Stupid Question #3 :)

Matijs van Zuijlen Matijs.van.Zuijlen at XS4ALL.NL
Tue Sep 16 18:45:45 CEST 2003

On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 10:58:12PM -0400, Scott Adams wrote:
> At 10:48 AM 9/9/03 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> > #1) I would agree with albert in that you could hear them, but since
> > they are like the air itself, any speech would be very muted and
> > ghostly in sound.? A person at full shout would be little more then
> > a loud whisper (why do you think ghosts are so cheesed off?? They
> > have to shout their asses off just to be heard...
> Looks like a good majority agree to this.  Makes sense.  I could see a
> evil wizard traps a person in pernament ghost form.  Then another
> pernmanet spell added would be sound sphere.  The guy would be a
> pernament ghost but could not be heard.  :)

But then again, he could be seen. So the evil wizard should add a
permanent invisibility for good measure. Really scary, that.

> > #2) Once the item leaves your "personal space" it is no longer under
> > the affect of the spell.? I follow this same rule with regards to
> > invisibility.?  However, any violent acts by the caster (throwing a
> > spell, hurling a dagger, etc) will "pop" this bubble of personal
> > space, and return them to the normal flow of things (i.e. become
> > solid or visible again).? You can simply drop items at your feet (or
> > toss them in a gentle way) and they will not g=break the spell.
> Very interesting aspect and way of thinking.  Hmmmm

We've had a lot of discussions about what constitutes a 'violent act'.
It's not easy to define. I believe Mathijs was of the 'no violent acts
while invisible', while Wout would not hesitate to massacre the party
using a group of invisible sprites.

Matijs van Zuijlen

More information about the pnp mailing list