|
Post by awall on May 7, 2008 18:21:24 GMT -5
I've always been under the impression that permanent PSDF caused the effects of the charm to be permanent; that is, if I charmed the victim's RH to -, then he'd thereafter perform RH:- every turn until cured. I thought I remembered reading this on the rules page, but I can't seem to find where that was. In any case, it's incorrect. See games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=65148&turn=52and the next few turns. This makes permanent charm essentially fatal, although it's not really any worse than permanent DPP.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 7, 2008 18:31:55 GMT -5
Yep, it's not a bug, always been that way. That's why permanent charm on yourself is quite good; it protects you from all other mind spells (though Charm Monster does the same thing).
|
|
|
Post by awall on May 7, 2008 18:38:53 GMT -5
I see... I knew that self-permacharm worked, although never understood why it was that way when (I thought) permacharm on your opponent worked differently.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on May 7, 2008 19:05:41 GMT -5
I remember having a perma-maladroit and a disease on me and a perma-charm on my opponent (the two perms being a somewhat artificial setup) and charming him into dispelling for me But that was something of a special case
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 7, 2008 19:51:52 GMT -5
The rules do say that Permanency makes the effect of a spell permanent. It's pretty easy to interpret the "effect" of PSDF being the change in the victim's gesture; but in actuality, the effect of PSDF is the caster getting to choose the victim's gesture for the next round.
|
|
|
Post by xade on May 7, 2008 20:26:57 GMT -5
The rules do say that Permanency makes the effect of a spell permanent. It's pretty easy to interpret the "effect" of PSDF being the change in the victim's gesture; but in actuality, the effect of PSDF is the caster getting to choose the victim's gesture for the next round. That's how I took it... Also, Ex, you can't perma-charm-monster yourself...
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 7, 2008 21:57:10 GMT -5
xade: You sure? I've never tried it, but I've done charm person on myself several times. I guess since it technically does nothing to warlocks, maybe charm monster wouldn't work the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 7, 2008 22:14:37 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with the target; Permanency simply does not work with PSDD. This is even mentioned in the spell description, surprisingly enough. The real reason is that PSDD (along with SPFP) is an instant speed effect and never should have been classified as an "Enchantment" in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 7, 2008 23:43:36 GMT -5
Ah ok, that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on May 8, 2008 1:39:14 GMT -5
That actually doesn't make _sense_, because PSDD clashes with other enchantments. But that's how this implementation works.
While we're at it, should we come by a new implementation of the game one day, should PSDD behavior be changed, and, if yes, which way? Making it non-clashing with other mind-enchantments will weaken PSD weave severely. Making it an enchantment will require it to be possible to PDWP, which means PDWP will not be monster removal anymore... is this any good? Or should it be left as it is - illogical, but more or less balanced?
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 8, 2008 6:25:38 GMT -5
I do kind of like the idea of making it not clash with other enchantments. I like any idea that weakens the powers of monsters, to be honest. This could be a league rule.
|
|
|
Post by vermont on May 8, 2008 6:47:31 GMT -5
I do kind of like the idea of making it not clash with other enchantments. I like any idea that weakens the powers of monsters, to be honest. This could be a league rule. Making PSDD not clash with other enchantments would actually make monsters stronger, as a spell commonly used against them would have one less feature. No?
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on May 8, 2008 7:42:59 GMT -5
I think making enchantments not cancel out Charm Monster doesn't make monsters stronger or weaker, only more volatile (that is, harder to control once summoned). Any player with PS down against a player with a monster and no W submitted would be granted control of that monster (i guess any enchantment cast at the monster would prevent it from attacking that turn).
The increased volatility of monster control would make it less like for a player with momentum to summon because it is harder to keep control while maintaining any other weave.
I think this move would increase the amount of counterspells, decrease the number of summoned monsters (particularly the bigger guys). But i don't think the changes would be game breaking...it would just shake things up a bit.
I'm interested to give it a go (seeing as i rarely summon more than a goblin anyway.)
|
|
|
Post by vermont on May 8, 2008 9:08:32 GMT -5
Ah, you are right. I misunderstood at first.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on May 8, 2008 10:15:42 GMT -5
Well, the whole reason monsters are powerful is because they are easy to protect and give you all the intiative while they're in play. If they aren't so easy to protect, it's almost the same as summoning an elemental.
|
|