What I'm saying is that you're focusing an awful lot on the inclusion of the Rust Monster in the bestiary.It's like you people aren't even trying.
Alright, so don't use Rust Monsters in your game.
This is what I'm bloody talking about. THE POINT WAS NOT THAT THE RUST MONSTER IS IN THE BESTIARY. The point was that it is completely unrelated to armor rusting because it fell in the bloody ocean.
But yes, the Rust Monster being in the bestiary does make a difference in a discussion about whether people should innately know what can ruin their stuff in a game system.
And sometimes, yes, you don't tell someone up front because it's pretty goddamn obvious. Like, you know, prolonged exposure to dirty water probably won't be too good for a book.And like the ability to turn into an Eagle and fly around conjuring lightning bolts and giants out of midair?
First off, for Pathfinder, it's refered to as the PRD.If you want to be a pretentious ass about it, I can point out "SRD" means "System Reference Document" and "Pathfinder" is a "System."
WHOAH! What rulebook are YOU playing with? Cause MY summon monster list ends with outsiders and animals with templates.
WHOAH! What rulebook are YOU playing with? Cause MY summon monster list ends with outsiders and animals with templates.And sometimes, yes, you don't tell someone up front because it's pretty goddamn obvious. Like, you know, prolonged exposure to dirty water probably won't be too good for a book.And like the ability to turn into an Eagle and fly around conjuring lightning bolts and giants out of midair?
First off, for Pathfinder, it's refered to as the PRD.If you want to be a pretentious ass about it, I can point out "SRD" means "System Reference Document" and "Pathfinder" is a "System."
I... I don't even know what to say to that. And "Summon Nature's Ally" look it up.
Zounds! I seem to have hurt my credibility!
|
And sometimes, yes, you don't tell someone up front because it's pretty goddamn obvious. Like, you know, prolonged exposure to dirty water probably won't be too good for a book.And like the ability to turn into an Eagle and fly around conjuring lightning bolts and giants out of midair?
So because SOME things are magical, NOTHING has to make sense? Hell, with that attitude, we can just chuck the Core Rulebook as well. Why let all those rules get in the way of fantasy?
So because SOME things are magical, NOTHING has to make sense? Hell, with that attitude, we can just chuck the Core Rulebook as well. Why let all those rules get in the way of fantasy?And sometimes, yes, you don't tell someone up front because it's pretty goddamn obvious. Like, you know, prolonged exposure to dirty water probably won't be too good for a book.And like the ability to turn into an Eagle and fly around conjuring lightning bolts and giants out of midair?
Hey, you're the one throwing out the Core Rulebook to declare that characters have to read your real life mind.
|
|
Hey, you're the one throwing out the Core Rulebook to declare that characters have to read your real life mind.
No, I'm the one assuming that my players have enough common sense to realize that if they drop their spellbook in the mud, they should probably pick it up promptly and try to minimize the damage, rather than pick it up sometime next week.
Hey, maybe the people you play with don't have any common sense. I guess I'm just lucky.
....You guys realize you're arguing about arguing at this point, right?
Which, again, ironically proves me right :p
That people argue against this proves that it's not a given that water destroys spellbooks and thus that players must invent their own ways to cover or otherwise protect their items.
So because SOME things are magical, NOTHING has to make sense?And sometimes, yes, you don't tell someone up front because it's pretty goddamn obvious. Like, you know, prolonged exposure to dirty water probably won't be too good for a book.And like the ability to turn into an Eagle and fly around conjuring lightning bolts and giants out of midair?
Because things are magical, nothing not in the rules is not common sense.
Sure, if we were playing "The Real World: The Tabletop Game," sure, all that stuff would be common sense.
|
|
There's nothing in the rules to say that the next time any given character wakes up, the entire world and everyone on it but him have disappeared, and he's left floating alone in a vast expanse of nothingness.
But if that did happen to a character, I'm fairly sure the player would want it to actually lead to something, and not just be "Eh...some magical stuff happened...another Tuesday."
Even in a magic-rich campaign, most characters are going to expect most day to day life to proceed according to the laws of physics of whatever reality they reside in. If something markedly different happens, it's going to be the exception, not the rule. Even in the Forgotten Realms, where the average drunk homeless begger is a 98th level archmage, people still expect to wake up in the morning and see the sun in the sky and the ground beneath their feet, and not vice-versa.
|
There's nothing in the rules to say that the next time any given character wakes up, the entire world and everyone on it but him have disappeared, and he's left floating alone in a vast expanse of nothingness.
But if that did happen to a character, I'm fairly sure the player would want it to actually lead to something, and not just be "Eh...some magical stuff happened...another Tuesday."
Even in a magic-rich campaign, most characters are going to expect most day to day life to proceed according to the laws of physics of whatever reality they reside in. If something markedly different happens, it's going to be the exception, not the rule. Even in the Forgotten Realms, where the average drunk homeless begger is a 98th level archmage, people still expect to wake up in the morning and see the sun in the sky and the ground beneath their feet, and not vice-versa.
Speak for yerself and yer boring world, Prime berk :)
|
|
Even in a magic-rich campaign, most characters are going to expect most day to day life to proceed according to the laws of physics of whatever reality they reside in.Speak for yerself and yer boring world, Prime berk :)
Bolded for your convience. And try not to mistake a Far Realmer for a Prime berk. You and your silly little "Great Wheel." As if the multiverse could begin to be understood by beings who can only percieve three spacial dimensions, one temporal dimension, and a limited view of planar dimensions.
There's nothing in the rules to say that the next time any given character wakes up, the entire world and everyone on it but him have disappeared, and he's left floating alone in a vast expanse of nothingness.
But if that did happen to a character, I'm fairly sure the player would want it to actually lead to something, and not just be "Eh...some magical stuff happened...another Tuesday."
Even in a magic-rich campaign, most characters are going to expect most day to day life to proceed according to the laws of physics of whatever reality they reside in. If something markedly different happens, it's going to be the exception, not the rule. Even in the Forgotten Realms, where the average drunk homeless begger is a 98th level archmage, people still expect to wake up in the morning and see the sun in the sky and the ground beneath their feet, and not vice-versa.
Yes, the world as defined by the rules of the game they are playing in.
You keep ignoring the point that we are talking about a game.Oooh, I know! I think REALLY hard and my spellbook is immune to water. Common sense, right? I don't see "water damaging a spellbook" written anywhere in the rules, so being protected by me thinking about it really hard is just as likely as it being damaged by prolonged exposure to water, right?
There's nothing in the rules to say that the next time any given character wakes up, the entire world and everyone on it but him have disappeared, and he's left floating alone in a vast expanse of nothingness.
But if that did happen to a character, I'm fairly sure the player would want it to actually lead to something, and not just be "Eh...some magical stuff happened...another Tuesday."
Even in a magic-rich campaign, most characters are going to expect most day to day life to proceed according to the laws of physics of whatever reality they reside in. If something markedly different happens, it's going to be the exception, not the rule. Even in the Forgotten Realms, where the average drunk homeless begger is a 98th level archmage, people still expect to wake up in the morning and see the sun in the sky and the ground beneath their feet, and not vice-versa.
Yes, the world as defined by the rules of the game they are playing in.
You keep ignoring the point that we are talking about a game.Oooh, I know! I think REALLY hard and my spellbook is immune to water. Common sense, right? I don't see "water damaging a spellbook" written anywhere in the rules, so being protected by me thinking about it really hard is just as likely as it being damaged by prolonged exposure to water, right?
You know, it's a waste of time to debate with you. You obviously have no intention of debating rationally, all you want to do is spew as much bile as you can and start as many flame wars as you can.
Your stance is, nothing can ever hurt precious spell book, because there is no rule in the game for it. Never mind that there are entire sections on the environment chapter about what happens in floods, fires, earthquakes, etc. None of that specifically says 'spell book' and so you write it off, and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's asinine, and I'm adding you to my little short list of people I don't respond to. I suspect you may have already been on it, but I lost the sticky in the move to Austin.
And yes, it being in the SRD does make a difference. Why the hell should a player expect something to occur that is NOT IN THE RULES THEY UNDERSTAND THE GAME TO BE PLAYED BY? I expect the bloody DM to tell me when he changes the systems rules.
Excluding the water bit for the moment, if you're actually arguing that the DM tell you which monsters he/she is going to use in the game, then there's an issue with your expectations.
And yes, it being in the SRD does make a difference. Why the hell should a player expect something to occur that is NOT IN THE RULES THEY UNDERSTAND THE GAME TO BE PLAYED BY? I expect the bloody DM to tell me when he changes the systems rules.Excluding the water bit for the moment, if you're actually arguing that the DM tell you which monsters he/she is going to use in the game, then there's an issue with your expectations.
No. That's not what I'm saying. Please read it again. And again. Just keep doing it until you get the obvious point.
EDIT: You people keep focusing on singular points to ask stupid questions.
Notice how I emphasized the "rules they understand the game is to be played by?" That does not mean "The Bestiary." That means the rules on how the whole system works. A monster is not a rule; it uses rules. Except in the case of Rust Monster where the rule is the monster - it rusts stuff, that's what it does. Black Pudding destroys stuff too. Water destroying a spellbook because it was dropped in well or something is not a rule of the game and you cannot expect a player to play by unknown rules.
For instance, let's play chess. I use my King to jump your pawn, into your Knight, into your Rook, into your King. Touchdown!
But to be less facetious, within a handful of moves, I castle my King. Perhaps you didn't do it because you didn't know that rule. Shall I disqualify you from Chess?
You know, it's a waste of time to debate with you. You obviously have no intention of debating rationally, all you want to do is spew as much bile as you can and start as many flame wars as you can.
As opposed to you, who starts every reply to me with an ad hominem in order to poison the well?
Your stance is, nothing can ever hurt precious spell book, because there is no rule in the game for it.
1) That's a different debate than I am having right now. We are not discussing whether or not the spellbook can be destroyed (though it shouldn't be by random chance), but whether or not made up on the spot rules can destroy it.
2) It makes no sense for a little water to utterly destroy a spellbook and, in so doing, the Wizard.Never mind that there are entire sections on the environment chapter about what happens in floods, fires, earthquakes, etc.
So what happens in a flood, fire, or earthquake that is relevant to the discussion, specifically?
I see losing gear to a rust monster or bookworms as very different from losing items to immersion in seawater or unrelated battle damage.
When characters encounter a rust monster, that tests their ingenuity by forcing them to find ways to fight or evade the beast before it chews through their valuable gear. They throw down items to distract it, cast spells as obstacles, and send their mage up front to beat the beast to death with a club.
Bookworms (and other tiny pests, like rot grubs) punish those who loot "too greedily or too deep". They act to limit characters from grabbing the tons of undifferentiated bric-a-brac littering most encounter areas. Characters must slow down to carefully search, lest they inadvertently bring home a nasty pest.
If a mage ends up in the water, either he chose to go in or he was forced by circumstances. If he chose to go in with his spellbook, but failed to take steps to protect it from water damage, then he presumably didn't know it was vulnerable. Is it fair to expect someone to take steps against a threat they didn't realize existed?
If he was forced in by circumstances, he may have lacked the resources to protect the book. Is it fair to punish a player with loss of his character's main role just because he didn't think to waterproof his spellbook before his ship hit a reef?
No. That's not what I'm saying. Please read it again. And again. Just keep doing it until you get the obvious point.
EDIT: You people keep focusing on singular points to ask stupid questions.
Notice how I emphasized the "rules they understand the game is to be played by?" That does not mean "The Bestiary." That means the rules on how the whole system works. A monster is not a rule; it uses rules. Except in the case of Rust Monster where the rule is the monster - it rusts stuff, that's what it does. Black Pudding destroys stuff too. Water destroying a spellbook because it was dropped in well or something is not a rule of the game and you cannot expect a player to play by unknown rules.For instance, let's play chess. I use my King to jump your pawn, into your Knight, into your Rook, into your King. Touchdown!
But to be less facetious, within a handful of moves, I castle my King. Perhaps you didn't do it because you didn't know that rule. Shall I disqualify you from Chess?
I'm going to have to agree with mdt, I'm done with you after this post. You're being obstinate, and accusing people of doing the same thing you're doing. Further, you're making specious arguments, and when someone calls you on it, you change the topic and attack people.
I find it incredibly amusing that while the SRD rules for environmental damage detail how fire can damage equipment and gear, but doesn't explicitly say anything about water, ice, etc., one can interpret that as a free pass for most environmental damage.
Your "it's not explicitly spelled out in the rules!" schtick is tiresome, and I'm quite happy that I don't have to deal with this garbage with my friends and game mates.
Good day.
If a mage ends up in the water, either he chose to go in or he was forced by circumstances. If he chose to go in with his spellbook, but failed to take steps to protect it from water damage, then he presumably didn't know it was vulnerable. Is it fair to expect someone to take steps against a threat they didn't realize existed?
If he was forced in by circumstances, he may have lacked the resources to protect the book. Is it fair to punish a player with loss of his character's main role just because he didn't think to waterproof his spellbook before his ship hit a reef?
Why must this be considered "punishing" the player?
Why can't it simply be a situation that's occured that forces the players to do something differently?
If I'm DM'ing a game, and my players don't have any immunity to electrical attacks, so I set that kind of situation up, am I punishing them for not protecting themselves accordingly?
Does your character automatically know what's in the Bestiary? Or does he learn about it through encounters? When you DM, do you make a copy of your notes and overall plot/outline and hand it out to the players so that they know what's coming? No? Why would you punish your players like that?
I find it incredibly amusing that while the SRD rules for environmental damage detail how fire can damage equipment and gear, but doesn't explicitly say anything about water, ice, etc., one can interpret that as a free pass for most environmental damage.
The rules define the game the players play because, you know, this is, in fact, a game. If it isn't in the rules, pray tell how the players are supposed to know it?
Your "it's not explicitly spelled out in the rules!" schtick is tiresome,
I imagine you play Chess the way my facetious example ran.
Why must this be considered "punishing" the player?
You are a Wizard on a dock in the harbor district. A drunken sailor shoves you into the water. You are now a funny dressed person who, after 24 hours, can cast Read Magic very well.
If I'm DM'ing a game, and my players don't have any immunity to electrical attacks, so I set that kind of situation up, am I punishing them for not protecting themselves accordingly?
Depends, did the players walk outside with a giant iron rod during a lightning storm?
Does your character automatically know what's in the Bestiary? Or does he learn about it through encounters?
We are not characters. We are players. In a game.
This thread could probably be closed now, as the original point to it has been long lost. The chances of swaying anybodys opinion at this point is nill. Those who are convinced that any attack whatsoever on the spellbook is a direct attack on the player will continue to think that, and those who think otherwise will not be able to do anything to change their mind. Regardless of who is right or wrong, this discussion is now just plain ridiculous and repitious. It is time to move on.
This thread could probably be closed now, as the original point to it has been long lost. The chances of swaying anybodys opinion at this point is nill. Those who are convinced that any attack whatsoever on the spellbook is a direct attack on the player will continue to think that, and those who think otherwise will not be able to do anything to change their mind. Regardless of who is right or wrong, this discussion is now just plain ridiculous and repitious. It is time to move on.
I find it funny that you say that because I actually went back just now and looked at the original post and that STILL has nothing to do with this topic. The topic immediately derailed after the topic creator asked if dunking a spellbook in water did anything to it and if so could it be fixed.
The whole thing immediately took off and traveled through time when Kthulhu decided to interject that "common sense" dictates if your spellbook gets wet, your Wizard should immediately be replaced by his identical twin brother. Who is a Sorcerer.
PS. The answers to the OP's questions are as follows.
A) No, it doesn't. Per rules and James' statement.
B) If it did, more than likely.
C) Easily.
PS. The answers to the OP's questions are as follows.
A) No, it doesn't. Per rules and James' statement.
B) If it did, more than likely.
C) Easily.
If you already have an answer that satisfies you, all the more reason to move on. You are not going to be changing anybody's mind on the rightness or wrongness of the above anwers at this point.
If you already have an answer that satisfies you, all the more reason to move on. You are not going to be changing anybody's mind on the rightness or wrongness of the above anwers at this point.PS. The answers to the OP's questions are as follows.
A) No, it doesn't. Per rules and James' statement.
B) If it did, more than likely.
C) Easily.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. Point A contains the facts as they stand. Points B and C are more opinion, but would require further elaboration.
1. Depends on [...] the GM, [...]
I boiled it down.
|
|
1. Depends on [...] the GM, [...]I boiled it down.
Eh....well, if it's sewer "water" and the character picks it up the next day, I think even the most generous GM would have it suffering some sort of damage. Or at the very least require the wizard to roll a Fort save vs disease the next few times he used it.
It's bad when the troglodyte PC tells your character that his book stinks. :P
I think even the most generous GM would have it suffering some sort of damage.
You would be wrong so let's move on.
I want to interject that the idea of "Spellbooks are literally untouchable" is a huge strawman. None of us are saying that, and even if we were, it's completely unrelated.
The idea of "If you attack a spellbook you attack the character" is also a strawman. None of us are arguing that, and it's completely unrelated.
The Bestiary? Unrelated. Bookworms? Unrelated.
The question is: Does water ruin your spellbook?
The rules say nothing on the matter. They say neither yes nor no. "Common sense" also doesn't work as, has been seen several times here by more then just Cartigan and myself, others feel that no, water should not destroy the book, for a variety of reasons. This means the players are for all intents and purposes utterly ignorant and cannot infer on their own that water will damage their spellbook, as it's entirely dependent on a houserule.
Now, that doesn't mean you can never have water ruin a spellbook, but it does mean that if you decide it does and your players do not know that then you have set a Bad DM Trap for them; you have put them in a position where they literally cannot face the challenge you have set before them. You have, in other words, put them in an utterly unwinnable situation and then demanded they win.
Now, if your players do know this because you tell them, that's fine. If a player falls into the ocean and you tell them that the water will ruin the spellbook "soon" if they can't find a way around it, that's also (potentially) ok, so long as there's a reasonable way for them to protect their spellbook.
Yes, you, the DM, can at any point in time decide the spellbook is dead. That's not good DMing though; it's a small step away from Rocks Fall, because it is entirely arbitrary. You are punishing a character - that is to say, destroying one of the core parts of their class and character permanently - for being unable to read your mind.
"Common sense" is not an argument unless it can be proved without a shadow of a doubt that all people should inherently understand that water destroys spellbooks. Come on, this is logic 101 here. If it can be argued that it does not - and this thread kinda proves that - then it is thus reasonable to believe that players will not know. Once again, there are a large variety of reasons water wouldn't destroy spellbooks, from the special inks used to the type of manuscript the spellbook is written on, to the fact that environmental damage doesn't occur to other items, to the point that it is a game. Here's the catch - even if you argue against each of those points, it doesn't change that players will walk into a game fully expecting water to not do anything to their spellbooks
In the absence of a codified rule, the DM can make whatever calls they want, yeah, I know. Nothing wrong with that. However, if the DM creates his own rule in said absence, it is by complete definition a houserule - and thus something players should be informed of before the game begins. If you decided that being wet somehow interferes with divine magic, that, too, is something you would tell your druids and oracles and clerics before the game begins.
Allow me to posit a situation:
You're playing D20 Modern, Shadowrun, etc.
You have a laptop/cyberdeck/electronic device.
You fall into the water.
The rules don't explicitly say that water damages electronic devices.
The GM hasn't explicity said "don't get your electronics wet!"
Does common sense of "water damages unwaterproofed electronics" still not apply?
Allow me to posit a situation:
You're playing D20 Modern, Shadowrun, etc.
You have a laptop/cyberdeck/electronic device.
You fall into the water.
The rules don't explicitly say that water damages electronic devices.
The GM hasn't explicity said "don't get your electronics wet!"
Does common sense of "water damages unwaterproofed electronics" still not apply?
I'm glad you brought up Shadowrun, because at least there, the answer is "No."
I mean come on, it's Shadowrun. It's pretty much always raining all the time and everyone is decked out (literally as in they have decks) and it's super cyberpunk.
So um.
Might...wanna work on that example.
Allow me to posit a situation:
You're playing D20 Modern, Shadowrun, etc.
You have a laptop/cyberdeck/electronic device.
You fall into the water.
The rules don't explicitly say that water damages electronic devices.
The GM hasn't explicity said "don't get your electronics wet!"
Does common sense of "water damages unwaterproofed electronics" still not apply?
No. There is no "real world" "common sense" in a game. None.
Allow me to posit a situation:
You're playing D20 Modern, Shadowrun, etc.
You have a laptop/cyberdeck/electronic device.
You fall into the water.
The rules don't explicitly say that water damages electronic devices.
The GM hasn't explicity said "don't get your electronics wet!"
Does common sense of "water damages unwaterproofed electronics" still not apply?
I'm glad you brought up Shadowrun, because at least there, the answer is "No."
I mean come on, it's Shadowrun. It's pretty much always raining all the time and everyone is decked out (literally as in they have decks) and it's super cyberpunk.
So um.
Might...wanna work on that example.
They weren't explicit ruleset examples, hence the multiple examples and "etc". I should have said "modernish/futurish game" instead of providing named examples.
My statement of "there is no explicit rule that water damages electronics" stands as my example ruleset.
No rule, yet, in the real world, dropping your iPhone in the toilet is potentially going to have negative effects. Spilling a soda on your laptop is potentially going to have negative effects.
So, my question, clarified, remains:
If the GM didn't explicitly define that, in your "modernish" game, liquids will damage your electronics, you would say that common sense doesn't apply, and your players can swim across a creek with their electronic gear unprotected, and it's not harmed?
|
I would say in either setting, the level of realism is an important point that should be explicitly stated at the start of the game, so that players know their character would be concerned with protecting their gear from such thing. If the DM says he doesn't track components and weather effects, the players aren't going to be concerned with weatherproofing gear.
If the GM didn't explicitly define that, in your "modernish" game, liquids will damage your electronics, you would say that common sense doesn't apply, and your players can swim across a creek with their electronic gear unprotected, and it's not harmed?
I don't think anyone is arguing that. If I were GM, I'd ask my players what they were doing to keep their gear dry.
If I were a player and the GM told me my hi-tech gear was now junk because I fell into some water, but he didn't even ask me what I'd done to protect it, he'd better be ready for my vehement arguments. Sure in real life, my cell phone craps out when I walk into a humid room, but I'm not some hi-tech mercenary staking his life on those electronics. If I were, you can bet my deck would be waterproof, sand proof, EMP resistant, top-of-the-line gear.
This thread is frustrating, as I don't think we disagree as much as we appear to. The essential disagreement seems to be one of "realism vs. drama" in gaming: Is it better to provide a realistic game or to provide a dramatically satisfying game? In a very realistic game, a character's most valuable and important items would be his foes' first targets. In a strongly cinematic game, a character only loses his defining abilities and equipment when that would serve a greater story purpose.
Either end of this spectrum can be problematic. Few people prefer to play a game where plot immunity is invoked to force a heavy-handed sense of story. Conversely, few enjoy a game where their characters' actions seem random or meaningless instead of heroic.
This thread is frustrating, as I don't think we disagree as much as we appear to. The essential disagreement seems to be one of "realism vs. drama" in gaming: Is it better to provide a realistic game or to provide a dramatically satisfying game? In a very realistic game, a character's most valuable and important items would be his foes' first targets. In a strongly cinematic game, a character only loses his defining abilities and equipment when that would serve a greater story purpose.Either end of this spectrum can be problematic. Few people prefer to play a game where plot immunity is invoked to force a heavy-handed sense of story. Conversely, few enjoy a game where their characters' actions seem random or meaningless instead of heroic.
That was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread, that there is a middle point between 'Rain got on your <blah>, it's broken' and 'Nyah Nyah Nyah, my precious <blah> is immune to everything'.
I got insulted, told I was a dick GM, told I was an idiot, and generally told that anything that damages a spell book is illegal and immoral. I think most of the people who are in the 'middle ground' category gave up on this thread a long time ago. I'm not sure why I keep reading it myself honestly. I think it's the whole car wreck conundrum, you see the blood and body parts and writhing flaming bodies, but you just can't look away.
Alternately, it's the redneck conundrum, you just can't believe someone can be so inbred stupid as the people you're listening too, and no matter how many brain cells you have that cringe and die with each post, you just can't stop watching in horror.
One of those two.
My statement of "there is no explicit rule that water damages electronics" stands as my example ruleset.No rule, yet, in the real world, dropping your iPhone in the toilet is potentially going to have negative effects. Spilling a soda on your laptop is potentially going to have negative effects.
So, my question, clarified, remains:
If the GM didn't explicitly define that, in your "modernish" game, liquids will damage your electronics, you would say that common sense doesn't apply, and your players can swim across a creek with their electronic gear unprotected, and it's not harmed?
On a similar note, water does not harm electronics that are off. Spilling a soda on your laptop, if it is off, does roughly nothing - provided you can clean out all the gummed up crap from the corn syrup.
On a similar note, water does not harm electronics that are off. Spilling a soda on your laptop, if it is off, does roughly nothing - provided you can clean out all the gummed up crap from the corn syrup.
Having been through this exact situation, I can attest that:
1. The laptop is completely and totally unusable until repaired.
2. Fully repairing the laptop in question is next to impossible. There is always some lingering effect. In my case, the "y" key and the on/off button are erratic.
So, yeah, probably not the best example to support your point.
This thread is frustrating, as I don't think we disagree as much as we appear to. The essential disagreement seems to be one of "realism vs. drama" in gaming: Is it better to provide a realistic game or to provide a dramatically satisfying game? In a very realistic game, a character's most valuable and important items would be his foes' first targets. In a strongly cinematic game, a character only loses his defining abilities and equipment when that would serve a greater story purpose.Either end of this spectrum can be problematic. Few people prefer to play a game where plot immunity is invoked to force a heavy-handed sense of story. Conversely, few enjoy a game where their characters' actions seem random or meaningless instead of heroic.
That was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread, that there is a middle point between 'Rain got on your <blah>, it's broken' and 'Nyah Nyah Nyah, my precious <blah> is immune to everything'.
I got insulted, told I was a dick GM, told I was an idiot, and generally told that anything that damages a spell book is illegal and immoral. I think most of the people who are in the 'middle ground' category gave up on this thread a long time ago. I'm not sure why I keep reading it myself honestly. I think it's the whole car wreck conundrum, you see the blood and body parts and writhing flaming bodies, but you just can't look away.
Alternately, it's the redneck conundrum, you just can't believe someone can be so inbred stupid as the people you're listening too, and no matter how many brain cells you have that cringe and die with each post, you just can't stop watching in horror.
One of those two.
Do you live in Iowa or something? Because you love your strawmen.
On a similar note, water does not harm electronics that are off. Spilling a soda on your laptop, if it is off, does roughly nothing - provided you can clean out all the gummed up crap from the corn syrup.Having been through this exact situation, I can attest that:
1. The laptop is completely and totally unusable until repaired.
2. Fully repairing the laptop in question is next to impossible. There is always some lingering effect. In my case, the "y" key and the on/off button are erratic.
So, yeah, probably not the best example to support your point.
Which was my point. Soda isn't water.
Which was my point. Soda isn't water.
Hmmm. Sure seemed like you point was that even soda doesn't cause permanent harm, which is untrue.
As for water, it still disables electronics until they are completely dry. Even then, a shortening of the lifespan of the item is very nearly unavoidable. Water dissolves many adhesives and rusts some connections. And if you happen to have even one drop of water left in the wrong place, then...boom...goes the laptop.
Again, not a good example to prove your point.
|
|
On a similar note, water does not harm electronics that are off. Spilling a soda on your laptop, if it is off, does roughly nothing - provided you can clean out all the gummed up crap from the corn syrup.Having been through this exact situation, I can attest that:
1. The laptop is completely and totally unusable until repaired.
2. Fully repairing the laptop in question is next to impossible. There is always some lingering effect. In my case, the "y" key and the on/off button are erratic.
So, yeah, probably not the best example to support your point.
1) soda ain't water. The sodium in soda does nasty things to metal.
2) was it off or on standby? Off = pretty safe from water...standby is still on so not so much.
I have dropped a netbook fully in water while it was completely off. I just needed to wait a week for everything to fully dry and it was just fine.
And on topic...parchment books are pretty dang water resistent. Hell it's even pretty fire resistent. The inks used on parchment is also quite water resistent as your basically doing a tattoo on the thin sheet of leather. Even paper books using the cheapest ink in the world can survive a dunk in the water...a high quality parchment book using high quality ink would suffer pretty much nil effect from water. So honestly the whole realism argument doesn't even work...so all that remains is your pulling a rocks fall, you die (no save) on your players.
Which was my point. Soda isn't water.Hmmm. Sure seemed like you point was that even soda doesn't cause permanent harm, which is untrue.
As for water, it still disables electronics until they are completely dry. Even then, a shortening of the lifespan of the item is very nearly unavoidable. Water dissolves many adhesives and rusts some connections. And if you happen to have even one drop of water left in the wrong place, then...boom...goes the laptop.
Again, not a good example to prove your point.
The big issue is the hard-drives. If the water get's inside, it doesn't matter if it dries, it can still ruin your hard drive. Hard water deposits, rusting of read arm components, rust dust scratching heads and platters. A hard drive that's completely submerged in water is usually shot.
Soda is actually much worse than anything. The acids in most sodas can eat into the circuitry at the molecular level. Stuff that doesn't bother our acidic stomachs can wreck havoc on delicate chips. Things like Orange Juice (my wife did this) can completely devastate chips, even if you can clean it out and dry it, just because the acid in it etches the circuits (that's how they are created in the first place, after all, in many manufacturing techniques).
I would like to point out that the original scenario had it dropped in the ocean; if you are going to use soda as an example because of the chemicals in it, than ocean water, and indeed most water that a book is going to get dropped in while out in the wild, has the same issue. Either you have paper, which is going try to absorb the water, causing swelling and possible damage, or parchment, which is going to react to the salt and other contaminants in the water, causing stiffness and other possible damage. In most cases, just like with electronics, you will simply have to let it dry, but until then, the book is going to be very hard to use safely, and the possibility of long term damage is present. Immersion in anything other than pure water for a book, or electronics, of any kind is bad, and even immersion in pure water is going to take time to recover. Well made books can probably withstand short periods of immersion tolerably well, but will still suffer if exposed for long periods. The only way to get around this is to have the entire book magic, when according to book, it is not.
I don't see anyone arguing that mere contact with water is going to hurt the book, just that complete immersion can depending on the circumstances. You also seem to think that we are arguing that damage means the book is completely destroyed, which does not have to be the case. If you still feel that targeting the book, even partially and under logical circumstances, is completely a unfair move on the part of DM, I won't try to change your mind, but I am done here, and I encourage others who are willing to see the middle ground that I and many others have tried to establish to call this discussion as settled as it can possibly be, given the very strong views held by both extremes.
The big issue is the hard-drives. If the water get's inside, it doesn't matter if it dries, it can still ruin your hard drive. Hard water deposits, rusting of read arm components, rust dust scratching heads and platters. A hard drive that's completely submerged in water is usually shot.Soda is actually much worse than anything. The acids in most sodas can eat into the circuitry at the molecular level. Stuff that doesn't bother our acidic stomachs can wreck havoc on delicate chips. Things like Orange Juice (my wife did this) can completely devastate chips, even if you can clean it out and dry it, just because the acid in it etches the circuits (that's how they are created in the first place, after all, in many manufacturing techniques).
My machine was actually "on" at the time. I immediately pulled the cord and yanked the battery. Then drained it as best I could and soaked it in alcohol several times. Surprisingly, it worked fine, once dry, with the noted exceptions.
A little more on-topic:
A quick dunking shouldn't damage a spellbook. Prolonged exposure certainly should. Trying to use the spellbook before it has been properly dried/repaired should increase the chance of damage. Losing access to spells temporarily, or even permanently (until replaced), is a challenge, a challenge that good players will embrace.