Forums of the Megaverse®

jaymz wrote:Why have both it makes no sense.

I must ask that you both go read the spells before we continue this conversation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilrszSXGiI - appropriate music

Okay! Times up! Pencils down!

Why are these two spells both in the book?

Gentlemen?

Well, let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm really as dumb as you think I am and need it explained to me step by step.

popscythe wrote:

jaymz wrote:Why have both it makes no sense.

I must ask that you both go read the spells before we continue this conversation.

I have Pop, maybe you need to?

Impervious to Fire. Fire does no damage including Magic/MD fire. Range self/60ft. Duration 20 melee/5 minutes. 5 PPE
Resist Fire. Fire does half damage including Magic/MD Fire. Range self/60ft. Duration 20 melee/5 minutes. 6 PPE

The only difference being that one says heat has no effect (resist) the other does not.

I beleive the point being made is ther eis no need for 2 spells and one spell (Impervious by adding the heat factor) woudl suffice. Having both is silly.

Kalidor wrote:Well, let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm really as dumb as you think I am and need it explained to me step by step.

I didn't say you were dumb. Unfortunately, every time someone says "This rule is wrong" and I say "Go back and read it again" they say "YOU THINK I'M STUPID DO YOU?!"...

One of them works on more than one person per cast (up to 3), and only makes them take half damage. The other makes them impervious to damage but only works on one person per cast (though it can be cast on other people, within 60 feet).

Now I have that jeopardy song stuck in my head.

That makes sense. However, I submit that in order to make more sense (which is kind of everyone's beef) it should say that in the Range: Statement and not in the flavor text. As in Range: Self, and up to 3 others within 60 feet

popscythe wrote:

Kalidor wrote:Well, let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm really as dumb as you think I am and need it explained to me step by step.

I didn't say you were dumb. Unfortunately, every time someone says "This rule is wrong" and I say "Go back and read it again" they say "YOU THINK I'M STUPID DO YOU?!"...

One of them works on more than one person per cast (up to 3), and only makes them take half damage. The other makes them impervious to damage but only works on one person per cast (though it can be cast on other people, within 60 feet).

Now I have that jeopardy song stuck in my head.

The point being make it one spell. There is no reaon to have multiple spells that do essentially the same thing.

Your opinion is that it makes sense. Our opinion is that it does not. Neither side is wrong since it is an opinion based topic on this particular spell.

This is a problem with the spells though not the rules.

Kalidor wrote:That makes sense. However, I submit that in order to make more sense (which is kind of everyone's beef) it should say that in the Range: Statement and not in the flavor text. As in Range: Self, and up to 3 others within 60 feet

Do you not agree that if you were to have read the spell entry completely (all 30 words of it) that it would have been clear from the outset?

jaymz wrote:This is a problem with the spells though not the rules.

Sir, there is no problem with these spells.

Kalidor wrote:That makes sense. However, I submit that in order to make more sense (which is kind of everyone's beef) it should say that in the Range: Statement and not in the flavor text. As in Range: Self, and up to 3 others within 60 feet

Actually that woudl be upto 2 others as the total of 3 includes the spell caster

popscythe wrote:

Kalidor wrote:That makes sense. However, I submit that in order to make more sense (which is kind of everyone's beef) it should say that in the Range: Statement and not in the flavor text. As in Range: Self, and up to 3 others within 60 feet

Do you not agree that if you were to have read the spell entry completely (all 30 words of it) that it would have been clear from the outset?

Pop I understood the area affect part of it completely problem is I still think it is silly to have 2 spells that are so much alike in effect

Well, that's your opinion. I do not believe that consolidating them would make the situation any more clear, in fact, it would make the one spell over complex.
The way magic learning works in Rifts, one must choose spells carefully. These two spells are separate for a reason.

Also, I'm making a new thread for this kind of thing. This kind of thing isn't "what makes Rifts hard to get other people to play" it's "what makes people complain about Rifts"

popscythe wrote:Well, that's your opinion. I do not believe that consolidating them would make the situation any more clear, in fact, it would make the one spell over complex.
The way magic learning works in Rifts, one must choose spells carefully. These two spells are separate for a reason.

Also, I'm making a new thread for this kind of thing. This kind of thing isn't "what makes Rifts hard to get other people to play" it's "what makes people complain about Rifts"

More often than not those are the same thing

Check out the new thread! Got any "Questions" for me?

On the OP, another problem has beent eh completely unreliable release Sched. People give up when they can;t reliably know when a book is coming out.

Example. Minion Wars were suposed to be all done by now andwe have only half the series.

REF Marines (refuse to call it otherwise ) was supposed to be out nigh on c9 months ago and we are still waiting due to whatever delays there are.

This is a major beef in many regards I think and not just byt those who no longer play but store owners, distributors and present players alike.

sword-dancer wrote:I play GURPS and i´ve much more choces in GURPS than in Rifts, i could define my PCs to a much more finer degree.
I made a Dark Angel(Jessica Alba) Character in about 2 hours IIRC, including Cyberware, Magic and computer uploaded Skills in her integrated Computer.
I made a Royal Navy Officer in 1 hour, but i did these from Scratch, No class. no given skills only the Rules and the traits,(Attributes, Skills, Dis and advantages)

That is SO neither here nor there, but I wouldn't hesitate to say the GURPS (though I love it to death) is geared towards copying things, and Rifts is geared towards it's own living, breathing environment. I will freely say that you might have a problem making fan characters in Rifts. I certainly would have a huge problem with that.

sword-dancer wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Someone has probably already said it but... I think that there is too much choice for the new player. That is why I always limit new players to creating a character out of the main book. .

I play GURPS and i´ve much more choces in GURPS than in Rifts, i could define my PCs to a much more finer degree.
I made a Dark Angel(Jessica Alba) Character in about 2 hours IIRC, including Cyberware, Magic and computer uploaded Skills in her integrated Computer.
I made a Royal Navy Officer in 1 hour, but i did these from Scratch, No class. no given skills only the Rules and the traits,(Attributes, Skills, Dis and advantages)

[/quote]

I think by too many choices it was being inferred that there are too many classes to sift thru and decide from not that they have too many choices in the actually character build once they get to that point.

popscythe wrote:

sword-dancer wrote:I play GURPS and i´ve much more choces in GURPS than in Rifts, i could define my PCs to a much more finer degree.
I made a Dark Angel(Jessica Alba) Character in about 2 hours IIRC, including Cyberware, Magic and computer uploaded Skills in her integrated Computer.
I made a Royal Navy Officer in 1 hour, but i did these from Scratch, No class. no given skills only the Rules and the traits,(Attributes, Skills, Dis and advantages)

That is SO neither here nor there, but I wouldn't hesitate to say the GURPS (though I love it to death) is geared towards copying things, and Rifts is geared towards it's own living, breathing environment. I will freely say that you might have a problem making fan characters in Rifts. I certainly would have a huge problem with that.

Nah making chacraters based on TV shows aint as hard as you think I know I;ve done it enough times.....

jaymz wrote:Nah making chacraters based on TV shows aint as hard as you think

I think you may have misinterpreted me, my friend.

popscythe wrote:

jaymz wrote:Nah making chacraters based on TV shows aint as hard as you think

I think you may have misinterpreted me, my friend.

Well ANYTHING is possible

popscythe wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Look for old posts about the C-12 laser rifle, or the teleportation thread, those are the two biggest and longest running that I can think of.

Looks like any question regarding the C-12 was sorted out in RUE.

If anyone can link me to "the" much discussed teleport thread, I'd be happy to read it, though I have not been able to find any one particularly heated debate about teleportation by searching for "teleport" and "teleportation" thus far.

I went ahead and reviewed the various methodologies of teleportation and do not see a specific issue that might arise without assumption or deliberate twisting on the player or GM's behalf.

I agree about the C-12 (although I didn't see any problems with it before hand either)

I'll see if I can't locate the teleport thread....

Dustin Fireblade wrote:I'll see if I can't locate the teleport thread....

Thanks! And if you do, tell me what you did, as I feel my search fu is weak, heh.

There's only an 88% chance of locating the teleport thread successfully. Failure means your browser materializes into a 404 object (which is instant death).

popscythe wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:I'll see if I can't locate the teleport thread....

Thanks! And if you do, tell me what you did, as I feel my search fu is weak, heh.

Found it...apparently the thread was re-named to remove teleportation from the title. Replied to your PM.

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Found it...apparently the thread was re-named to remove teleportation from the title. Replied to your PM.

Thank you! And interesting read it was. However, like most rules discussions it was more of a "what I'd allow vs what You'd allow in our respective games" deal than a real rules question.
The question at hand was "can you teleport inside an environmentally sealed vehicle". Teleport: Superior says that one can teleport anywhere, with varying degrees of success. The question was brought up because of reference to magic not being able to affect things inside environmentally sealed vehicles. I am still considering what my answer would be, but according to RUE, my answer is "Because the teleport magic is affecting the teleportee, not the location: Yes, you can try to teleport to the inside of an Environmentally Sealed vehicle, but you might fail due to not knowing the location very well."

A Mage cannot teleport: lesser a fusion block inside a vehicle he has never been into and Teleport: superior always takes the mage with the objects... So I don't see it as a problem.

popscythe wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Found it...apparently the thread was re-named to remove teleportation from the title. Replied to your PM.

Thank you! And interesting read it was. However, like most rules discussions it was more of a "what I'd allow vs what You'd allow in our respective games" deal than a real rules question.
The question at hand was "can you teleport inside an environmentally sealed vehicle". Teleport: Superior says that one can teleport anywhere, with varying degrees of success. The question was brought up because of reference to magic not being able to affect things inside environmentally sealed vehicles. I am still considering what my answer would be, but according to RUE, my answer is "Because the teleport magic is affecting the teleportee, not the location: Yes, you can try to teleport to the inside of an Environmentally Sealed vehicle, but you might fail due to not knowing the location very well."

A Mage cannot teleport: lesser a fusion block inside a vehicle he has never been into and Teleport: superior always takes the mage with the objects... So I don't see it as a problem.

Your interpretation. Which can certainly be correct by canon since the spell dosn't specifically say you cannot teleport inside a sealed environment.

However, canon supports the alternative too, that no you cannot. Its magic that is trying to enter a sealed vehicle and since magic cannot enter said sealed vehicle then the solid object or person that said magic is trying to deposit inside cannot be deposited inside because it (the magic forces) cannot get inside to deposit said object or person to this sealed environment.

BOTH are legitimate canon ways to answer the question.

I go my own way and say that if there is a space in the vehicle large enough to pop into exsistance in any orientation then he can attempt it. Basically take the character with their arms and legs extended as far as possible and create a sphere that no matter how far they streatch and move and bend and twist they cannot poke out of said sphere at two opposed points. If this sphere can fit into the space it can be teleported into with the normal chance of success. If the sphere cannot fit the attempt cannot even be made. Same goes for any structure. Want to teleport into a room that you can touch the celing while your toe is still on the floor? Sorry it wont work since your sphere of influence wont fit.

For humanoid characters take their height +50% of their height and you have the diameter of their sphere. For non humanoids take their largest dimension and add either 50% of this or the lenght of a tenticle/limb. Example a 6 foot tall human would have a sphere 9 feet in diameter so would need a space that one could fit a 9' sphere into w/o it touching any part of the structure (moveable objects like tables, chairs and other occupants do not count) This may be an arbitrary rule but it solves the debate with a clear and easy to follow rule.

The wording of teleport says "any". It doesn't say "any except sealed vehicles". The word of the rules is what I am basing my "interpretation" on.
Let me look at the wording of the sealed vehicles thing again in a sec, there's a lot going on.

popscythe wrote:The wording of teleport says "any". It doesn't say "any except sealed vehicles". The word of the rules is what I am basing my "interpretation" on.
Let me look at the wording of the sealed vehicles thing again in a sec, there's a lot going on.

The point is there is a level of contradiction here that needs interpretation... rather than being clear and concise rule.

I don't care what your answer is because its no more or less valid than the other umpteen people that are of the same or opposite opinion on how to resolve the contradiction.

That's where you're mistaken. Anyone can say anything, and them saying it does not make it potentially correct. There is one correct answer to this and all other rules questions and after reviewing the rules, I will find it. It's just going to take me a little while. Once you've eliminated what's impossible (restricted by the rules) you are left with what is possible (allowed by the rules). There is always a precedence taken by certain things that appear at first to be contradictory that determines which one applies, finding it just may involve correlating some related data.

popscythe wrote:It is not so much gamers who dislike Rifts so much gamers who either have not played let alone read the books and understood them, and then make inaccurate statements about the system online. Having played in a short Rifts game you do get exposed to some elements of Rifts. So I'm not counting you in the first part of the post.

If your not going to respond in any meaningful way than why do you even bother copying my post. And for the record I bought the original RMB when it first came out way back in 1990. I have run many different types of PB games since then. I can say with 100% certainty that I know the rules much better than you. Then you wonder why you receive so much negative feedback on what you write. What are you the internet version of a stalker? Unbelivalble. You know I used to have a certain limit to what I consider overzealouness on the part of a fan on these boards. And I thought that I had found the benchmark with some posters but your sir a clearing that in skeet shots. And I am sure that you will say tha is not true and portray me as the villian I am sure. In the end I am not the one who will be banned by the mods.

Sureshot wrote:What are you the internet version of a stalker?

Fatal, stalkers, pejoratives... Definitely an interesting group of techniques you've got there. The post you quoted clearly means something, if you take the time to read it (which is what the post was about, amusingly enough).

popscythe wrote:That's where you're mistaken. Anyone can say anything, and them saying it does not make it potentially correct. There is one correct answer to this and all other rules questions and after reviewing the rules, I will find it. It's just going to take me a little while. Once you've eliminated what's impossible (restricted by the rules) you are left with what is possible (allowed by the rules). There is always a precedence taken by certain things that appear at first to be contradictory that determines which one applies, finding it just may involve correlating some related data.

Your arrogance is simply unsurpassed. You think that YOU can conclusivly solve a debate that went on for over a hundred pages when others couldn't. Priceless.

I'll tell you this now. You will not come up with THE answer, though no doubt you will come up with YOUR answer, and it wont be any more or less correct than those that don't agree with you.

Also the rules dont simply restrict all that is not possible. Some rules state what is possible but don't elaborate on what may or may not be possible.

One can charge a E-clip with sub-particle acceleration because it says you can in that one specific spell description even though it creates a particle beam not electricity. In the spells that do create electricity, such as electric arc and lightning arc, there is no such statement to say that these can or cannot be used to charge a eclip. Does this mean that they can charge an eclip because there are no statements prohibiting this use of the MD level electricity they generate? Not IMO.

On the opposite side of the coin I think there was a long debate on stacking armor spells and it being allowed because the rules don't prohibit such. I was even on the side that think they should stack if they are different spells. I'd even be ok with a mage casting the same one multiple times. They are spending the PPE and the durration wouldnt extend it would only add layers to the onion so to speak.

Nothing said that they cannot cast them as such so why not eh?



Mull this over.

Does dispel magic barriers work on magic armor? Magic Armor is certainly some type of magic barrier (especially "invincible armor" since it offers complete envronmental protection) since it stops damage from getting to the wearer it acts as a barrier to incoming sources of damage. So who's to say DMB wont work on Magic Armors? The book certainly doesn't say it wont work and in fact it says it works on "all Magic barriers of any kind", but I'm of the thought that this spell was intended to dispel things like walls of force, magical shackles, carpet of adhesion and the like but NOT work against magic armor.

There are spells that say they are dispelled by dispell magic barrier but not all spells that are effected by it are listed as such in their own description (carpet of adhesion does not say in its description that its dispelled but the desciption of the DMB spell says it is) Could their not be others (like armor spells perhaps) that don't say in their own description that DMB works on them and the DMB description itself doesn't list? Sure. Energy field is a magic barrier as is circle of flames but neither has a description that lists it as dispelled by DMB and DMB itself doesn't say it works specifically on either spell. Why not armor then too?

Because while armor is certainly a magic barrier its not what the DMB spell was intended for. Its intent is to dispell things that hinder your own movements or that protect an area from intrusion such as AoE wards, wall spells, magic shackles, and Carpet of adhesion.

Thinyser wrote:You think that YOU can conclusivly solve a debate that went on for over a hundred pages when others couldn't.

It wasn't a debate. That's the thing about these discussions, they're never scientific debate. They always degenerate into finding some reason to justify the other poster being wrong instead of a factual debate about the wording and intention of the rules.

You're right, those examples you gave are twisting of the wording and intention of the rules.

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

popscythe wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:I'll see if I can't locate the teleport thread....

Thanks! And if you do, tell me what you did, as I feel my search fu is weak, heh.

Found it...apparently the thread was re-named to remove teleportation from the title. Replied to your PM.

Yup my fault, did it on a whim because it just wouldn't die and it was just an argument between Killer Cyborg and Doom III with the occasional and often ignored third party interject. I beleive the name is "This is the thread that never ends", yup here is the link This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on...

Zer0 Kay wrote:it was just an argument between Killer Cyborg and Doom III with the occasional and often ignored third party interject.

Exactly.

popscythe wrote:The wording of teleport says "any". It doesn't say "any except sealed vehicles". The word of the rules is what I am basing my "interpretation" on.
Let me look at the wording of the sealed vehicles thing again in a sec, there's a lot going on.

The spell says one way the IIRC the GM's Guide says that magic can not be cast into or out of a vehicle and that anyone inside the vehicle would have to open a window to do so. I've interpreted this to mean any direct affect spell like fireball can't... because it would hit the inside of the vehicle and any spell where you direct the impact location like CoA and Call Lightning would (for the sake of argument) determine that you are pointing at the window or display rather than the location that YOU want it to go to. I let teleport work on vehicles as long as you have been in the vehicle you are trying to teleport something to. None of this "I've been inside a Mark 5 before" crap because then I'll make the mage teleport it to the Mark 5 he/she was in before. I also have the C.S. a little more successful with their research on teleportation than they are with identifying "dangerous" magic items for the Black Vault (seriously dissapointed with most of those magic items, almost seemed like the Rifter 9 1/2) so the basic shell of most of their large compartmental vehicles are minimally modular. For example the Mark 5 has space for two bathrooms but when manufactured they alternate with one of them filled with MDC foam. The interior of all the Mark 5s and every other unit that can have painted interiors have a 5 out of 20 color randomized camo patern not to break up the sillouette but to make each interior unique. On the Mark 5 the jump seats for the troops can be set up in different patterns or taken out completely and as standard practice every location that isn't required to be clear is used for storage. A fusion block that teleports inside a box of foam chips or a comm set is no longer volitile... of course what ever it teleports into is no longer functional.

popscythe wrote:

Thinyser wrote:You think that YOU can conclusivly solve a debate that went on for over a hundred pages when others couldn't.

It wasn't a debate. That's the thing about these discussions, they're never scientific debate. They always degenerate into finding some reason to justify the other poster being wrong instead of a factual debate about the wording and intention of the rules.

You're right, those examples you gave are twisting of the wording and intention of the rules.

Ah but intention of the rules unless clearly stated is interpreted by the reader so you can't use that argument in the case of the teleport thread as the intent of teleport is stated but the intent of the GMG is not stated so the GMG being a GM G could very well over rule any other statement in any book written prior to it.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Ah but intention of the rules unless clearly stated is interpreted by the reader

Nonsense. The rules are always given with some direct intention in mind. It's not the interpretation of the reader, but of the writer, that matters.

Re: teleport, so far I have only seen references to attacking people inside PA/Robots/Vehicles with spells, and to casting spells from within vehicles to targets outside the vehicle.

I have not seen in RUE (thus far, I am still searching) any indication that teleport: superior would not allow you to teleport anywhere you wish, including a sealed vehicle, box, armor, birthday party, etc even without having seen it before (20% chance from name only for a vague description)

popscythe wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Ah but intention of the rules unless clearly stated is interpreted by the reader

Nonsense. The rules are always given with some direct intention in mind. It's not the interpretation of the reader, but of the writer, that matters.

Not at all. It wouldn't be too hard to make a random rule generating program, spit out a couple hundred rules and print it. Zero intention.

Also your assuming that if a rule is given with an intention you will automatically be able to understand that intention by reading the text. This is simply not true - it's entirely possible to write text badly and not pass on ones intention at all.

If your sitting there with badly written text that doesn't convey the authors intentions, but your convincing yourself that you do know the intention of these rules, well, your just fooling yourself and the intention you so clearly see is actually just an invention of your own mind. Yet you'd argue about it for pages because your certain you really know.

You might want to question not what the intent of certain rules are, but of how well they actually convey anything at all.

Personally I think rules like those in chess convey intent with good accuracy.

Noon wrote:your just fooling yourself

No, I don't think so. Your comment about random generation aside as it does not pertain to the situation, in your hypothetical situation where the rules may be impossible to understand without baseless interpretation it is also equally possible that anyone involved is incapable of understanding the intention of the rules (through no fault of the rules) or that anyone involved simply does not have the information required to discern the truth of the rules (though no fault of the rules).

Suffice to say, that I believe that the Rifts rules are, in fact solidly capable of being adjudicated and that in my personal experience with Rifts, whenever I have a question about, or make a mistake regarding the rules, it is my fault, not the fault of the rules. I am not every person, but I am a person who cares a great deal about seeking the factuality of any problem with any subject and am not willing to write off issues as a mere failing of a moderately substantial text when none among us have 100% knowledge or recollection of the text itself.

Noon wrote:Personally I think rules like those in chess convey intent with good accuracy.

I agree. Clarity is a virtue of simplicity, there can be no disagreement on that point.

popscythe wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Ah but intention of the rules unless clearly stated is interpreted by the reader

Nonsense. The rules are always given with some direct intention in mind. It's not the interpretation of the reader, but of the writer, that matters.

Re: teleport, so far I have only seen references to attacking people inside PA/Robots/Vehicles with spells, and to casting spells from within vehicles to targets outside the vehicle.

I have not seen in RUE (thus far, I am still searching) any indication that teleport: superior would not allow you to teleport anywhere you wish, including a sealed vehicle, box, armor, birthday party, etc even without having seen it before (20% chance from name only for a vague description)

But if the intention of the writer is never declared, defined or any other word used to mean give meaning too, then it is up for interpretation by the reader.

Exactly so if you can't cast a spell from inside the vehicle to the outside why would you be able to do the same from the outside to the inside? And yes the spell does effect the caster but it moves the caster to a TARGET location. You forgot about a cardboard box on wheels .

OK so if you want to take a 19.2% of being injured or dying on a chance that you'll make it cool. Of course since your teleporting into cramped quarters I'd (yeah me, not the rules) would make you role for every person or if I had it mapped I'd make the person use a template with the exact same possition the people were in from the point of origin and try to place it at the target location. But thats just me and magic isn't logical so likely wouldn't follow any rationality that would make it so that your possition in relation to all you teleported with will be relative at the location.

Besides is it really important? Like I said I figured the rule about not being able to cast from the inside to a target outside is with direct physical spells. So if teleport really didn't work going into a sealed vehicle, does that mean you just got a bunch of teleport all over the windshield?