Re: Re: (TFT) Illusory Light?

["Matt Fraser" <matt@graduates.iti.com>]

From: <dwtulloh@zianet.com>
> srydzews@ix.netcom.com writes:
> > This is precisely the notion that my +2 armor example
> > addresses.  If none of the parties involved know
> > the target of the illusion's attacks is wearing 
> > magical armor, why would its magical bonuses stop 
> > the psychosomatic wounding effects?
 
> I suppose you could argue that the +2 magical defensive
> enhancement protects against ALL attacks which can 
> cause its wearer physical damage, regardless of whether
> that damage is real or imagined.  Otherwise, doesn't 
> this have a danger of descending into a kind of circular
> argument?

This is why I like Rick's version.  The damage is real
because the illusion does have a physical presence and
can exert force.  It even damages your clothes/armor and
the damage stays after the illusion is gone.

> > I believe the line about someone being 'hacked 
> > to bits' by an illusion is a direct quote from AW.
> 
> It might be, I seem to recall something like that being
> said in AW as well.  I dont want to cause a big ruckus
> here, most folks on the list seem to be of the opposing
> view.  That's ok ... maybe we can agree to leave each
> other to their ... illusions.   :)

It is a direct quote.  I was trying to emphasize that even
AW intended the damage to be real.  It's an interesting 
debate though.  I think it arises because illusions weren't
defined carefully enough in AW and because alot of us
have our perception of the spell affected by the AD&D
'Phantasmal Force' version of illusions.

In the meantime, I'll stick to my illusions to ;)

Cheers,
Matt


=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"