Thursday, February 12, 2015

Vlack's Flack

At last, something to write about.

I'm three weeks late to finding this post - but I suggest you read it, and not just because there's some back-handed praise for Tao of D&D.

There's quite a bit that I strongly disagree with.  Games are more than "just games."  Things may be what they are, but understanding what a thing "is" means breaking it down and examining it.  My friends are particular about what we do.  Hitting things again and again with a sword is fun.  I have no intention of ever playing 5th edition.  Random charts rule.  Shocking grasp produces magic, not electricity.  I do not enjoy other people's blogs immensely.

Apart from that, I wanted to be sure I linked the post somewhere on my blog, as I feel the author's ideas could lead to some meaningful posts in the future.


Mujadaddy said...

Does your Lightning Bolt spell do electric damage? Presumably, Call Lightning would be 'real lightning' and does electric damage, but maybe that's an assumption, too.

Alexis Smolensk said...

Call lightning does cause electrical damage - thus, 1d8 per level of the druid. Lightning bolt does magical damage that looks like lightning but isn't. That is why it only does 1d6 per level.

Mujadaddy said...

Interesting. Off the top of my head:

Does this mean your blue dragons are or are not immune to electricity, and either way can affect another of their kind with their breath weapon?

Does this mean that a Lightning Bolt spell can affect a creature immune to non-magical damage, whereas Call Lightning cannot?

Does the same paradigm ("Looks-like, but isn't; is magic") hold for, say, Fireball, or is electricity just the odd one out?

(The way I run, most Mage spells are just magical generation of elemental effects, but Ye Olde Magick Missile is an example of the "Magic" damage type which does affect mundane-immune creatures. Your statement that Shocking Grasp, and now Lightning Bolt, is Magic-not-Electricity caught me off-guard!)

Alexis Smolensk said...

After about a million stupid arguments about what substances or materials can conduct or increase the damage caused by magic lighting bolts, I settled the dispute as above.

Blue dragons are immune to magical lightning AND natural lightning. Is that so hard?

Fireball is NOT natural fire. It is magical fire. It works the same way.

I did not say that magic was not electricity. I am making a distinction between NATURAL and MAGICAL forms, that's all. This way, when interpreting the effects of magic, ONLY the spell's area of effect/damage is taken into account - and are not subject to some guy who argues for three hours that because he's standing in water painted with rubber or some other goddamn nonsense that he's immune.

The purpose of the distinction is not to be 'logical' - but to establish absolute, incontravertable rules about what damage is done and when.

Mujadaddy said...

"Was that so hard?"

Not at all, I was just wondering about the edge cases.

Does natural/Called lightning affect 'immune-to-nonmagic' creatures?

Regarding the guy in 'rubberized water': seems like he wouldn't know to do that in the first place without major investment in Sage abilities... :)

Alexis Smolensk said...

"immune to non-magic"?

Yes, I suppose that if something were immune to all things non-magical, that natural lightning would be included there.

This is starting to sound like one of those rules-lawyer arguments the distinction is meant to avoid.

Mark Van Vlack said...

I just saw this post. Thank you for sharing the link.

One point, I did not intend for the mention of your blog to be "back handed."
Anyone who comes here and is scared off or offended by your occasional acerbic tone, is making a huge mistake and missing a ton of great ideas / content. Their loss.