Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Spell Design: Electronic Invisibility
Posted by: The Question Man Jul 18 2004, 09:09 PM
Hoi Chummers, need some help with a Spell Design. A paranoid magician friend of mine wants a spell that makes him invisible to all electronic devices, but visible to the naked/unaugmented eye.
Comments and Suggestion solicited
QM
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 18 2004, 09:46 PM
Shouldn't be difficult. Lemme see if I can dig up a copy of MitS.
~J
Posted by: John Campbell Jul 18 2004, 09:48 PM
Could just cast Improved Invisibility at Force 1 using only one die on the casting test (if you don't make the success, try again... it's not like you'll have to worry about the Drain, at Force 1, with your entire Spell Pool available to soak with). Inanimate objects don't get resistance tests, and will therefore be affected, but, with only 1 success and a TN 1 to resist, people will always see through it unless they botch their resistance test.
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 18 2004, 09:49 PM
It's Improved Invisibility with the Very Restricted Target (Technological Sensors) spell modifier. That gives it a Drain Code of +1(L). It is otherwise identical to Improved Invisibility.
Posted by: BitBasher Jul 18 2004, 09:52 PM
| QUOTE (John Campbell) |
| Could just cast Improved Invisibility at Force 1 using only one die on the casting test (if you don't make the success, try again... it's not like you'll have to worry about the Drain, at Force 1, with your entire Spell Pool available to soak with). Inanimate objects don't get resistance tests, and will therefore be affected, but, with only 1 success and a TN 1 to resist, people will always see through it unless they botch their resistance test. |
Won't work. A Spell has a minimum force to work on a technological device. What that is escapes me at this moment, of course, I could also be smoking crack. I swear I remember that though.
Posted by: Cheesy Answer Jul 18 2004, 09:59 PM
| QUOTE |
| SR3, pg. 182 - The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object. |
The sentences before seem to imply that that's only the case when the object is the target of the spell. In the case of invisibility, the target is the caster, not whatever is observing him/her. So it's pretty open to interpretation.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 18 2004, 10:01 PM
| QUOTE (John Campbell) |
| Could just cast Improved Invisibility at Force 1 using only one die on the casting test (if you don't make the success, try again... it's not like you'll have to worry about the Drain, at Force 1, with your entire Spell Pool available to soak with). Inanimate objects don't get resistance tests, and will therefore be affected, but, with only 1 success and a TN 1 to resist, people will always see through it unless they botch their resistance test. |
But they get smacked around by Active Sensors, which are completely and utterly unaffected by invis of either variety.
~J
Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 18 2004, 10:01 PM
Of course, if you roll a one on your sorcery test (16.6% chance with one die) you're screwed.
Illusions spells have no threshold for fooling electronic devices, and they don't physically affect it, so there is no minimum force.
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 18 2004, 10:05 PM
| QUOTE (Cheesy Answer) |
| The sentences before seem to imply that that's only the case when the object is the target of the spell. In the case of invisibility, the target is the caster, not whatever is observing him/her. So it's pretty open to interpretation. |
Nope. The person the spell is cast on is the Subject. Those affected by the spell are the Targets. The sensors/devices are definitely the Target of the spell.
Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 18 2004, 10:07 PM
| QUOTE (Cheesy Answer) |
| In the case of invisibility, the target is the caster, not whatever is observing him/her. So it's pretty open to interpretation. |
Backwards - the SUBJECT of the spell is the caster, the TARGET of the spell is whoever looks at the caster.
Imp. Inv. has a TN of 4. Period. Unlike Powerball, which has a TN of Body, and then states "The TN for non-living targets can be found on the object resistance table."
Spells that require the Object Resistance Table will state it, like Analyze Device, etc.
Posted by: BitBasher Jul 18 2004, 10:11 PM
That's what I was looking for, for invis to work on cameras it needs to be higher than half the OR. Since cameras have an OR of 8 more than likely the invis has to be at force 5, because the camera is the target of the spell. One sucess on a force 5 spell is all that is needed and the camera automatically is fooled since it does not get to resist.
Force one Improved Invisibility doesn't pay off. You can get enough raw sucesses to fool living things if you have enough dice, but against technology it fails automatically.
EDIT:
And the subject is not the caster. The subject is whatever the caster made invisible, which is not always the caster. If the caster cast this on Spanky Bill then Spanky Bill is the subject, and everyone looking at Spanky Bill is the target.
Posted by: Cheesy Answer Jul 18 2004, 10:17 PM
Looks like you're right. Pretty screwed up though, how whatever an invisibility spell affects is called the subject, and whatever a mask spell affects is called the target. Meh.
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 18 2004, 10:25 PM
Nope. Mask works the same way. In fact, pretty much all spells work that way. It's just in most cases the subject and the target are the same thing, so they're just called a target.
Posted by: Cheesy Answer Jul 18 2004, 10:29 PM
Works the same way, but the description still refers to the person it's cast at as the target instead of the subject. A matter of semantics, but annoying nonetheless.
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 18 2004, 10:37 PM
That's because Magic in the Shadows is the book that defined the two terms. In the main book, they use both terms interchangably. They like to confuse people.
Posted by: BitBasher Jul 18 2004, 10:39 PM
| QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
| That's because Magic in the Shadows is the book that defined the two terms. In the main book, they use both terms interchangably. They like to confuse people. |
Aye, that they do. They should really correct a lot of those phrases in a future printing.
Posted by: Cheesy Answer Jul 18 2004, 10:40 PM
Sucks that I don't have Magic in the Shadows, then. 
Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 18 2004, 11:00 PM
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| That's what I was looking for, for invis to work on cameras it needs to be higher than half the OR. Since cameras have an OR of 8 more than likely the invis has to be at force 5, because the camera is the target of the spell. |
Where is this listed?
Posted by: BitBasher Jul 18 2004, 11:06 PM
Cheezy answer already quoted this at the top of the thread... so credit for this goes to him (him right?).
| QUOTE (SR3 @ pg. 182) |
| - The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object. |
Er... make my above post force 4 to affect cameras, 4 is half or greater than their OR of 8. I mistakenly read it as greater than half not half or greater.
Posted by: Cheesy Answer Jul 18 2004, 11:19 PM
Yes, him. 
I think he's asking you where you got the OR of the camera.
Posted by: BitBasher Jul 18 2004, 11:30 PM
| QUOTE |
| Yes, him. |
| QUOTE |
| I think he's asking you where you got the OR of the camera. |
| QUOTE (BBB p. 182 @ Object Resistance Table) |
| Manufactured high-Tech Objects and Materials (Advanced plastics, Alloys, Electronic Equipment)....OR 8 |
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 18 2004, 11:33 PM
You should've said credit goes to it.
~J for the use of dehumanizing genderless pronouns
Posted by: BitBasher Jul 18 2004, 11:35 PM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| You should've said credit goes to it. ~J for the use of dehumanizing genderless pronouns |
Yeah, but I just saw "I, Robot" so I'm trying not to do that to you faceless online peeps.
Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 18 2004, 11:36 PM
| QUOTE (BitBasher @ Jul 18 2004, 10:11 PM) |
| That's what I was looking for, for invis to work on cameras it needs to be higher than half the OR. |
I meant where is this specifically for invis?
In the spell section it gives a flat TN of 4, and makes no reference to OR, even though several other spells specifically do mention it when casting on something non-living (Powerball, Analyze device, Chaff, Wreck), whereas Imp. Invis, Flash, Physical Camouflage, Vehicle Mask do not. (although Vehicle Mask states the spell can only mask vehicle's with a body equal to or less than the force of the spell.)
So I interpret this to mean the TN is as stated, unless otherwise indicated in the spell description.
Otherwise Magic against Vehicles section would make the TN for Vehicle Mask = 8 (OR) + Body + 1/2 Armor, not a TN of 4.
Posted by: BitBasher Jul 18 2004, 11:40 PM
| QUOTE (ShadowGhost @ Jul 18 2004, 11:36 PM) | ||
I meant where is this specifically for invis? IN the spell section it gives a flat TN of 4, and makes no reference to OR, even though several other spells specifically do mention it when casting on something non-living (Powerball, Analyze device). |
It's not specifically for invis, it's for ALL spells. It's listed under the Sorcery Test. You can get all the sucesses in the world but if the force of the spell isn't force 4 or higher it cannot affect cameras.
Interesting side effect, Natural Objects are OR:3. A force one spell can affect NOTHING, Not even people. It has to be force 2 or higher to affect living things, and at an OR of 3 a force one spell is not equal to or greater than half the OR! I never noticed that before.
EDIT: a Force one manabolt is the equivalent of pointing your finger and saying BANG for light drain, because it can't actually do damage! LOL!
Posted by: Cheesy Answer Jul 18 2004, 11:45 PM
People are not inanimate objects though. 
Unless we're talking about dead people - but in SR, even that can't be guaranteed.
Posted by: BitBasher Jul 18 2004, 11:48 PM
Neither are trees inanimate objects, they are live but still listed under OR 3!
Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 18 2004, 11:52 PM
| QUOTE |
| "The target number for spells cast against inanimate objects is based on the material from which the object is made. The more "high-tech" an object is, the heard it is for magic to affect it. The force of the spell must must be equal or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object." |
If this is what you're referring to, keep in mind it says "cast *against* inanimate objects". An imp. Invis is not cast *against* a camera etc, but the subject (thing/person) being made invisible.
Of course, this also means casting spells at a minimum of Force 5 if you want the party Gun Bunny & his smartlinked weapons to be invisible (10+ OR).
Posted by: Zazen Jul 18 2004, 11:53 PM
Last time I saw an animated tree I'd eaten half a can of nutmeg.
Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 18 2004, 11:56 PM
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| Interesting side effect, Natural Objects are OR:3. A force one spell can affect NOTHING, Not even people. It has to be force 2 or higher to affect living things, and at an OR of 3 a force one spell is not equal to or greater than half the OR! I never noticed that before. EDIT: a Force one manabolt is the equivalent of pointing your finger and saying BANG for light drain, because it can't actually do damage! LOL! |
Not quite - for living people you don't use OR - you use Body as the TN for Powerball/Bolt, and willpower for Manaball/bolt.
In the case of a critter that has no stat for willpower, OR might be applicable, and then a force one might have no effect.
Otherwise, force 1 spells can affect a lot of things. *If* you have enough successes.
Posted by: BitBasher Jul 19 2004, 12:01 AM
| QUOTE (ShadowGhost) | ||
Not quite - for living people you don't use OR - you use Body as the TN for Powerball/Bolt, and willpower for Manaball/bolt. In the case of a critter that has no stat for willpower, OR might be applicable, and then a force one might have no effect. Otherwise, force 1 spells can affect a lot of things. *If* you have enough successes. |
Yes, but that's not always true. Ivisibility uses a TN of 4 but it still doesnt do anything to technological devices if the force isn't at least half the OR. You can have a spell that gets 20 sucesses but does nothing.
Posted by: Domino Jul 19 2004, 12:07 AM
So you guys are saying I would need a force 20ish detect aircraft carrier spell to detect aircraft carriers?
And what about Riggers? You can't just target the sensors with your spell. You have to target the vehicle and try and roll out your ass to to beat the TN since he gets half body and armor before dividing by half.
I don't think it is as hard to trick technology with invisiblilty as it is to blast it out of existance with a powerball.
Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 19 2004, 12:13 AM
| QUOTE (BitBasher @ Jul 19 2004, 12:01 AM) |
| Yes, but that's not always true. Ivisibility uses a TN of 4 but it still doesnt do anything to technological devices if the force isn't at least half the OR. |
I'll completely disagree as the Imp. Inv. in NOT CAST AT the Tech Devices - it's cast around the subject - therefore OR does not apply to the spell TN or force.
| QUOTE |
| "The target number for spells CAST AGAINST inanimate objects is based on the material from which the object is made. |
Cameras still don't see the Imp. Invis. subject even at force 1, as the spell is not cast against the camera.
Once again. The spell is cast around the subject. Not the cameras or other technological devices. Force and OR have no bearing on whether or not the camera "sees" subject. If the spell succeeds at force one, the camera cannot see the subject.
But that's just my interpretation.
Should you decide to make the Gunbunny's High Tech smartlinked pistol invisible (10+ TN), then you need a minimum force 5 to make it invisible.
Posted by: BitBasher Jul 19 2004, 12:23 AM
The thing viewing the invisibility is specifically the target of the spell. That's the basis I'm going off of, but hey, everyone is free to do it however they want in their games, but this does make the "free force one spells for everyone" a LOT less prevalent and I believe in line with the way it should be, but YMMV. 
Posted by: Domino Jul 19 2004, 12:35 AM
I think a force 1 Imp Invisibility spell is great for natural selection. But we do limit the number of successes by the force of the spell, making force important.
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 19 2004, 12:38 AM
First, there's a huge difference between the Target Number of a spell and the Target (or Subject) of a spell. They're wholly different beasts, even though the latter generally determines the former in cases of Combat Spells and Directed Illusions.
Second, as BitBasher has said, there's a flat rule in the game that states that the Force of a spell has to be equal to at least half the OR of the Target before it even has a chance of affecting that target. If this first caveat is met, THEN the Target Number comes into play to determine the actual effect of the spell. If the Force of the spell is less than half, the spell as no chance of affecting the target no matter what -- it just doesn't have the moxy to do the job.
Third, this rule is basically a http://shadowrunrpg.com/resources/errata_sr3.shtml to the rules. As written in the errata, no Level 1 spell can affect any inanimate object (which does include trees, but basically not any sentient being with a standard stat block such as metahumans and critters) because the lowest OR available is 3 for Natural Objects such as (that's right) trees. If for whatever reason you choose to ignore the errata, then ORs only come up for spells that specifically mention them, usually only regarding the Target Number or the Threshold of the spell.
Fourth, Invisibility and most other Indirect Illusions are cast on a Subject. The actual Target of the spell, however, is everyone and everything witnessing the Subject. So the tacked-on blanket OR rule applies and varies from Target to Target even though the Subject remains the same.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 19 2004, 12:57 AM
On the one hand, something like this serious damages magic's effectiveness.
On the other hand, it provides a reason for something like the absolutely boneheaded FAQ suggestion on how to deal with vehicles and drones to exist. It still doesn't make sense, but at least it gives you some sort of bonus for casting that Force-45 Improved Invis.
~J
Posted by: Domino Jul 19 2004, 12:59 AM
| QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
| As written in the errata, no Level 1 spell can affect any inanimate object (which does include trees, but basically not any sentient being with a standard stat block such as metahumans and critters) because the lowest OR available is 3 for Natural Objects such as (that's right) trees. |
Where exactly in the 'tack-ons' does it say that?
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 19 2004, 01:15 AM
"The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object."
The lowest OR score is 3 for things like living trees, and that's on SR3 p. 182. Thus a Force 1 spell will not affect any inanimate object because 3/2 is 1.5. Though one can argue that this is rounded down as is most things in the game, but then you run into the problem with a minimum TN of 2.
The tack-on is a tack-on to the paragraph talking about Object Resistance numbers and their use with inanimate objects, of which metahumans and critters are not.
etc.
Posted by: Domino Jul 19 2004, 01:18 AM
Ok I read it that you where saying it applies to metahumans. I need more coffee.
Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jul 19 2004, 01:48 AM
| QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
| "The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object." The lowest OR score is 3 for things like living trees, and that's on SR3 p. 182. Thus a Force 1 spell will not affect any inanimate object because 3/2 is 1.5. Though one can argue that this is rounded down as is most things in the game, but then you run into the problem with a minimum TN of 2. |
Weren't you the one just saying that a Target is not the same as a Target Number? Sure, a TN cannot be lower than 2, but the quoted sentence does not ever mention a Target Number. It mentions Force and Object Resistance. These are not Target Numbers; they *become* Target Numbers where applicable, but they are not Target Numbers. If anything, they are attributes, like Body or Will, and they can certainly become 1 when needed.
So, half of OR 3 is 1.5, rounded down is 1. A Force 1 spell is equal or greater to 1, so it can affect the object.
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 19 2004, 01:51 AM
Just about everything is a target number for something in the game. The Target Number of a spell, as specified by the term "Target" in the spell's stat block, is wholly different than the target of a spell. But half the OR of a target is still the "target number" used to determine the required Force to affect it.
Don't blame me 'cause they use the same and similar terms to describe a plethora of different things.
Posted by: Zazen Jul 19 2004, 02:02 AM
| QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
| "The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object." The lowest OR score is 3 for things like living trees, and that's on SR3 p. 182. Thus a Force 1 spell will not affect any inanimate object because 3/2 is 1.5. Though one can argue that this is rounded down as is most things in the game, but then you run into the problem with a minimum TN of 2. |
Posted by: hyzmarca Jul 19 2004, 03:19 AM
This rule can create some silly situations. For example, a Force 3 deadly fireball that hits a keg of gundoder but does nothing to it, because the OR of gunpowder is 8. It also makes spells like Trid Enterainment are useless below force 4.
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 19 2004, 03:43 AM
I didn't say that I cared for it. It's just what the rules say. I tend to look down upon most of the online errata and FAQs since many of them seem to be snap decisions instead of carefully thought-out and researched ones.
Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jul 19 2004, 04:52 AM
| QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
| Just about everything is a target number for something in the game. The Target Number of a spell, as specified by the term "Target" in the spell's stat block, is wholly different than the target of a spell. But half the OR of a target is still the "target number" used to determine the required Force to affect it. Don't blame me 'cause they use the same and similar terms to describe a plethora of different things. |
Okay, so by that argument no attribute can ever be lower than a 2. An Otaku may have a 1 in Body, but because that attribute might sometimes be used as a target number (say for a Powerbolt spell), then its minimum possible value is a 2. In fact, that same weakling Otaku can never run out of Combat Pool, because even when he uses it all up and has 0 remaining, that number must automatically be rounded up to a 2, because there might be an obscure case where it is used as a TN (although I can't really think of any off the top of my head.)
No. Not every number in Shadowrun is a Target Number all the time. Sometimes it is an attribute, or in some cases like this one it is *half* of an attribute, and therefore does not necessarily round up to 2.
Posted by: Zazen Jul 19 2004, 06:07 AM
That won't help your poor otaku, because the "target number" to be paralyzed due to low body is 0. Err, I mean 2
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 19 2004, 06:50 AM
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Jul 18 2004, 10:52 PM) |
| Okay, so by that argument no attribute can ever be lower than a 2. An Otaku may have a 1 in Body, but because that attribute might sometimes be used as a target number (say for a Powerbolt spell), then its minimum possible value is a 2. |
That's 100% correct in reference to it being a target number. This is exactly how it is in the game. The minimum TN for any test in the game is 2, even if the actual value is 1 or lower. That doesn't change the actual value of the attribute in any way whatsoever.
| QUOTE |
| In fact, that same weakling Otaku can never run out of Combat Pool, because even when he uses it all up and has 0 remaining, that number must automatically be rounded up to a 2, because there might be an obscure case where it is used as a TN (although I can't really think of any off the top of my head.) |
Nope, because that doesn't make it a target number. He still has no pool. If there is some effect that targets Combat Pool, and I'm not aware of anything that is, it would, indeed, have a minimum TN of 2 even if the pool was completely depleted. It in no way increases his actual Combat Pool despite your ignorant attempt to state otherwise.
| QUOTE |
| No. Not every number in Shadowrun is a Target Number all the time. Sometimes it is an attribute, or in some cases like this one it is *half* of an attribute, and therefore does not necessarily round up to 2. |
I didn't say it was always a target number, nor did I say that it would necessarily be a 2 in the earlier case. I simply pointed out that that blanket rule could give rise to an argument stating that a Force 1 spell could or could not be effective against natural objects.
Posted by: Zazen Jul 19 2004, 07:28 AM
| QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey @ Jul 19 2004, 01:50 AM) |
| I simply pointed out that that blanket rule could give rise to an argument stating that a Force 1 spell could or could not be effective against natural objects. |
You've already realized that this is silly, and you're backpeddling.
edit- ...for which I am thankful!
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 19 2004, 03:37 PM
I am not backpeddling. Maybe you should read the original quote.
| QUOTE |
| The lowest OR score is 3 for things like living trees, and that's on SR3 p. 182. Thus a Force 1 spell will not affect any inanimate object because 3/2 is 1.5. Though one can argue that this is rounded down as is most things in the game, but then you run into the problem with a minimum TN of 2. |
Followed by the clarification here.
| QUOTE |
| I didn't say it was always a target number, nor did I say that it would necessarily be a 2 in the earlier case. I simply pointed out that that blanket rule could give rise to an argument stating that a Force 1 spell could or could not be effective against natural objects. |
I don't recall once saying that was my opinion, only that someone could argue it regardless of how stupid it was. This has been proven repeatedly in the last couple of days (i.e., people arguing that "another character" means a third person, not your actual opponent).
Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jul 19 2004, 05:19 PM
| QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
| I am not backpeddling. Maybe you should read the original quote. |
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument here, then.
| QUOTE |
| The lowest OR score is 3 for things like living trees, and that's on SR3 p. 182. Thus a Force 1 spell will not affect any inanimate object because 3/2 is 1.5. Though one can argue that this is rounded down as is most things in the game, but then you run into the problem with a minimum TN of 2. |
The first sentence is clearly false, because from the errata you quoted:
| QUOTE |
| The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object. |
Maybe I'm being dense, but 1.5 usually rounds down to 1, not 1.5.
And I really have no idea what that second sentence is saying at all. I've already intepreted it once to mean that you're rounding half the OR to 2 because OR is sometimes used as a TN, and so should always be rounded to a 2. Apparently this was false, so I honestly don't know what it means.
Posted by: Zazen Jul 19 2004, 06:03 PM
He just wants to take it back
| QUOTE |
| Just about everything is a target number for something in the game. The Target Number of a spell, as specified by the term "Target" in the spell's stat block, is wholly different than the target of a spell. But half the OR of a target is still the "target number" used to determine the required Force to affect it. Oh wait, it's not because this is not my real opinion. I am posting this for typing practice. Don't blame me 'cause they use the same and similar terms to describe a plethora of different things. Actually you can blame me, because I'm the only person to ever come up with this bizarre argument and I'm saying it for no reason, since I don't believe in it anyway. |
Even if he did only mean "it kinda sorta could be argued by somebody else but not me", then he's still wrong. Nobody outside the special olympics will ever say this.
Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 19 2004, 06:50 PM
| QUOTE |
| Nobody outside the special olympics will ever say this. |
Then we have multiple special olypiads on these boards, because they've been saying stupid things like that ever since the inception of the board. See the aforementioned example.
Posted by: Nikoli Jul 19 2004, 07:25 PM
I have always interpereted that to mean that it's not so much that 2 is the minumum TN, it's that a 1 is never a success. It equates to the same thing, but is more accurate.
That being said, an improved invis Force 1 will not cover microphones, pressure plates, etc. so you'd need to design a slightly more powerful spell. of course, onece your mage does that, learns it and uses it for the first time and the astral residue gets analyzed by VERY powerful corp. mages, your wiz-kid is going to be in a serious world of hurt (or potentially very wealthy, depending on how the spell was used.)
Posted by: Zazen Jul 19 2004, 07:28 PM
| QUOTE |
| they've been saying stupid things like that ever since the inception of the board |
I felt like this one raised the bar a little. Anyway, now we all agree it's stupid. Three cheers for unanimity
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)