perhaps a bit shocked.
>
>Harmless surprise for the win!
No, the difference here is that the door is still there and still
solid so it would block line of effect for a magical effect, but it
doesn't do a thing to Real Actual Sunlight® which, coincidentally,
does Bad Shit® to vampires.
Nikolas Landauer
Glamers do not permit Disbelief saves. The save involved in
/invisibility/ is for the *target*, not the viewer.
No illusion creates "illusory sunshine" without that being an
intentional component created by the illusion (and this would be a
figment or phantasm, rather than a glamer, anyway). For that matter, at
present, "illusory sunshine" doesn't actually illuminate *anything*.
--
Nik (from Google)
Justisaur
How very strange. DM to dwarven rogue scouting "You walk out of the
corridor into a sunlit grove, birds are singing, you hear water
running.... and you see yourself only in black & white as if it were
still dark."
- Justisaur
Dwarven Rogue "I attack the evil trees!"
Nikolas Landauer
I wouldn't bring that last clause up, unless he succeeded at a
Disbelieve save. That said, that factor might be good reason to ask for
the save right away, since he's already interacting. A smarter solution
would be to use a few torches (everburning would be even better; no
smell or heat) in the room, "behind" the illusion, so as to illuminate
what the illusion can't (those entering the area of the illusion after
the illusion itself has been cast). If the torches were in place, I
wouldn't allow a Disbelieve save until the dwarf actually interacted
with the illusion in some way.
--
Nik (from Google)
Loren Pechtel
Mambo) wrote:
> Imagine that a high level party is bumbling around in the dark
>after a close call with a very nasty vampire.
>
> They are fairly certain that the vampire is lurking behind a
>particular door.
>
> They sneak up to the door, the vampire has his ear to the door
>and gets ready to pounce.
>
> At the unspoken signal the party's wizard casts "Invisible "on
>the door and the Cleric casts "Sunbeam". (Let's assume they get to act
>before the vampire.)
>
> Does the vampire get a terminal sun tan? Or just a harmless
>surprise? :)
Harmless. The line of effect of the Sunbeam doesn't go through the
door.
tussock
>
> How very strange. DM to dwarven rogue scouting "You walk out of the
> corridor into a sunlit grove, birds are singing, you hear water
> running.... and you see yourself only in black & white as if it were
> still dark."
It's rather more sensible to cast an illusion of a *dark* grove,
with chattering nightlife, running water, and the whole thing only
visable in darkvision.
Given that creature illusions can walk around amoungst torches
casting shadows and such it seems quite normal to light up the dark
illusion as a light comes past too; unless the caster didn't know what
light looked like.
> "I attack the evil trees!"
You can't trust 'em, always breaking up marriages and such.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Charleson Mambo
> Mere moments before death, Aaron hastily scrawled:
> >In article <43suc9F...@individual.net>,
> >m.blundenAT...@address.invalid says...
<snip>
>
> Um, we *just* went over this less than a fucking week ago.
> Invisibility is an Illusion (Glamer) which means that it's effects are
> Real Actual Changes®, and that means light does actually pass through
> the doorway.
>
> "Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making
> it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even
> seem to disappear." D20 SRD (Magic Overview)
>
> >So easy to explain the vampire being fine on the other side of the invisible
> >door... though perhaps a bit shocked.
> >
> >Harmless surprise for the win!
>
> No, the difference here is that the door is still there and still
> solid so it would block line of effect for a magical effect, but it
> doesn't do a thing to Real Actual Sunlight® which, coincidentally,
> does Bad Shit® to vampires.
>
>
>
> Ed Chauvin IV
I see two possible interpretations (of the Sunbeam spell).
1. The invisible door blocks the "sunbeam's" line of effect.
This would be like trying to throw a flashlight at someone standing
behind a glass door. (The flashlight bounces of the door.)
2. The spell stays in the caster's hands, where it emmits _ing
bright and uv ladden but otherwise perfectly normal light. This case
would be like holding the flashlight and shining it on the person
standing behind the glas door.
(I prefer the second one, as it avoids further sillyness up the
road.)
The first interpretation brings up another "funny" question. If
the vampire is unaffected by the light (and manages to escape, maybe
he's a recurring villian) and then figures he can move in the daylight
if he gets a gimp suit made of thick leather (and makes sure it doesn't
have any holes, like say eyeholes), and then has it made permanently
invisible.
When he puts on the invisible gimp suit...
a. does it protect him from the sunlight?
b. does it make him effectly invisible? (because he's entirely
covered by it, like an object put in a pocket of an invisible peson)
c. can he see through the suit, or is he stumbling around blind
because the suit doesn't have any eye holes?
Charleson Mambo
(ps, I just think these are funny to think about. Didn't mean to start
any "emotionally charged" arguements)
Varl
> When he puts on the invisible gimp suit...
>
> a. does it protect him from the sunlight?
>
> b. does it make him effectly invisible? (because he's entirely
> covered by it, like an object put in a pocket of an invisible peson)
>
> c. can he see through the suit, or is he stumbling around blind
> because the suit doesn't have any eye holes?
An invisible gimp suit? Heh. I swear you guys will make up rules for
just about anything. If you're looking for a normal suit a vampire
can don that will allow them to walk around in the daylight, watch
Blade.
--
I don't buy into the insanity defense either. So, we'll fry you in a
clown suit, okay?" -Dennis Miller.
I'm telling you, we really need the M:tG rules team to go over the
D&D rules and clarify things. -Ed Chauvin IV
Arachnoleptic fit (n.): The frantic dance you perform just after
you've accidentally walked through a spider web.
Trials of Ascension- An MMOG made by gamers for gamers.
http://www.shadowpool.com
J.M. Joensuu
> Mere moments before death, Charleson Mambo hastily scrawled:
>> Imagine that a high level party is bumbling around in the dark
>>after a close call with a very nasty vampire.
>>
>> They are fairly certain that the vampire is lurking behind a
>>particular door.
>>
>> They sneak up to the door, the vampire has his ear to the door
>>and gets ready to pounce.
>>
>> At the unspoken signal the party's wizard casts "Invisible "on
>>the door and the Cleric casts "Sunbeam". (Let's assume they get to act
>>before the vampire.)
>>
>> Does the vampire get a terminal sun tan? Or just a harmless
>>surprise? :)
>
> BTRAW, the door still stops Line of Effect and the vampire would be
> unaffected. But, as DM, I'd rule otherwise for two reasons. A, it
> makes sense that light passes through invisible objects (duh).
Does that mean that sunlight passes through an invisible vampire, making
it immune to sunlight as long as it is invisible?
>And B,
> it rewards the players creative thinking.
Indeed. :P
Janne )`'´( Joensuu,
Endoperez
Nockermensch
*Nockermensch's head explodes*
* * Nockermensch, stunned.
Loren Pechtel
Mambo) wrote:
> The first interpretation brings up another "funny" question. If
>the vampire is unaffected by the light (and manages to escape, maybe
>he's a recurring villian) and then figures he can move in the daylight
>if he gets a gimp suit made of thick leather (and makes sure it doesn't
>have any holes, like say eyeholes), and then has it made permanently
>invisible.
>
> When he puts on the invisible gimp suit...
>
> a. does it protect him from the sunlight?
>
> b. does it make him effectly invisible? (because he's entirely
>covered by it, like an object put in a pocket of an invisible peson)
>
> c. can he see through the suit, or is he stumbling around blind
>because the suit doesn't have any eye holes?
I would say the suit protects him and makes him invisible. However if
he attacks the invisibility is dispelled--and he's now blind and
helpless.
Paul Colquhoun
Just to throw a bit of fuel on the fire...
Why would he become visible? The spell was cast on the suit, not him,
and the *suit* didn't attack anybody.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
Loren Pechtel
<postm...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>| I would say the suit protects him and makes him invisible. However if
>| he attacks the invisibility is dispelled--and he's now blind and
>| helpless.
>
>
>Just to throw a bit of fuel on the fire...
>
>Why would he become visible? The spell was cast on the suit, not him,
>and the *suit* didn't attack anybody.
The suit was part of the attack.
He can't have attacked by spell as he has no line of effect for any
spell, it must have been a physical attack.
Ed Chauvin IV
Blind *and* helpless?!? That's an awful big imposition for being in
an otherwise unrestrictive leather suit that happens to cover his
eyes.
Oh, and what if the invisible suit was Permanently Invisible?
AlexD
news:4boot1ll3jo6uov5s...@4ax.com...
> Mere moments before death, Loren Pechtel hastily scrawled:
> >On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:22:22 -0400, mambo...@prtc.net (Charleson
> >Mambo) wrote:
> >
> >> The first interpretation brings up another "funny" question. If
> >>the vampire is unaffected by the light (and manages to escape, maybe
> >>he's a recurring villian) and then figures he can move in the daylight
> >>if he gets a gimp suit made of thick leather (and makes sure it doesn't
> >>have any holes, like say eyeholes), and then has it made permanently
> >>invisible.
> >>
> >> When he puts on the invisible gimp suit...
> >>
> >> a. does it protect him from the sunlight?
> >>
> >> b. does it make him effectly invisible? (because he's entirely
> >>covered by it, like an object put in a pocket of an invisible peson)
> >>
> >> c. can he see through the suit, or is he stumbling around blind
> >>because the suit doesn't have any eye holes?
> >
> >I would say the suit protects him and makes him invisible. However if
> >he attacks the invisibility is dispelled--and he's now blind and
> >helpless.
>
> Blind *and* helpless?!? That's an awful big imposition for being in
> an otherwise unrestrictive leather suit that happens to cover his
> eyes.
I assumed that the "helpless" part was because he is now exposed in full
daylight ...
but protected inside a gimp-suit isn't he still protected from the daylight?
AlexD
news:ddbot1tmsa29ufiav...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:49:05 GMT, Paul Colquhoun
> <postm...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>
> >| I would say the suit protects him and makes him invisible. However if
> >| he attacks the invisibility is dispelled--and he's now blind and
> >| helpless.
> >
> >
> >Just to throw a bit of fuel on the fire...
> >
> >Why would he become visible? The spell was cast on the suit, not him,
> >and the *suit* didn't attack anybody.
>
> The suit was part of the attack.
So if you have an invisible sword and you hit someone with it, the sword
becomes visible?
tussock
Or does that mean that invisable people are blind? Turns out those
are only possible in EC4land. In *DnDland* invisability allows sight to
go through, but not light (shadows coming forth via LoS, not LoE).
Ed Chauvin IV
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:47:35 -0500, Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>>>BTRAW, the door still stops Line of Effect and the vampire would be
>>>unaffected. But, as DM, I'd rule otherwise for two reasons. A, it
>>>makes sense that light passes through invisible objects (duh).
>>
>> Does that mean that sunlight passes through an invisible vampire, making
>> it immune to sunlight as long as it is invisible?
>
> Or does that mean that invisable people are blind?
No, it doesn't.
> Turns out those
>are only possible in EC4land. In *DnDland* invisability allows sight to
>go through, but not light (shadows coming forth via LoS, not LoE).
Making shit up again?
Peter Meilinger
> When he puts on the invisible gimp suit...
>
> a. does it protect him from the sunlight?
>
> b. does it make him effectly invisible? (because he's entirely
> covered by it, like an object put in a pocket of an invisible peson)
>
> c. can he see through the suit, or is he stumbling around blind
> because the suit doesn't have any eye holes?
It's question C that really interests me. If you put on an
invisible suit, I have no problem with you being able to
see through it. That sounds right to me. But what
happens if you're wearing the suit when invisibility is
cast on it? Can you suddenly see out of it, or not? I
guess I'd say yes. But what happens if you're wearing
a hood that cuts off your sight and someone casts
invisibility on you, not specifically on the hood. Since
you're wearing the hood, it would become invisible with
you. But would you be able to see through it?
Pete
Loren Pechtel
<ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>>I would say the suit protects him and makes him invisible. However if
>>he attacks the invisibility is dispelled--and he's now blind and
>>helpless.
>
>Blind *and* helpless?!? That's an awful big imposition for being in
>an otherwise unrestrictive leather suit that happens to cover his
>eyes.
Helpless. He can't see through the suit, he doesn't dare look without
the suit. He can't cast any non-personal spells. What can he do?
It's not the invisibility per se that's the problem, but rather the
fact that he needs that suit for protection.
Loren Pechtel
<Alex.Dick...@PANTSukgateway.net> wrote:
>> Blind *and* helpless?!? That's an awful big imposition for being in
>> an otherwise unrestrictive leather suit that happens to cover his
>> eyes.
>
>I assumed that the "helpless" part was because he is now exposed in full
>daylight ...
>but protected inside a gimp-suit isn't he still protected from the daylight?
He's still protected--but what can he do? He's in what amounts to a
solid leather bag, albeit shaped to his body. He doesn't dare open
the bag, he can't see through it. What can he do?
Note, also, that if he takes even one point of damage from sources
other than cold/sonic/bludgeoning then he's dead as his suit is
breached and the sun gets through.
AlexD
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:04:17 GMT, "AlexD"
> <Alex.Dick...@PANTSukgateway.net> wrote:
>
> >> Blind *and* helpless?!? That's an awful big imposition for being in
> >> an otherwise unrestrictive leather suit that happens to cover his
> >> eyes.
> >
> >I assumed that the "helpless" part was because he is now exposed in full
> >daylight ...
> >but protected inside a gimp-suit isn't he still protected from the
daylight?
>
> He's still protected--but what can he do? He's in what amounts to a
> solid leather bag, albeit shaped to his body. He doesn't dare open
> the bag, he can't see through it. What can he do?
Learn the blindfighting proficiency?
Ed Chauvin IV
><Alex.Dick...@PANTSukgateway.net> wrote:
>
>>> Blind *and* helpless?!? That's an awful big imposition for being in
>>> an otherwise unrestrictive leather suit that happens to cover his
>>> eyes.
>>
>>I assumed that the "helpless" part was because he is now exposed in full
>>daylight ...
>>but protected inside a gimp-suit isn't he still protected from the daylight?
>
>He's still protected--but what can he do? He's in what amounts to a
>solid leather bag, albeit shaped to his body. He doesn't dare open
>the bag, he can't see through it. What can he do?
Well, he can certainly move about and make attacks. There's no reason
being Blind makes you also Helpless. You do realize that these words
have specific meaning in D&Dland, right?
>Note, also, that if he takes even one point of damage from sources
>other than cold/sonic/bludgeoning then he's dead as his suit is
>breached and the sun gets through.
I don't see that as necessarily true either.
Ed Chauvin IV
><ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>
>>>I would say the suit protects him and makes him invisible. However if
>>>he attacks the invisibility is dispelled--and he's now blind and
>>>helpless.
>>
>>Blind *and* helpless?!? That's an awful big imposition for being in
>>an otherwise unrestrictive leather suit that happens to cover his
>>eyes.
>
>Helpless. He can't see through the suit, he doesn't dare look without
>the suit. He can't cast any non-personal spells. What can he do?
He can move and attack, that's far from Helpless.
>It's not the invisibility per se that's the problem, but rather the
>fact that he needs that suit for protection.
And? How does that make him "Helpless"?
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>
>It's question C that really interests me. If you put on an
>invisible suit, I have no problem with you being able to
>see through it. That sounds right to me. But what
>happens if you're wearing the suit when invisibility is
>cast on it? Can you suddenly see out of it, or not? I
>guess I'd say yes. But what happens if you're wearing
>a hood that cuts off your sight and someone casts
>invisibility on you, not specifically on the hood. Since
>you're wearing the hood, it would become invisible with
>you. But would you be able to see through it?
These are the worst metaphors for circumcision I've ever seen.
--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
ho...@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |
Ed Chauvin IV
>wrote:
>
>>
>>It's question C that really interests me. If you put on an
>>invisible suit, I have no problem with you being able to
>>see through it. That sounds right to me. But what
>>happens if you're wearing the suit when invisibility is
>>cast on it? Can you suddenly see out of it, or not? I
>>guess I'd say yes. But what happens if you're wearing
>>a hood that cuts off your sight and someone casts
>>invisibility on you, not specifically on the hood. Since
>>you're wearing the hood, it would become invisible with
>>you. But would you be able to see through it?
>
>These are the worst metaphors for circumcision I've ever seen.
Oh Hong.
Mouse
<spam_wan...@hotmail.com> raised a finger to the sky and
proclaimed:
A vampire is not an object.
D&D, and specifically the magic subsystem in D&D, treat creatures and
objects very differently, and it would be a mistake to extrapolate
from one to the other.
--
Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
- Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd
Justisaur
Very true. Maybe it burns them not just on the outside, but on the
inside as well. Like microwaves.
- Justisaur
Mouse
Exactly. Which is why the Vampire Lobby has been fighting so hard
against the eventual discovery of home electronics.
Loren Pechtel
<ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote:
>Mere moments before death, Loren Pechtel hastily scrawled:
>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:04:17 GMT, "AlexD"
>><Alex.Dick...@PANTSukgateway.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Blind *and* helpless?!? That's an awful big imposition for being in
>>>> an otherwise unrestrictive leather suit that happens to cover his
>>>> eyes.
>>>
>>>I assumed that the "helpless" part was because he is now exposed in full
>>>daylight ...
>>>but protected inside a gimp-suit isn't he still protected from the daylight?
>>
>>He's still protected--but what can he do? He's in what amounts to a
>>solid leather bag, albeit shaped to his body. He doesn't dare open
>>the bag, he can't see through it. What can he do?
>
>Well, he can certainly move about and make attacks. There's no reason
>being Blind makes you also Helpless. You do realize that these words
>have specific meaning in D&Dland, right?
Yeah, I goofed there. I was thinking that there was nothing effective
that he could do, not that he's powerless.
>>Note, also, that if he takes even one point of damage from sources
>>other than cold/sonic/bludgeoning then he's dead as his suit is
>>breached and the sun gets through.
>
>I don't see that as necessarily true either.
Any such damage has to go through the bag to get to him. How does it
get through without leaving a hole?
Justisaur
D&D doesn't take into account damage to armor. It's abstracted away.
With a blunt weapon it's obvious that it doesn't have to leave a hole.
It's equally possible that piercing and slashing weapons are not
leaving a hole, but are bruising through the armor, much as a blunt
weapon, the bruising is just more focused. Since it is possible, and
it is abstracted, the best interpretation is that it isn't being
damaged - at least until the killing blow.
- Justisaur
Ed Chauvin IV
>>>other than cold/sonic/bludgeoning then he's dead as his suit is
>>>breached and the sun gets through.
>>
>>I don't see that as necessarily true either.
>
>Any such damage has to go through the bag to get to him. How does it
>get through without leaving a hole?
There's no reason to believe that a piercing weapon actually pierces
armor if/when it deals damage.
Bradd W. Szonye
> There's no reason to believe that a piercing weapon actually pierces
> armor if/when it deals damage.
For example, the HACA has conducted tests which show that not only can
weapons transmit blows through armor, they can even cleave flesh without
significantly damaging the armor. I don't know how common that would be
in practice, but it definitely is possible to cut somebody without
cutting his armor.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> ...it definitely is possible to cut somebody without
> cutting his armor.
Particularly since armor of the type typically present in fantasy games
has many, many unarmored locations. It's not like the defender is
standing in a steel Tupperware container.
--
bblac...@spamcop.net
2006-02-02
Hong Ooi
<bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>
>> ...it definitely is possible to cut somebody without
>> cutting his armor.
>
>Particularly since armor of the type typically present in fantasy games
>has many, many unarmored locations. It's not like the defender is
>standing in a steel Tupperware container.
"... and if you think it's bad now, it's murder when you have to go to the
bathroom!"
Loren Pechtel
<bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>
>> ...it definitely is possible to cut somebody without
>> cutting his armor.
>
>Particularly since armor of the type typically present in fantasy games
>has many, many unarmored locations. It's not like the defender is
>standing in a steel Tupperware container.
But the vampire in question *IS* standing in a leather tupperware
container.
Bradd W. Szonye
That was the point of the HACA reference: You can still cut the flesh
underneath without cutting the leather.
Justisaur
I think this is all mute for a couple points.
1. D&D doesn't consider clothes (or armor) no matter how fully
covering, full cover. It doesn't matter if sunlight hits the vampire or
his clothes, he's still ash.
2. If you want to go the real life way (as if you could do that with
vampires, and in a setting where darkvision really lets you see in
absolute darkness), even heavy leather isn't going to stop sunlight
from actually getting to the skin of someone. Have you ever put a
piece of leather over a flashlight in the dark? You see something.
Even something as thick as my hand I still see red light, which means
photons are getting through. Sunlight is a lot more powerful than a
flashlight.
- Justisaur
Sheldon England
>
> I think this is all mute for a couple points.
Moot = of no practical importance; irrelevant.
Mute = unable to speak; silent.
> 1. D&D doesn't consider clothes (or armor) no matter how fully
> covering, full cover. It doesn't matter if sunlight hits the vampire or
> his clothes, he's still ash.
>
> 2. If you want to go the real life way (as if you could do that with
> vampires, and in a setting where darkvision really lets you see in
> absolute darkness), even heavy leather isn't going to stop sunlight
> from actually getting to the skin of someone. Have you ever put a
> piece of leather over a flashlight in the dark? You see something.
> Even something as thick as my hand I still see red light, which means
> photons are getting through. Sunlight is a lot more powerful than a
> flashlight.
Otherwise agreed.
- Sheldon, who loves D&D logic discussions
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> But the vampire in question *IS* standing in a > leather tupperware container.
Then they're immobile, and having their armor scratched is the least of
their problems.
--
bblac...@spamcop.net
2006-02-03
Robert Singers
> I think this is all mute for a couple points.
<nitpick> I think you mean moot </nitpick>. I also think that you
sucessfully argue that this whole thread is mute since everyone neither
sees or hears.