re: whatever happened to the Glassteel spell?


Rules Questions

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Stubs McKenzie wrote:

Spell needs to have a duration of instantaneous, not permanent, otherwise it can be dispelled.

As well, target should involve a cu ft or weight per level... thematically consistent.

did you read this: "Only a relatively small volume of material can be affected, no more than 10 pounds per caster level"?

or this: "I would probably either drop the level down to 6th or make the duration instaneous, for my games"?


Quote:


did you read this: "Only a relatively small volume of material can be affected, no more than 10 pounds per caster level"?

or this: "I would probably either drop the level down to 6th or make the duration instaneous, for my games"?

I believe he meant the Target line in the spell itself.

Quote:

Target one object of crystal or glass

Target one object of crystal or glass of up to 10lbs./level


seemed redundant, as it was included in the spells text (which is a direct quote of the 1e PHB spell text, with the exceptions of the last sentence and the hardness and HP numbers)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DJEternalDarkness wrote:
Totally off topic, but Set, I noticed that about the Eberron modules as well. You're riding on a neat sky blimp, it'll be attacked and crash. You're riding on the lightning rail, it's attacked and crashes, you get on an elevator and it crashes. It got to be that if my party entered any sort of conveyance that was named, they just prepped for a crash.

That's called having a Life of Adventure. Face it how many novels of Hero having a boring train trip to Schenectady would YOU buy?


If the nothing on the train trip enhanced the plot of the novel, and the author covered it in less than a full paragraph, it would not have any affect on whether I would by it or not... similarly there is nothing wrong with telling the players that their lightning rail ride was uneventful and they are now in Sharn (or where ever).


I think the lesson we can all learn from this is that barges, airships, lightning rails and elevators were approved for invention was because they didn't actually make adventuring safer.


asthyril wrote:
ironwood allowed druids to wear full plate back a long time ago, and still does. glassteel didn't really serve much of a purpose.

How is completely transparent fullplate armor not a purpose?


Threeshades wrote:
asthyril wrote:
ironwood allowed druids to wear full plate back a long time ago, and still does. glassteel didn't really serve much of a purpose.
How is completely transparent fullplate armor not a purpose?

ok no game mechanics purpose. if showing off your goods while being armored is something that floats your boat, more power to you.

incidentally i have no idea where the 'glasstell full plate was AC 0' comments are coming from. my 1st ed player's handbook says nothing about that. just 'glass becomes as hard as steel'. 2nd ed.just says the AC for the material was 1, but nothing about armor made from it, it doesn't differentiate between any armor types or anything. it just simply says 'the ac for this material is 1', which you could imply any metal armor made from it had a 1 AC, which i don't think was the intent, i think it was just for damaging it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Aye, but objects of steel were AC3...thus, glassteel was better then steel.

And yes, the duration should be instantaneous...it was not dispellable.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
cwslyclgh wrote:
If the nothing on the train trip enhanced the plot of the novel, and the author covered it in less than a full paragraph, it would not have any affect on whether I would by it or not... similarly there is nothing wrong with telling the players that their lightning rail ride was uneventful and they are now in Sharn (or where ever).

But if the trip WAS the novel, scenario, or module and nothing happened, you'd feel kind of cheated, no?

GM's aren't bound to make every trip a hellride or a borefest. It's totally up to them as to how it should go. That said, one of my favorite Living Death modules involved a combat on a moving Train.

Grand Lodge

For those who want see-through armor, I point you to the Invisibility spell, as it can be cast on objects.

That's better than Glass!


Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
MyTThor wrote:
You mean a glass Two-Handed Sword? 3d6 damage baby!
A proper Glass Sword does 255 damage and shatters on impact. :D

Wow, did no one else get this reference? I loved that weapon in Ultima (was it V or VI?), although it was a touch on the OP side ;)


Aelryinth wrote:

Aye, but objects of steel were AC3...thus, glassteel was better then steel.

And yes, the duration should be instantaneous...it was not dispellable.

==Aelryinth

Thats incorrect. At least in 2nd edition. The duration was Permanent, but the book said:

Quote:
Spells of permanent duration last until the effects are negated by some means, usually a dispel magic.

As such, glassteel was dispellable. 2nd edition had durations of instantaneous, but glassteel was Permanent. If they meant for it to be undispellable, they could of made it such. But they didn't.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

For those who want see-through armor, I point you to the Invisibility spell, as it can be cast on objects.

That's better than Glass!

Not really, truly invisible armor would be very hard to actually put on and take off.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

For those who want see-through armor, I point you to the Invisibility spell, as it can be cast on objects.

That's better than Glass!

that would be armor for those 'i'm sexy and i know it' bards.


Gherrick wrote:
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
MyTThor wrote:
You mean a glass Two-Handed Sword? 3d6 damage baby!
A proper Glass Sword does 255 damage and shatters on impact. :D
Wow, did no one else get this reference? I loved that weapon in Ultima (was it V or VI?), although it was a touch on the OP side ;)

i didn't remember it until you mentioned ultima, but they were in ultima 7 back in the early 90's (the only one i played)


It should be noted that medium and heavy armors are worn with padded clothing (called a gambeson or aketon) underneath, so glass or invisible armor isn't going to actually "show off your goods".


I wonder if there would be any benefit to attacking somebody with an invisible sword.

Sovereign Court

cwslyclgh wrote:
It should be noted that medium and heavy armors are worn with padded clothing (called a gambeson or aketon) underneath, so glass or invisible armor isn't going to actually "show off your goods".

I was waiting for someone to mention this. I don't know where people get that idea that you would be wearing absolutely nothing under a suit of plate. That would certainly cause a lot of chafing.


There's a 3x conversion in Spelljammer 3.0 that looks kinda keww.

Glassteel

Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 7
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 full-round action
Range: Touch
Area of Effect: 5 square feet of glass/level, up to one foot thick
Effect: Transmute glass into glassteel
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

Glassteel transforms a quantity of existing glass into glassteel, a transparent substance with the material strength of high-grade steel. The effect of the spell is permanent, and after twenty-four hours, the magic fades and the material cannot be dispelled. The casting is difficult and the caster must make a DC 20 Spellcraft check to make it work.

Other than the fact that it is transparent, this substance is essentially identical to steel.

Material Component: Aside from the glass itself, this spell requires a powder made from flecks of steel and diamond dust. The cost of creating this powder is 100 gp per foot of glass to be transformed.


i assumed that all accouterments to the full plate armor would go invisible with it. after all full plate consists of a lot of separate little pieces, but you can make the whole thing invisible, no reason why the padding shouldn't go too.


asthyril wrote:
i assumed that all accouterments to the full plate armor would go invisible with it. after all full plate consists of a lot of separate little pieces, but you can make the whole thing invisible, no reason why the padding shouldn't go too.

Glassteel doesn't make a metal object as transparent as glass. It makes a glass object as strong as steel. Unless the padding is made of glass too, its not going to be transparent.

Basically, the only thing the spell would do would be to increase the harndess and hitpoints of glass or crystal.


Jeraa wrote:
asthyril wrote:
i assumed that all accouterments to the full plate armor would go invisible with it. after all full plate consists of a lot of separate little pieces, but you can make the whole thing invisible, no reason why the padding shouldn't go too.

Glassteel doesn't make a metal object as transparent as glass. It makes a glass object as strong as steel. Unless the padding is made of glass too, its not going to be transparent.

Basically, the only thing the spell would do would be to increase the harndess and hitpoints of glass or crystal.

well i was referring to the comment about making armor invisible, which is why i said invisible, not glassteel.

Sczarni

Troubleshooter wrote:
I wonder if there would be any benefit to attacking somebody with an invisible sword.

I can't remember which one, but one of Paizo's adventure modules had a BBEG who uses an invisible sword. I believe all attacks he makes with it hit flat-footed AC.

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / re: whatever happened to the Glassteel spell? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.