Love Curse Main Forum

Bouncing Eyeballs and Spell Books
Wordweaver_three at 1:51AM, March 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 458
joined: 8-1-2008
Alright all, since this has become a subject of some debate, and has managed to annoy the heck out of me, I have researched the noise a falling eyeball makes when rebounding off a spell book. (I'm going to let you wonder where I found an eyeball and a spell book) At any rate, I can say after careful study that an eyeball definitely makes a distinct “thud”, and only makes a “splat” if the orb has been compromised in some way. At any rate, “thud” is funnier then “splat” in my opinion, and it's my comic, so :p. Moving on to why the wizard doesn't protect him/herself with the same enchantments as used on the spell book. There are two reasons. First, the protection hinders ALL spell effects, good and bad, and would completely bone the wizards ability to focus magic. Second, the enchantment protects the book in much the same way that formaldehyde protects a dead body from decay. The enchantment is lethal if cast directly on a living being. Could a wizard have this protection put on his clothing? Yes, of course, but it would still prevent him from using magic. It also would not give him perfect protection. Certain forms of energy, such as the concussive effect of an explosion (a mundane form of energy with different rules then magic energy), are merely redirected around the protected item. A wizard who was wearing an enchanted robe in an explosion would still be blown to smithereens, even though his robe would be fine. This also explains why Lars was hit with the full brunt of the motion energy of the spell he blocked on page 14.

If you have any more questions, please ask, and I will begrudgingly answer them.
last edited on July 18, 2011 10:17AM
harkovast at 8:05AM, March 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 5,197
joined: 10-12-2008
I sort of assumed all this stuff already!
Also, I agree with eye ball thing, the eyeball would have to burst to splat, if it retained its shape then there is no splat.

For more Harkovast related goings on, go to the Harkovast Forum
last edited on July 18, 2011 10:17AM
Darius Drake at 4:25PM, March 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 31
joined: 2-13-2009
Yeah, but the eyeball falling at the speed it would have been propelled at from the explosion would have meant that the eyeball should have burst. Think of comparing dropping an eye to pegging it into a wall. The first bounces while the second would splatter, and the eye should be moving much faster than a person can throw it.
Heh heh heh. Boom.
last edited on July 18, 2011 10:17AM
Wordweaver_three at 2:11AM, March 29, 2009
(online)
posts: 458
joined: 8-1-2008
Actually, it isn't being blown into the ground by the force of the explosion, it's actually falling after being blown up and away. So it only reaches maximum velocity for a falling object. Which for an eyeball would be weight by distance and something to the square of the elapsed time and *mutter* *vulgarity*….

You know what? It's a magic eye. That's way simpler. There's like a featherfall spell and a “thud” noise spell on it, not to mention the invincibility spell so it remained intact after getting blasted from the wizard's head cuz wizards are forward thinking like that.
last edited on July 18, 2011 10:17AM
waff at 6:13AM, April 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,486
joined: 10-18-2008
so a wizard casted some sort of invicibility spell on his eye and not the rest of him? huh!? I don't buy it.

'there is no “overkill” there is only “open fire” and “time to reload” rule #37
the things on my box are a dead squirell, a medal and a paper bag hat.
ow! I have shards of the fourth wall in my eye!
WAFF-MAN!! as of mafia VI
last edited on July 18, 2011 10:17AM
Wordweaver_three at 12:34AM, April 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 458
joined: 8-1-2008
Are you just trying to get my goat, Waff? Invincibility spells can only be cast on very small objects. There, that's my explanation.
last edited on July 18, 2011 10:17AM
waff at 10:33AM, April 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,486
joined: 10-18-2008
sort of yes (I was hoping to take CC AND you on in the brawl between gentlemen) so while your world's limitations are what you choose, I'm gonna do my best to make them clear for you.

'there is no “overkill” there is only “open fire” and “time to reload” rule #37
the things on my box are a dead squirell, a medal and a paper bag hat.
ow! I have shards of the fourth wall in my eye!
WAFF-MAN!! as of mafia VI
last edited on July 18, 2011 10:17AM
Wordweaver_three at 3:34AM, June 15, 2009
(online)
posts: 458
joined: 8-1-2008
Meh, my brawling days are over. Too much cheating.

(Wow! Took me a loooong time to reply to this one, didn't it? No wonder no one reads my forum)
last edited on July 18, 2011 10:17AM
Darius Drake at 6:02AM, June 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 31
joined: 2-13-2009
I thought that your explanation about the lack of invincibility spells was that they are hellishly expensive to make and either cannot be cast on living things or would cost three to ten rich kingdoms going broke to cast.
Heh heh heh. Boom.
last edited on July 18, 2011 10:17AM
Wordweaver_three at 2:22PM, June 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 458
joined: 8-1-2008
Anti-magic and Invincibility are two separate things, and I never indicated a cost on either. The wizard's eye may have already been compromised, in effect dead. He may have used the spell, or similar spell, for aesthetic purposes. He may or may not have been able to give himself his sight back, but he could at least make the eye look fine. You also have to remember that magic is an art more then a science. If there is an accepted rule, you can bet the bank that there is also a spellcaster somewhere that is attempting to break that rule.
last edited on July 18, 2011 10:17AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved