Conjurer OCC seems worthless

[Tor]

They seem like they have a lot of potential uses to me. Sure, not being able to learn all the spells seems kinda sucky, which is usually why Mystics get looked-down on, and Conjurers learn fewer spells than they do... but their OCC abilities are unique, and do have helpful uses.

A lot of it may not be obviously combat-based, but being able to do stuff like conjure a rope or a ladder is pretty dang useful, and I'm not aware of a lot of spells that can duplicate all those needs.

A lot of adventurer/men-at-arms classes sometimes seem 'useless' compared to mages too, but everyone has their niche.

A conjurer would make a great vampire slayer, as one example, since they could easily make wood or silver weapons. They're also a great compliment for a Stone Master (or that similar Super-Power) since they could theoretically conjure up precious gems.

Since their objects last for hours that could mean it might even power a jury-rigged Techno-Wizard device.

[Alrik Vas]

So what you're saying is...they can conjure forth a fortune. Precious metals and stones...perhaps perfectly smelted and cut with no impurities or imperfections?

I'd be okay with this. best friend ever.

[Glistam]

Playing a Conjurer is about attitude. It's about being one of the rare few who practice this cutting edge, new magical discipline and striving to overcome the limitations of this craft in order to prove just how awesome you really are. It's not an O.C.C. choice for everyone.

[FuduVudu]

Given the fact that in the federation of magic book there is nothing stopping them from making Dragon blood, Dragon Skin, Dragon bones, a unicorns horn, Fairy food, Zaayr Crystal , Silver, Gold, Korobite, Black Iron, White iron, Grantrium, Xanthine Or any symbiotic creatures with animal intelligence like a chest thing. I say they have plenty of room to munchkin.

[Nightmask]

Given the fact that in the federation of magic book there is nothing stopping them from making Dragon blood, Dragon Skin, Dragon bones, a unicorns horn, Fairy food, Zaayr Crystal , Silver, Gold, Korobite, Black Iron, White iron, Grantrium, Xanthine Or any symbiotic creatures with animal intelligence like a chest thing. I say they have plenty of room to munchkin.

I'm pretty sure that if Conjurers could go around creating things like Garantium or Xanthine, the Spugorth would've wiped them out a long time ago and nobody would know that this OCC even existed.

The Multiverse is a BIG place and it's really hard to exterminate something that completely as a result, particularly since some things seem to just spontaneously get discovered simply as a result of the fact that the principles are multiversal (like Techno-Wizardly being retconned into existing and being developed independently by other races and worlds instead of just Rifts Earth). Conjurers can easily be part of that package that people just seem to keep rediscovering whether or not there is any sort of organized effort to destroy it.

[FuduVudu]

also there is no limitation on particles or dangerous gases. 40 pounds of Electrons would do some major damage though suicidal.

[Nightmask]

Given the fact that in the federation of magic book there is nothing stopping them from making Dragon blood, Dragon Skin, Dragon bones, a unicorns horn, Fairy food, Zaayr Crystal , Silver, Gold, Korobite, Black Iron, White iron, Grantrium, Xanthine Or any symbiotic creatures with animal intelligence like a chest thing. I say they have plenty of room to munchkin.

I'm pretty sure that if Conjurers could go around creating things like Garantium or Xanthine, the Spugorth would've wiped them out a long time ago and nobody would know that this OCC even existed.

The Multiverse is a BIG place and it's really hard to exterminate something that completely as a result, particularly since some things seem to just spontaneously get discovered simply as a result of the fact that the principles are multiversal (like Techno-Wizardly being retconned into existing and being developed independently by other races and worlds instead of just Rifts Earth). Conjurers can easily be part of that package that people just seem to keep rediscovering whether or not there is any sort of organized effort to destroy it.

Not going to drag out the book, but in Coalition Wars I, it makes a big point of saying that the Spugorth will go out of their way to find and destroy anybody (and their associates) who is even remotely suspected of possessing Garantium.

Also, you missed the point that FuduVudu was making about it being a munchkin thing to do. Which I agree with.

No, it would qualify as finding creative uses for a class that appears overly limited or useless to others. You both also seem to be missing the point that the ability to create anything doesn't mean much if you don't know something exists. You can't conjure up super-rare materials if you don't even know they exist to conjure them after all. This issue often comes up in the super-hero forums with regards to the powers that let you convert matter into other elements or compounds, a quick 'oh no that's too powerful they can create X' and completely ignore the fact that 'he can't create X, he doesn't even know it exists let alone what its atomic or molecular structure is'.

[Nightmask]

No, it would qualify as finding creative uses for a class that appears overly limited or useless to others. You both also seem to be missing the point that the ability to create anything doesn't mean much if you don't know something exists.
This issue often comes up in the super-hero forums with regards to the powers that let you convert matter into other elements or compounds, a quick 'oh no that's too powerful they can create X' and completely ignore the fact that 'he can't create X, he doesn't even know it exists let alone what its atomic or molecular structure is'.

It's magic, not science. If atomic/molecular structure was neccessary knowledge to recreate something, that knocks out a ton of spells including: Create Wood, Create Bread and Milk, Fools Gold, Clay to Lead, Stone to Flesh, River of Lava, Annhilate, Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, etc, etc.

Reguardless, you are still missing the point that FuduVudu was calling out a potential munchkin tactic. Nobody was arguing that you could actually create Garantium....unless you used a munchkin interpretation of the rules.

Do you see this?

Your examples are all spells with specific things they create, clearly the spells themselves are 'written' in such a fashion to know how to create the specific item that they're related to even if the person taught the spell or spontaneously developed it hasn't previously encountered or heard of the material in question. Someone develops the Fireball spell it is going to create fire even if the being itself has never seen fire before because that's what it does.

You also toss out that 'munchkin' term way too much, both because it's not suited to the issue (twinking would be more accurate) and because it's not a 'munchkin' interpretation of the rules it's the rules, or do you think every rule is munchkin then because someone chooses to go by what the rule allows rather than insist that there's some unwritten part of the rule that everyone should just see that says you can't use the rule completely and it has restrictions that don't actually exist in the books?

The 'it's magic' argument is also flawed, magic is not going to give you knowledge of something you don't even know exists to be able to create it just because you have a theoretical ability to create nearly anything. Seriously, nowhere in the description for the Conjurer does it say 'due to the nature of this class they know about all materials, elements, compounds, lifeforms, etc', saying they can create anything doesn't mean that they can create things they have no ability to know about or know about the existence of everything. If it did Conjurers would be the most scientifically knowledgeable beings in existence, with a knowledge of material sciences beyond that of all others simply because they're Conjurers and somehow it came with total knowledge of everything they could possibly create.

[Glistam]

Conjurers are awesome.

[Malleable]

I was thinking they were worthless until I read this post.

So a conjurer can summon gems that the stonemaster can activate for spell/psionic effects?
Sounds reasonable to me. Looks like his spell base from the gems covers a lot of uses. He has a really limited list of spells. The Conjurer himself still sounds pretty weak, but a first level Conjurer can summon gems for the Stone Master.

The strength of the gem spells would be based off his Stone Master level. So that would be the class to level. Stone Master alone also seems weak to me as an adventuring class. But if he can summon gems as a Conjurer, he has a decent range of abilities.

Given that the Conjurer gems vanish in 1hr per level of experience you probably want to summon stuff up as you use it. +5 P.P.E. added onto the cost to activate the gem - 20 P.P.E. for a fire ball. So 25 P.P.E compared to the normal cost to cast of 10 P.P.E. .
BUT he could activate a gem in one melee action, versus two that it would take to cast.

Given you have to dual class, it would take the equivalent of 3rd level XP to get the Stone Master to 1st level, after getting the Conjurer to 2nd level.

So a higher cost to cast, a lot more XP to get to where you can do this class, but you can throw out some spells effects quicker. Definitely not overpowered. Interesting concept.

Mal

[Glistam]

Conjurers are awesome.

Still not getting it....

(puzzled look) Did you create this OCC?

lol, no. I conjured it. Okay, seriously, no. But Conjurers are awesome because you dress them in body armor and give them M.D. weapons and they're just like everyone else... but with the added bonus that whenever they want they can create just about whatever they want. Yes, there are limitations. And as has been pointed out, there are some stunning advantages! What the Conjurer can "know" is a function of his skills. You pick the right skills (Lore: Magic and Gemology, perhaps? Or imagine Jury-Rigging when you can create all the parts you need!) and you have all the justification you need to at least get started.

I'm not going to keep gushing over this class. It requires a certain mindset, and you either have it or you don't. Conjurers know they are awesome and they're happy to show it off. No other mage can do what they can do. That's all they need.

[Mallak's Place]

The Mount Nimro book for palladium fantasy has an extended Spell selection for the conjurer, also the Federation of magic book says the Conjurer can pick any spell that begin with the words "Create" but doesn't limit that selection to Invocation spells. So a Conjurer could technically pick any Creation spells from any other magical discipline (IE, Elemental, Necromantic, Nature, Shamanic etc...)

[drewkitty ~..~]

I will point out the a magic char picks out the type of magic that they are interested in doing. As such a player that is laser focused on 'how does this class do in combat?' is not going to find a 'non-combat' or 'low-combat' class desirable.

[Tor]

So what you're saying is...they can conjure forth a fortune. Precious metals and stones...perhaps perfectly smelted and cut with no impurities or imperfections?

I'd be okay with this. best friend ever.

Your fortune would only be permanent if you spent permanent PPE on it though.

Otherwise, you're eventually going to risk getting in trouble much like African Witches who use the 'Money Doubling' spell, once people figure out its you giving out the counterfeit currency that vanishes after a matter of hours.

pretty sure that if Conjurers could go around creating things like Garantium or Xanthine, the Spugorth would've wiped them out a long time ago and nobody would know that this OCC even existed.

The Splugorth could not have wiped them out a 'long time ago' because it's a new form of magic that as far as we know, was invented recently. I'm not even sure if the Splugorth KNOW about Conjurers yet.

Even if they did... Conjurers can't create what they don't know about, and very few people know about things like Xanthine or Gantrium.

Even if some did, they could only make it temporarily, certainly not long enoguh to form into useful items. Only be spending permanent PPE could they make it of long-term use. In that case, I think the Splugorth would prefer to simply ENSLAVE those conjurers, rather than kill them.

Nobody was arguing that you could actually create Garantium....unless you used a munchkin interpretation of the rules.

Actually I'll argue that you can, so long as you actually know about it, like have handled some, get a chance to hold it, understand how it works, etc.

There is no such thing as a 'munchkin' interpretation of rules. Munchkinism is being OOC to gain power or win battles.

It seems to me that you are arguing for the sake of arguing alone, though I could be wrong. Regardless, you're the first user here to earn my Foe list. Bu'bye.

Nightmask does not deserve to be talked to that way.

he could activate a gem in one melee action, versus two that it would take to cast.

This was a bigger relative advantage for Conjurers/Stonemasters prior to RUE speeding up casting

[drewkitty ~..~]

I have 5 people on my foe list. Two for presenting their house rules as canon, two to remind me they don't care about their spelling and grammar, and one just because we had a GM/player fight and I don't want to irritate him cause it was over something stupid. The last one dose not post too much so it does not matter too much.

One of the 1st two is reforming a bit, but the newer one *shrugs* I try not to even peek at his posts cause of blood pressure type issues.

There is no such thing as a 'munchkin' interpretation of rules. Munchkinism is being OOC to gain power or win battles.

I thoroughly disagree. To me, a munchkin interpretation of rules is where one deliberately exploits an unclear rule in a way that seems to go against the spirit of the rule simply so they can do something that is extremely improbable.

Nf is correct in his opinion that many here put their munchkin spin on their house rules. It is when they try to pass their house rules off as canon here when there is a problem.

But I will have to say the meanest fights are over when there are multiple "canon rules" covering the same thing in the same setting. Cause not of the debaters will give an inch cause what they are saying is based in canon. With out any house rules debate thrown in.
-----------------
Is I was going to use one of the Conjurer classes I would go with the PFRPG 2nd ed one.

[Tor]

a way that seems to go against the spirit of the rule simply so they can do something that is extremely improbable.

By what authority do you dictate what the spirit of the rules and the probability of a game is?

It sounds like you're calling creativity munchkinism, and this is too distant from the roots of this term's meaning, which imply an immature playstyle based on gaining power to the point of detracting from roleplaying.

I wasn't rude: I told him what I thought, admitted I could be wrong, and let him know why I would no longer be replying to his posts. I think that's pretty courteous, all things considered. In what way do you think I should've handled that differently?

I think you you want to block people you should just do it and not make a spectacle out of it.

Furthermore you should not make personal attacks, such as implying (assuming) that someone is 'arguing for arguing'.

It is impossible to argue purely for the sake of argument. Sake is never pure.

I will have to say the meanest fights are over when there are multiple "canon rules" covering the same thing in the same setting. Cause not of the debaters will give an inch cause what they are saying is based in canon. With out any house rules debate thrown in.

I dunno... those get intense but to say 'not an inch' is a bit extreme... some flexibility can exist depending on how canon sources get presented and compared.

[eliakon]

Just to put my two cents in here. I would heavily talk with the GM about what would or would not be allowed. In some games I can easily see the GM deciding that conjured materials don't have inherent magical properties (so no power gems, or gantrinium), or not allowing explosives / radioactive / what ever other else. I can also see strict interpretations on 'familiar with', i.e., you can replicate a gem...if your familiar with it, but if you haven't seen a 5 pound emerald idol then you cant conjure one....I can also see game where its pretty much anything goes, and whimsy is the order of the day "I conjure 50lbs of shaving cream on the robot". Both are perfectly fine under the rules since the rules, true to Palladium form, are not exactly clear.

[Nightmask]

No, it would qualify as finding creative uses for a class that appears overly limited or useless to others. You both also seem to be missing the point that the ability to create anything doesn't mean much if you don't know something exists.
This issue often comes up in the super-hero forums with regards to the powers that let you convert matter into other elements or compounds, a quick 'oh no that's too powerful they can create X' and completely ignore the fact that 'he can't create X, he doesn't even know it exists let alone what its atomic or molecular structure is'.

It's magic, not science. If atomic/molecular structure was neccessary knowledge to recreate something, that knocks out a ton of spells including: Create Wood, Create Bread and Milk, Fools Gold, Clay to Lead, Stone to Flesh, River of Lava, Annhilate, Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, etc, etc.

Reguardless, you are still missing the point that FuduVudu was calling out a potential munchkin tactic. Nobody was arguing that you could actually create Garantium....unless you used a munchkin interpretation of the rules.

Do you see this?

Your examples are all spells with specific things they create, clearly the spells themselves are 'written' in such a fashion to know how to create the specific item that they're related to even if the person taught the spell or spontaneously developed it hasn't previously encountered or heard of the material in question. Someone develops the Fireball spell it is going to create fire even if the being itself has never seen fire before because that's what it does.

You also toss out that 'munchkin' term way too much, both because it's not suited to the issue (twinking would be more accurate) and because it's not a 'munchkin' interpretation of the rules it's the rules, or do you think every rule is munchkin then because someone chooses to go by what the rule allows rather than insist that there's some unwritten part of the rule that everyone should just see that says you can't use the rule completely and it has restrictions that don't actually exist in the books?

The 'it's magic' argument is also flawed, magic is not going to give you knowledge of something you don't even know exists to be able to create it just because you have a theoretical ability to create nearly anything. Seriously, nowhere in the description for the Conjurer does it say 'due to the nature of this class they know about all materials, elements, compounds, lifeforms, etc', saying they can create anything doesn't mean that they can create things they have no ability to know about or know about the existence of everything. If it did Conjurers would be the most scientifically knowledgeable beings in existence, with a knowledge of material sciences beyond that of all others simply because they're Conjurers and somehow it came with total knowledge of everything they could possibly create.

It seems to me that you are arguing for the sake of arguing alone, though I could be wrong.

Regardless, you're the first user here to earn my Foe list. Bu'bye.

If you've problems with someone disagreeing with you and pointing out differing views on things and where you might be wrong I imagine your Foe list is going to fill up really fast, because it clearly wouldn't be a 'munchkin interpretation of the rules' for a Conjurer to conjure rare things since the rules make no distinctions between common or rare things (which is a rarity, to acknowledge that there's nothing inherently special about one material over another). It would start getting munchkin if someone insisted their character could create rare things that the player but not the character knows about (although I've seen that accusation coming more from GM who're out to nerf things than I've ever heard of any player actually make that argument) but the rule itself doesn't have any restrictions beyond the unstated ones I've pointed out.

[Nightmask]

Just to put my two cents in here. I would heavily talk with the GM about what would or would not be allowed. In some games I can easily see the GM deciding that conjured materials don't have inherent magical properties (so no power gems, or gantrinium), or not allowing explosives / radioactive / what ever other else. I can also see strict interpretations on 'familiar with', i.e., you can replicate a gem...if your familiar with it, but if you haven't seen a 5 pound emerald idol then you cant conjure one....I can also see game where its pretty much anything goes, and whimsy is the order of the day "I conjure 50lbs of shaving cream on the robot". Both are perfectly fine under the rules since the rules, true to Palladium form, are not exactly clear.

Like many such things it has common sense limitations that some (both GM and Player) will insist don't exist either to justify nerfing or banning something that doesn't rate it (GM) or to try and get advantages that those common sense limitations would clearly disallow (Player). The Conjurer is great for someone who's creative and justifies their character having a wide-range of experience to exploit the broad strokes available to the class, not so great for someone not willing to justify those things or who's creativity doesn't lean towards exploiting this particular class.

[Glistam]

I can also see game where its pretty much anything goes, and whimsy is the order of the day "I conjure 50lbs of shaving cream on the robot".

I love it!

[ShadowLogan]

Pretty severe limitations if you ask me:

- Can only conjure simple objects that weigh 40lbs +2lbs per level.
- Can only conjure items with limited moving parts.
- Can't conjure items that require a power source (why?).
- Can conjure animals, but no monsters. Animals must weigh less than a half-ton. No Rhino-Buffalos and the like.
- If the conjurer wants to make something permanent, they have to permanently expend 1D6 PPE from their base.
- Can only cast "Create" spells and can't learn any more.

Seems pretty useless.

Why?
Re:
-PT#1 & 5 & 6. These ARE NOT without precedent though, so nothing odd there. And their spell casting list can be a bit more extensive if the GM is flexible about what constitutes a creation spell by the description as opposed to just the title/name of a spell.

-PT#2. That can be an issue for a quick reaction type deal. But there is nothing really stopping the mage from conjuring up various parts (assuming they are familiar w/them) and assembling them into something more powerful. Ex. By the rules you can't just conjure up an Uzi, but nothing prevents you from making the various parts and assembling them afterward (provided one knows about the various parts).

-PT#3 & PT#4. The magic has only recently been re-discovered (text puts it at 30-50years, but Palladium World Elves state it existed in the past on their world but has been lost). That may put some limits on just what can be done currently, but there could be other "lost" aspects that could exist to counter these points (Conjurer is not the only class like this, Tattoo magic has a "lost/new" aspect that even the Splurgoth don't know about as seen in SA1).

While their direct combat capacity (damage dealing) isn't going to be much better than a tech user, since they are tech users in this area. They do have some advantages in the support aspect. Their magic focus allows them to travel lighter than other mages or tech users since they can conjure up what they need:
-create a tent to camp out for the night (more practical for higher level admittedly)
-create a fishing pole
-create kitchen/dining implements (forks, knives, plates, etc) that won't need to be cleaned afterward
-create animals to assist in the roles of transportation, guarding camp while you sleep, creating a distraction (look at that cute little animal playing)
-create new clothes/disguises (and props for them) fast and cheap for a variety of reasons
-create miniature/toy/games as needed for distraction and/or planning (think 3d miniature gaming maps for some war games or RPGs)
-create rope/bindings to secure prisoners/slaves (temporarily) if you don't have any on you
-create shades to protect you from the elements while on the move (umbrella, glasses)
-Create a magnifying glass (or other optical instrument) to check out details (hey what's this speck on the ground) or look a head to see what's on the horizon (binoculars or telescope)
-create an old fashioned torch to light the way (while they have Light spells, a torch may be more cost effective by PPE)

[Glistam]

Where these guys would really shine is in a fantasy setting, like Palladium Fantasy. No worries about M.D.C. and most of their high-tech limitations don't even matter there!

[Library Ogre]

For me, I rather like the Conjurer, but I also tend to be fantasy-oriented.

I'd be hesitant about allowing them to create things with magical properties, but I'm also cool with them creating wooden stakes and silver daggers, so perhaps I'm just a bit biased.

I'm of the opinion that they have trouble with some things, but that can be improved with mundane knowledge... while they may be making things magically, it's a lot easier to do if they have a clear understanding of what they're doing... someone who understands Cesium or Francium (due to Chemistry skills) can create it, because they know what they're doing. Someone without gemology can probably create a 5 pound emerald monkey... they've seen emeralds, and they've seen monkeys. Someone with gemology will create one that is better, because instead of creating an emerald blob of monkey, they'll create a better, purer, emerald, with fewer flaws... because they know what those flaws are and how to avoid them.

[Giant2005]

So what you're saying is...they can conjure forth a fortune. Precious metals and stones...perhaps perfectly smelted and cut with no impurities or imperfections?

I'd be okay with this. best friend ever.

Mount Nimro put a stop to that:

Precious metals such as gold, silver, bronze and gemstones can not be conjured. On the other hand, iron, nickel, copper, lead, cut glass or crystal that might resemble a gem can be conjured, but must always be in the form of a particular item and not a lump or brick of ore.

[Malleable]

Precious metals such as gold, silver, bronze and gemstones can not be conjured. On the other hand, iron, nickel, copper, lead, cut glass or crystal that might resemble a gem can be conjured, but must always be in the form of a particular item and not a lump or brick of ore.

If its canon, its canon. But this is probably the stupidest, most illogical thing I have ever read in a Palladium book yet.

I imagine they throw out this rule to circumvent characters from pumping out money with no end (until the stuff goes POOF).

But there is no logical reason that 'magic' can somehow identify the atomic/molecular structure of something conjured - as well as some universal market price. And just tell the conjurer "Nope, I won't allow that."

Magic should talk to Thulsa Doom. He might have something to say about the value of metals.

Mal

[Nightmask]

Precious metals such as gold, silver, bronze and gemstones can not be conjured. On the other hand, iron, nickel, copper, lead, cut glass or crystal that might resemble a gem can be conjured, but must always be in the form of a particular item and not a lump or brick of ore.

If its canon, its canon. But this is probably the stupidest, most illogical thing I have ever read in a Palladium book yet.

I imagine they throw out this rule to circumvent characters from pumping out money with no end (until the stuff goes POOF).

But there is no logical reason that 'magic' can somehow identify the atomic/molecular structure of something conjured - as well as some universal market price. And just tell the conjurer "Nope, I won't allow that."

Magic should talk to Thulsa Doom. He might have something to say about the value of metals.

Mal

You get the same deal with the Cure Disease spell, somehow it can tell the difference between fatal diseases like AIDS and Cancer and generally non-fatal diseases like the common cold and flu and only cure the ones like the flu virus and not the AIDS virus so characters can't go around curing those to make a fortune or otherwise profit from it. Things that shouldn't be able to make such distinctions end up doing so due to overly aggressive and non-sensible nerfing.

[eliakon]

Precious metals such as gold, silver, bronze and gemstones can not be conjured. On the other hand, iron, nickel, copper, lead, cut glass or crystal that might resemble a gem can be conjured, but must always be in the form of a particular item and not a lump or brick of ore.

If its canon, its canon. But this is probably the stupidest, most illogical thing I have ever read in a Palladium book yet.

I imagine they throw out this rule to circumvent characters from pumping out money with no end (until the stuff goes POOF).

But there is no logical reason that 'magic' can somehow identify the atomic/molecular structure of something conjured - as well as some universal market price. And just tell the conjurer "Nope, I won't allow that."

Magic should talk to Thulsa Doom. He might have something to say about the value of metals.

Mal

You get the same deal with the Cure Disease spell, somehow it can tell the difference between fatal diseases like AIDS and Cancer and generally non-fatal diseases like the common cold and flu and only cure the ones like the flu virus and not the AIDS virus so characters can't go around curing those to make a fortune or otherwise profit from it. Things that shouldn't be able to make such distinctions end up doing so due to overly aggressive and non-sensible nerfing.

And peoples wonder why some of the in game scholars of magic suggest that magic is a living thinking being.....

Though to be fair, one persons nonsensical nerfing is another persons game balance, and a third persons over powered munchkinisim. But yes, Palladium does seem to have a deep distrust of players getting wealth, resources, or healing. Probably because a lack of those was a common story driver in the original PF game I would suspect.

[Nightmask]

Precious metals such as gold, silver, bronze and gemstones can not be conjured. On the other hand, iron, nickel, copper, lead, cut glass or crystal that might resemble a gem can be conjured, but must always be in the form of a particular item and not a lump or brick of ore.

If its canon, its canon. But this is probably the stupidest, most illogical thing I have ever read in a Palladium book yet.

I imagine they throw out this rule to circumvent characters from pumping out money with no end (until the stuff goes POOF).

But there is no logical reason that 'magic' can somehow identify the atomic/molecular structure of something conjured - as well as some universal market price. And just tell the conjurer "Nope, I won't allow that."

Magic should talk to Thulsa Doom. He might have something to say about the value of metals.

Mal

You get the same deal with the Cure Disease spell, somehow it can tell the difference between fatal diseases like AIDS and Cancer and generally non-fatal diseases like the common cold and flu and only cure the ones like the flu virus and not the AIDS virus so characters can't go around curing those to make a fortune or otherwise profit from it. Things that shouldn't be able to make such distinctions end up doing so due to overly aggressive and non-sensible nerfing.

And peoples wonder why some of the in game scholars of magic suggest that magic is a living thinking being.....

Though to be fair, one persons nonsensical nerfing is another persons game balance, and a third persons over powered munchkinisim. But yes, Palladium does seem to have a deep distrust of players getting wealth, resources, or healing. Probably because a lack of those was a common story driver in the original PF game I would suspect.

Could be, I think a lot of original mindsets from way back in the days of 1st edition AD&D have continued to color things to the point they can't even see how those things don't really apply. After all that's the earliest, most popular RPG that set the bar for nearly all those that came after and it was very much against wealth and resources (healing seemed about the only thing it didn't make ridiculously difficult: one party cleric as you went along could acquire massively powerful healing ability for the group), with many discussion on how to take it from the characters if they acquired it.

So as you point out you end up where from an IC standpoint things that should be non-sentient forces end up displaying actual sentience due to the rules and exceptions built in meant to prevent a PC from acquiring things it otherwise should be able to. Somehow magic knows the difference between copper and platinum or between the flu and AIDS even when it shouldn't.

[eliakon]

Precious metals such as gold, silver, bronze and gemstones can not be conjured. On the other hand, iron, nickel, copper, lead, cut glass or crystal that might resemble a gem can be conjured, but must always be in the form of a particular item and not a lump or brick of ore.

If its canon, its canon. But this is probably the stupidest, most illogical thing I have ever read in a Palladium book yet.

I imagine they throw out this rule to circumvent characters from pumping out money with no end (until the stuff goes POOF).

But there is no logical reason that 'magic' can somehow identify the atomic/molecular structure of something conjured - as well as some universal market price. And just tell the conjurer "Nope, I won't allow that."

Magic should talk to Thulsa Doom. He might have something to say about the value of metals.

Mal

You get the same deal with the Cure Disease spell, somehow it can tell the difference between fatal diseases like AIDS and Cancer and generally non-fatal diseases like the common cold and flu and only cure the ones like the flu virus and not the AIDS virus so characters can't go around curing those to make a fortune or otherwise profit from it. Things that shouldn't be able to make such distinctions end up doing so due to overly aggressive and non-sensible nerfing.

And peoples wonder why some of the in game scholars of magic suggest that magic is a living thinking being.....

Though to be fair, one persons nonsensical nerfing is another persons game balance, and a third persons over powered munchkinisim. But yes, Palladium does seem to have a deep distrust of players getting wealth, resources, or healing. Probably because a lack of those was a common story driver in the original PF game I would suspect.

Could be, I think a lot of original mindsets from way back in the days of 1st edition AD&D have continued to color things to the point they can't even see how those things don't really apply. After all that's the earliest, most popular RPG that set the bar for nearly all those that came after and it was very much against wealth and resources (healing seemed about the only thing it didn't make ridiculously difficult: one party cleric as you went along could acquire massively powerful healing ability for the group), with many discussion on how to take it from the characters if they acquired it.

So as you point out you end up where from an IC standpoint things that should be non-sentient forces end up displaying actual sentience due to the rules and exceptions built in meant to prevent a PC from acquiring things it otherwise should be able to. Somehow magic knows the difference between copper and platinum or between the flu and AIDS even when it shouldn't.

Well assuming that those scholars are wrong After all, magic COULD be living thing, or it could require the active intervention of a living force. We just assume that its a non-sentient 'force' because that is the simplest way to model it. The 'magic thinks' model though does more than just explain why you cant cure Aids, and conjure gold. It allows teleportation effects to not have to worry about relative velocities or vectors. It allows effects like 'create fire' (fire isn't a substance, its an energy by product from a reaction)...or fires to do massive amounts of damage with OUT burning everything else around them (a fire hot enough to instantly melt a tank should have an effect beyond the circle of flames). *shrugs* Ultimately any magic solution comes down to 'its magic' though. Since well, if its explainable by normal means...then its not, by definition, magic.

[Nightmask]

Could be, I think a lot of original mindsets from way back in the days of 1st edition AD&D have continued to color things to the point they can't even see how those things don't really apply. After all that's the earliest, most popular RPG that set the bar for nearly all those that came after and it was very much against wealth and resources (healing seemed about the only thing it didn't make ridiculously difficult: one party cleric as you went along could acquire massively powerful healing ability for the group), with many discussion on how to take it from the characters if they acquired it.

So as you point out you end up where from an IC standpoint things that should be non-sentient forces end up displaying actual sentience due to the rules and exceptions built in meant to prevent a PC from acquiring things it otherwise should be able to. Somehow magic knows the difference between copper and platinum or between the flu and AIDS even when it shouldn't.

Well assuming that those scholars are wrong After all, magic COULD be living thing, or it could require the active intervention of a living force. We just assume that its a non-sentient 'force' because that is the simplest way to model it. The 'magic thinks' model though does more than just explain why you cant cure Aids, and conjure gold. It allows teleportation effects to not have to worry about relative velocities or vectors. It allows effects like 'create fire' (fire isn't a substance, its an energy by product from a reaction)...or fires to do massive amounts of damage with OUT burning everything else around them (a fire hot enough to instantly melt a tank should have an effect beyond the circle of flames). *shrugs* Ultimately any magic solution comes down to 'its magic' though. Since well, if its explainable by normal means...then its not, by definition, magic.

No, since magic is part of reality then magic is part of normal things. Everything else is simply expressing natural things where it's simply magic facilitating it, just like you can artificially create gems by using technology to simulate the necessary forces and conditions. Teleportation by technology and by magic you get the same result, both 'devices' are constructed to move something from one location to another and adjust for those forces (those who didn't work out the spell correctly died before they could pass it on), same goes with creating a fireball (the magic moves molecules around to create the process known as fire), and so on. The magic no more has to 'think' than the teleporter has to think or the 'nearly universal disease cure' has to think when it cures everything except AIDS or Cancer. You have a 'program' called a magic spell that produces the proper result, just as you have machines that produce desired effects. Magic simply requires different methods to get those results using other aspects of reality.

[eliakon]

Could be, I think a lot of original mindsets from way back in the days of 1st edition AD&D have continued to color things to the point they can't even see how those things don't really apply. After all that's the earliest, most popular RPG that set the bar for nearly all those that came after and it was very much against wealth and resources (healing seemed about the only thing it didn't make ridiculously difficult: one party cleric as you went along could acquire massively powerful healing ability for the group), with many discussion on how to take it from the characters if they acquired it.

So as you point out you end up where from an IC standpoint things that should be non-sentient forces end up displaying actual sentience due to the rules and exceptions built in meant to prevent a PC from acquiring things it otherwise should be able to. Somehow magic knows the difference between copper and platinum or between the flu and AIDS even when it shouldn't.

Well assuming that those scholars are wrong After all, magic COULD be living thing, or it could require the active intervention of a living force. We just assume that its a non-sentient 'force' because that is the simplest way to model it. The 'magic thinks' model though does more than just explain why you cant cure Aids, and conjure gold. It allows teleportation effects to not have to worry about relative velocities or vectors. It allows effects like 'create fire' (fire isn't a substance, its an energy by product from a reaction)...or fires to do massive amounts of damage with OUT burning everything else around them (a fire hot enough to instantly melt a tank should have an effect beyond the circle of flames). *shrugs* Ultimately any magic solution comes down to 'its magic' though. Since well, if its explainable by normal means...then its not, by definition, magic.

No, since magic is part of reality then magic is part of normal things. Everything else is simply expressing natural things where it's simply magic facilitating it, just like you can artificially create gems by using technology to simulate the necessary forces and conditions. Teleportation by technology and by magic you get the same result, both 'devices' are constructed to move something from one location to another and adjust for those forces (those who didn't work out the spell correctly died before they could pass it on), same goes with creating a fireball (the magic moves molecules around to create the process known as fire), and so on. The magic no more has to 'think' than the teleporter has to think or the 'nearly universal disease cure' has to think when it cures everything except AIDS or Cancer. You have a 'program' called a magic spell that produces the proper result, just as you have machines that produce desired effects. Magic simply requires different methods to get those results using other aspects of reality.

That is one way to look at it true. But that doesn't mean it is the correct way, just a way. Magic may, or may not be natural, nothing official has ever said, in detail, what it is or isn't. There may be a reason that the Words of Power are the names of Beings. Heck the reason that the Old Ones weren't killed but just put to sleep could be because they ARE magic....or it might not be. There is no official 'author omnipotent' statement on what magic is, or why it works. Just that it is, and it works.

[ShadowLogan]

And peoples wonder why some of the in game scholars of magic suggest that magic is a living thinking being.....

Well some abilities to cast magic are controled/granted by beings (Witch Pact, Warlocks, Preiests gain certain magic effects via their patron entity). So the idea isn't completely without merit.

Then again it may simply be a mental aspect of the caster being unable to meet the needs of creating the item in question (or their subconcious blocks them).

I didn't say they weren't without precedent; I said that I didn't like them. Not the same thing. Also: "if the GM is flexible" essentially means to me: 'if the GM is willing to ignore cannon' - in which case, nothing at all in this thread applies. I was adddressing the Conjurer OCC as is.

You seem focued on their stated limitations that aren't without precedent, so there is nothing to really dislike based on that aspect. In some respects the Conjuror is similar to the PF2E classes of Summoner (Circle Magic) and Diabolist (Ward Magic) in that they are intended to be played a certain way which may not appeal to everyone.

Actually the GM being flexible doesn't require them to ignore canon. The OCC is supposed to select a new "create" spell every 2 levels (15/2 =7total), they also can't learn Ritual magic. In actual practice the BoM lists 7 Innocation magic "Create" spells (Golem, Magic Scroll, Mummy, Steel, Water, Wood, Zombie), but 3 of them are rituals and 1 combines with spells they already know to create something. So you would eventually run out of spells they could actually select if you aren't a bit flexible in some fashion (allowing them to pull from other branches of magic for example, or spells that meet the "create" aspect).

That seems like a awfully-complicated and expensive way to do things when they can simply go buy one.

The Uzi may not be the most practical example I will agree with, but it is more to illustrate a point that one can get around the issue of making more complicated items by breaking it down into simplier items to assemble.

What "could be" is not cannon: my points were based on the cannon description of the Conjurer.

As far as we know there aren't additional aspects when the class was written, but future works may build/add-upon it if it gets revisited in future works (ex. Tattoo Magic has introduced two new areas since WB2).

The GM also has the option of creating new aspects if they so wish given this is a lost art form (ex, Circle Magic is said to have lost aspects the GM can fill in to create new circles) to use as a quest goal.

However, guarding the camp isn't really a good idea because a simple casting of Repel Animals would get rid of it.

Only if the agressors have access to magic or other animal control techniques (Simvan, Psi-Stalker, or Psi-based), which is not a certainty. Repel Animals can be overcome if the guard animal is on a leash since the animal can't leave (or if it does have it set off an alarm of some type).

[Tor]

Has anyone been able to grasp why it is that the conjured animals are truly 'alive' and that there is something immoral about putting them at risk during battles or killing them, when they naturally expire within a day anyway?

Am wondering if this means a conjured animal would have standard psionics, PPE, etc. If I could use a sacrificed conjured animal (since they are TRULY alive) to fulfill sacrifice requirements for a summoning circle or Demon Magic.

Also fun to keep in mind: although the Burbs sourcebook didn't exactly focus on it, there are both TWs and Conjurers in the Vanguard

you should not make personal attacks, such as implying (assuming) that someone is 'arguing for arguing'.

You just contradicted yourself by assuming that I was making a personal attack.

Blocking someone (making them your Foe) is clearly done for some reason, and based on your explanation it seems like a response to your hypothesis on what motivates a user to voice disagreement with your view. I don't see where assumption comes into this, unless you had some unmentioned reason for foe-ing Mask and what you introduced was unrelated to it.

Mount Nimro put a stop to that:

Precious metals such as gold, silver, bronze and gemstones can not be conjured. On the other hand, iron, nickel, copper, lead, cut glass or crystal that might resemble a gem can be conjured, but must always be in the form of a particular item and not a lump or brick of ore.

This applies in PF, but not necessarily in Rifts. Magic in Rifts often has added properties. The ability to conjure gems could very much be like the ability to conjure MDC (also not possible in PF). So unless a later printing of FoM (perhaps revised, have not read that, seemed like a waste of money since I own the original) added this blurb, I wouldn't apply it to Rifts.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I will have to say the meanest fights are over when there are multiple "canon rules" covering the same thing in the same setting. Cause not of the debaters will give an inch cause what they are saying is based in canon. With out any house rules debate thrown in.

I dunno... those get intense but to say 'not an inch' is a bit extreme... some flexibility can exist depending on how canon sources get presented and compared.

An example of my point is the Discussion you Eli and I had over whether PCC's could canonly change their class. In which nether you nor eli were persuaded by the canon points of reference about the whys that can not. Most of the counter arguments used were ether the very same canon references I made with a different conclusion and obsolete text that was made obsolete by newer published canon text. And I was not persuaded by your and Eli's talking points.

[Malleable]

I will have to say the meanest fights are over when there are multiple "canon rules" covering the same thing in the same setting. Cause not of the debaters will give an inch cause what they are saying is based in canon. With out any house rules debate thrown in.

I dunno... those get intense but to say 'not an inch' is a bit extreme... some flexibility can exist depending on how canon sources get presented and compared.

An example of my point is the Discussion you Eli and I had over whether PCC's could canonly change their class. In which nether you nor eli were persuaded by the canon points of reference about the whys that can not. Most of the counter arguments used were ether the very same canon references I made with a different conclusion and obsolete text that was made obsolete by newer published canon text. And I was not persuaded by your and Eli's talking points.

Yeah, except their points were using cannon, and yours were using obsolete cannon, house rules and extrapolations.

[eliakon]

I will have to say the meanest fights are over when there are multiple "canon rules" covering the same thing in the same setting. Cause not of the debaters will give an inch cause what they are saying is based in canon. With out any house rules debate thrown in.

I dunno... those get intense but to say 'not an inch' is a bit extreme... some flexibility can exist depending on how canon sources get presented and compared.

An example of my point is the Discussion you Eli and I had over whether PCC's could canonly change their class. In which nether you nor eli were persuaded by the canon points of reference about the whys that can not. Most of the counter arguments used were ether the very same canon references I made with a different conclusion and obsolete text that was made obsolete by newer published canon text. And I was not persuaded by your and Eli's talking points.

Yah, I know silly me, I use what is written in the book as canon, not what some one else tells me was supposed to be written in the book. *shrugs* You have some good points on the topic, but the problem is that you like to generalize specific rules into system wide absolutes, I don't use those sets of house rules, so naturally I don't get the same results you do.
Which is one of the problems of course with the Conjurer. There is so little canon on what it can or can not do, that it is natural to look to other sources for information. And those other sources will, of course, have differing opinions on what can or can not be done. It's just a wonderful side effect of the palladium system. Limited by your imagination = you need a healthy dose of imagination to figure out the limits of any portion of the rule set.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Yep we both have our own conclusions based in what canon says Eli.

The both of you didn't like me pointing out that the published canon rules being discussed did not cover the specifics being discussed.

And all of that is besides the point, when I was making the point that Tor was firmly on one side of a "discussion" in which both sides were taken that same bit of canon and nether side would budge. To counter his "you got to be flexible' statement, showing how he wasn't flexible.

[eliakon]

Yep we both have our own conclusions based in what canon says Eli.

But that I taking in all the published rules to see the synergistic effects of those rules in conjunction with each other; instead of just looking at them in isolation from all other rules as you were doing; is what you didn't seem to like.

Even then you two of you didn't like me pointing out that the published canon rules being discussed did not cover the class type being discussed.

[off topic]Hijacking another persons thread to argue views about another thread is very bad manners. It is worse manners to attempt to use it as a soapbox to moralize about your views. If you want to re-hash on this, go to the appropriate thread and start it again.
[/off topic]

[drewkitty ~..~]

I have not brought up what was being "discussed" in that other topic.

I was just making a point that Tor could also be as inflexible about things he believed was canon as anybody else. Thus supporting my statement that the worst fights were between sides that based their statements in canon, especially those which use the same bits of canon are used to support mutually conflicting conclusions.

BTW I tend to do rewrites of my post right away if I don't like them. So you might want to chill a bit before responding to them.

[eliakon]

I have not brought up what was being "discussed" in that other topic.

I was just making a point that Tor could also be as inflexible about things he believed was canon as anybody else. Thus supporting my statement that the worst fights were between sides that based their statements in canon, especially those which use the same bits of canon are used to support mutually conflicting conclusions.

BTW I tend to do rewrites of my post right away if I don't like them. So you might want to chill a bit before responding to them.

If what you post is not what you intend to say, then don't post it. Once you have posted it, its out there, and responses to it may come immediately. There is no reason that a person should 'chill a bit' and wait for the revision. If you want to post something just the right way, then make drafts.
And yes, making sweeping statements like

In which nether you nor eli were persuaded by the canon points of reference about the whys that can not. Most of the counter arguments used were ether the very same canon references I made with a different conclusion and obsolete text that was made obsolete by newer published canon text.

IS bringing up a discussion, and then attempting to score points off of it (by insinuating that your view was the correct one, and that the opposite view was not only incorrect but willingly chosing to use false information to support its claims. Its insulting, rude, and intellectually dishonest, and yes I will call you on it when you do so.
I also intend this to be the last post I will make in this forum about this topic, as I do not wish to hijack the thread. You are welcome to start a new thread, take this to PM, or what ever.

.

[13eowulf]

One theoretical question about conjured animals:

If a Conjurer was to create a cow, kill it, cook it, and eat it, do you think their body would actually get any protein from it? Or would the protein simply vanish from their body when the conjuration's duration elapsed?

I would argue that a temporarily conjured animal would dissipate or disappear once killed (destroyed? I think destroyed is better, but this leads to deeper questions regarding life, existence, etc., very existential, and I digress) similar to what happens to other 'temporary' beasts, like those of the various tattooed peoples, or the Create Force Constructs major super power.
And given that it therefore cannot be subsequently cooked and eaten.
However that does give rise to the question "What if you cook it alive?"
To this I would respond that the act of cooking it kills it, which would cause it to dissipate/disappear.
The logical follow-up question would be "What if I eat it alive?" and seeing as the asking party learned from the previous answers adds the following qualifier "But not enough to kill it"
Well THAT truly is a puzzle worthy of further consideration.

I feel compelled to point out that conjuring an animal for eating might be construed as being "conjured into an environment where they cannot survive", which is explicitly verboten. If so ruled as such by a GM then the conjuring of the animal may be prevented by the same forces that prevent one from conjuring 'a fish out of water'.

I think though that all of the above would be rendered moot should the animal be 'permanently' conjured, as per that ability. It does however lead to other questions about permanently conjured animals. For example what is their lifespan? I mean the stats for conjured animals are all "average" by the rules, so one can assume an average lifespan. But when does the clock start ticking on that? When the creature is conjured as 'day one', or does it start living life as if it was the age it appears? So if you conjured a fully grown animal and make it permanent are you robbing it of its childhood years, which are then subtracted from its 'average' lifespan? Or do permanently conjured animals only 'come into being' as young or newborn versions?

Speaking of young/newborn versions of animals, can this be used to circumvent the 'size' restriction? Presumably if made permanent the conjured animal still has to obey its creator, same as the temporary ones. Given enough time and willingness to expend a few HP what could this mean for a patient conjurer?

Incidentally the magic of a Conjurer is very similar to the power to Create Force Constructs. Just an interesting note, neither here nor there.

Apologies, I seem to have raised more questions than I answered.

[eliakon]

One theoretical question about conjured animals:

If a Conjurer was to create a cow, kill it, cook it, and eat it, do you think their body would actually get any protein from it? Or would the protein simply vanish from their body when the conjuration's duration elapsed?

I would argue that a temporarily conjured animal would dissipate or disappear once killed (destroyed? I think destroyed is better, but this leads to deeper questions regarding life, existence, etc., very existential, and I digress) similar to what happens to other 'temporary' beasts, like those of the various tattooed peoples, or the Create Force Constructs major super power.
And given that it therefore cannot be subsequently cooked and eaten.
However that does give rise to the question "What if you cook it alive?"
To this I would respond that the act of cooking it kills it, which would cause it to dissipate/disappear.
The logical follow-up question would be "What if I eat it alive?" and seeing as the asking party learned from the previous answers adds the following qualifier "But not enough to kill it"
Well THAT truly is a puzzle worthy of further consideration.

I feel compelled to point out that conjuring an animal for eating might be construed as being "conjured into an environment where they cannot survive", which is explicitly verboten. If so ruled as such by a GM then the conjuring of the animal may be prevented by the same forces that prevent one from conjuring 'a fish out of water'.

I think though that all of the above would be rendered moot should the animal be 'permanently' conjured, as per that ability. It does however lead to other questions about permanently conjured animals. For example what is their lifespan? I mean the stats for conjured animals are all "average" by the rules, so one can assume an average lifespan. But when does the clock start ticking on that? When the creature is conjured as 'day one', or does it start living life as if it was the age it appears? So if you conjured a fully grown animal and make it permanent are you robbing it of its childhood years, which are then subtracted from its 'average' lifespan? Or do permanently conjured animals only 'come into being' as young or newborn versions?

Speaking of young/newborn versions of animals, can this be used to circumvent the 'size' restriction? Presumably if made permanent the conjured animal still has to obey its creator, same as the temporary ones. Given enough time and willingness to expend a few HP what could this mean for a patient conjurer?

Incidentally the magic of a Conjurer is very similar to the power to Create Force Constructs. Just an interesting note, neither here nor there.

Apologies, I seem to have raised more questions than I answered.

My personal call is that pieces broken off of objects like this will vanish. When you take a bite of the cow, the bite does damage, and the bitten off piece will vanish. Keep biting, and you will deplete the cows SDC and IT will vanish too.

[FuduVudu]

Might be a derail but just want to ask peoples opinions. Can a conjurer summon a Torch already lit or a Bic Lighter? Also can he also summon lava or ice?

[eliakon]

Might be a derail but just want to ask peoples opinions. Can a conjurer summon a Torch already lit or a Bic Lighter? Also can he also summon lava or ice?

My personal call would be 'no' would say that you cant summon a fire since that's energy. The Lava would be nixed by me for the same reason that you cant summon a grenade, and again because its summoning energy (heat). I would probably allow ice, if only because the image of a conjurer conjuring up ice cubes and little paper umbrellas for his drinks in a desert amuses me. That said I would make it normal ice, no summoning helium ice. Though if you were in a location where those were normal...maybe. Something similar to the 'can not summon animals where they can not live' would apply here, personally.

[ShadowLogan]

Might be a derail but just want to ask peoples opinions. Can a conjurer summon a Torch already lit or a Bic Lighter? Also can he also summon lava or ice?

A lit torch NO (energy thing). An unlit torch YES.

A BIC Lighter, unlit, YES. The device is simple, and the conjurer can summon bullets, so they should also be able to make a BIC lighter with fuel.

Ice, yes. However it will appear in a container.

Lava. If the Conjurer can summon water in liquid or solid form, I don't see why they couldn't summon rock in a liquid state.

[Tor]

the debaters will give an inch

to say 'not an inch' is a bit extreme...

An example of my point is the Discussion you Eli and I had over whether PCC's could canonly change their class. In which nether you nor eli were persuaded

That situation does not prove your point. People not being persuaded or convinced by opposition's arguments does not mean they "will not" give an inch, or could not possibly give one. Regarding that argument, I could still be persuaded if shown a clear 'PCCs are not OCCs' type statement within the book.

by the canon points of reference about the whys that can not.

That's cause we didn't agree with some ways in which you interpreted them.

Most of the counter arguments used were ether the very same canon references I made with a different conclusion

Which simply means that people hold different opinions, not that arguments can never result in changed minds.

obsolete text that was made obsolete by newer published canon text.

I believe we also did not find your arguments for old text being obsolete to be convincing.

I was not persuaded by your and Eli's talking points.

Which does not mean that you are unchangeably stubborn any more than it would mean that of us, just that some arguments reach moments of stalemate.

their points were using cannon, and yours were using obsolete cannon, house rules and extrapolations.

Um... that might be a bit of a bullyish exaggeration. We were both quoting canon texts, and none of the sources quoted by any of us were obsolete. I think some level of extrapolation occurred on both ends, due to the vaguery of the text.

both of you didn't like me pointing out that the published canon rules being discussed did not cover the specifics being discussed.

I loved it when you pointed out the canon rules, as I was able to point out how they did not actually invalidate any arguments.

Tor was firmly on one side of a "discussion" in which both sides were taken that same bit of canon and nether side would budge. To counter his "you got to be flexible' statement, showing how he wasn't flexible.

I believe I swayed a bit, like a willow. One need not break or be uprooted to be flexible.

I see stubbornness as more "we'll never change our minds, let's stop arguing" as opposed to "let's continue to talk and see if there's further ground to cover in the realm of discourse".

Tor could also be as inflexible about things he believed was canon as anybody else.

I don't think "their mind wasn't changed by me" is exactly an argument for inflexibility Drew

supporting my statement that the worst fights were between sides that based their statements in canon

A fight is hardly 'the worst' just because it isn't resolved in mutual agreement. I'd rather say it's those that reduce to flame wars and such. As we kept it moderately cordial I'd say it was hardly the worst. Good creative appeals to text were mutually made.

I tend to do rewrites of my post right away if I don't like them. So you might want to chill a bit before responding to them.

Me too, though moretimes it's to edit in multi-quotes.

If what you post is not what you intend to say, then don't post it.

I think what Drew means is that he may have intended to say it at the time but later changed his mind. Or alternatively, sometimes you intend to say something, but then realize the words we put down don't communicate the thought effectively or could lead to misinterpretation.

Once you have posted it, its out there, and responses to it may come immediately. There is no reason that a person should 'chill a bit' and wait for the revision. If you want to post something just the right way, then make drafts.

Alternatively, one may opt to edit in a strikethrough through a statement one wishes to rescind. That way the record of it is still out there to prevent confusion over responses to something no longer present.

Now I suppose /hijack and back to topic:

If a Conjurer was to create a cow, kill it, cook it, and eat it, do you think their body would actually get any protein from it? Or would the protein simply vanish from their body when the conjuration's duration elapsed?

I believe the protein would vanish after it has elapsed. Although...

If I created an animal and way able to keep it around for a long period of time (particularly permanent ones) and assuming they required food to exist (or could metabolize food) they might eventually be replaced with real protein, or produce real milk.

Or to sensationalize: does my magical conjured cow poop when it eats grass?

A BIC Lighter, unlit, YES. The device is simple, and the conjurer can summon bullets, so they should also be able to make a BIC lighter with fuel.

If a conjurere wanted to make a molotov cocktail how many would that be? 1 for obttle, 1 for booze, 1 for rag, 1 for lighter?

[ShadowLogan]

If a conjurere wanted to make a molotov cocktail how many would that be? 1 for obttle, 1 for booze, 1 for rag, 1 for lighter?

Given a molotov cocktail is basically a grenade, and that is something they are stated they can't produce, I would have to say that it would come down to producing the necessary components and assembling them IMHO, though the booze would appear in a container.

[Nightmask]

If a conjurere wanted to make a molotov cocktail how many would that be? 1 for obttle, 1 for booze, 1 for rag, 1 for lighter?

Given a molotov cocktail is basically a grenade, and that is something they are stated they can't produce, I would have to say that it would come down to producing the necessary components and assembling them IMHO, though the booze would appear in a container.

Except it's not a grenade, it's just a bottle with a flammable liquid in it and a wick. It has no real parts like a grenade and doesn't explode simply spreads a flammable liquid around when the bottle breaks that ignites off the wick. I don't see where such an item would be a problem for a conjurer.

[Tor]

Definitely a lot less complex to make than a grenade.

[ShadowLogan]

I don't know if a grenade is any less complex than a bullet really, but it is stated that a grenade can't be conjured. In any case the Molotov cocktail requires 1-3 conjurings depending on avialable resources:
1 or 2 for bottle and rag (if the rag counts as the cork/cap for the bottle than 1, otherwise 2)
Plus another to light the fuse if you don't have anything to light it with.