Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site k.cs.cmu.edu Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim From: tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: net.games.frp Subject: Re: Using a light spell as a laser Message-ID: <692@k.cs.cmu.edu> Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 10:37:17 EST Article-I.D.: k.692 Posted: Mon Dec 2 10:37:17 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 06:42:57 EST References: <34@ttidcc.UUCP> <678@k.cs.cmu.edu>, <1675@hammer.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking Lines: 52 Steve, your message confused me at first. I did not see why using Polymorph Any Object would be inappropriate in a D&D game. Then I realized you were ignoring this point in favor of pursuing a disagreement. Fine, but I wish you had been clearer; should I take it that you feel the Polymorph is an appropriate means of fabrication? I find your objection to consulting a demon of science peculiar. In what way is it inconsistent with normal AD&D play? There are the spells to evoke the spirits needed, and presumably there are books containing their names and summoning instructions; the reason such books are not mentioned explicitly is presumably because they are not, strictly speaking, magical items. Obviously any user of Cacodemon would have a book containing the names of the demons he is accustomed to evoke; they would probably be listed in his spellbook. The other objection is even stranger; I thought I understood what you were saying, but then I read on. Do you mean that all magic that smacks of authenticity should be avoided because it is psychologically dangerous, or because it is liable to draw the wrath of fundamentalists? If the latter, then I would suggest you should not spend your life trying to conform to how narrow-minded dogmatists would like you to behave. If the former, I doubt that there is any danger, except to an extremely suggestible or highly unstable person, from simply playing a magic user who uses such spirits. It would be a mistake to trace every step of an evocation during play, but even if you did so the most likely result would be boredom. I have never been in a game where the referee would have you do this; you would simply gather the necessary components, state that you were casting the spell, and make your success or failure roll. I fail to see the psychological danger; and I should mention that I do have experience with "real" invocations and evocations. I dealt with the origin of the laser idea separately; basically, all one would have to think is that heat and light are connected (an obvious idea even in a medieval or even Bronze Age milieu, since all light except moonlight and starlight is associated with heat), and that perhaps very bright light could generate enough heat to be useful as a weapon. Pursuing this idea, one would evoke the demon and discover the details of the device. I would very much like to hear more about the portable laser weapon you mentioned. I believe you are telling the truth about it; I'm just curious. I doubt, though, that you have seen it cut through live flesh, which requires an awful lot of power. Further, I hardly think that a few wounding shots from a 25-pound weapon gives the sort of killer weapon that referees have to be paranoid about. A tenth level magic user could do significantly better with his magic missiles and fireballs. Now, if we were talking about building a .357 (which a magic user of mine did once, making a copy of one he found -- well, stole, if you want to get technical), I could understand the paranoia.... -=- Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot, CMU Center for Art and Technology tim@k.cs.cmu.edu | uucp: {seismo,decwrl,ucbvax,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 | CMU. Tomorrow's networking nightmares -- today!