Feather Falling and Belayed companions

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:
>
> What frigging rules? There are *NO RULES* that state an ongoing spell
> fizzles because they bloody don't.

I know. What I meant was that fizzling during an ongoing spell seems
more consistent with fizzling at the time of casting.

-Will
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> Once again, this is not a case where the characteristics of the spell
> do not conform. A Medium creature carrying more than its max load is
> still a Medium creature, which is all the spell cares about vis a vis
> said creature being a valid target.

Okay...so what about this, from the FF description:

"The spell affects one or more Medium or smaller creatures (including
gear and carried objects up to each creature’s maximum load)..."

So if I'm carrying too much (more than my max load), and someone casts
FF on me, can I drop my things and safely step off that cliff, or will I
plummet?

-Will
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Richard Fielding wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Descriptive text usually doesn't bother saying what the
> > spell does not do:
>
> I knew I'd got that idea from somewhere, thanks for
> the quote!
>
> That quote may not tell us exactly what does happen
> when the spell fails, but it does tell us that
> proportional failure isn't it.

Bingo.

Personally, I'm in the "a target who becomes ineligible during a
spell's duration has the effect of the spell on them suppressed until
the target becomes eligible again, if that occurs during the remaining
duration of the spell; also, you cannot cast a spell on a target who
is already ineligible" camp. This fits nicely with how antimagic
works, too.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:q92dnX4U946IZT3fRVn-ow@comcast.com:

> The thing you're forgetting is that when the fly spell is
> inactive, the person hovers in place.

Bullocks. Cite please.

--
Marc
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Marc L. wrote:
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> >
> > The thing you're forgetting is that when the fly spell is
> > inactive, the person hovers in place.
>
> Bullocks. Cite please.

He's flat-out wrong. I've already cited that /fly/ gives you good
maneuverability, and hovering is a free action for anyone with good or
perfect maneuverability. Its being an action of any sort means that
it requires intent, and thus Jeff's wrong about this. That said, he
hasn't responded to those posts yet, so he may mea culpa this once he
sees them, if he has any remnants of integrity left.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
>> For example, a human polymorphed into a cat is no longer
>> susceptible to the charm person spell (despite its augmented humanoid
>> subtype), but it becomes susceptible to a ranger's favored enemy
>> ability (if the ranger has chosen animals as a favored enemy)."
>
>Of course, this still tells us nothing about what
>happens to a Charm Person spell *already in place* on a
>humanoid who then Polymorphs into a non-humanoid
>creature.

Yeah, I had originally read the "...is no longer susceptible..." bit
as referring to a specific casting of charm person.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Will Green hastily scrawled:
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>> Once again, this is not a case where the characteristics of the spell
>> do not conform. A Medium creature carrying more than its max load is
>> still a Medium creature, which is all the spell cares about vis a vis
>> said creature being a valid target.
>
>Okay...so what about this, from the FF description:
>
>"The spell affects one or more Medium or smaller creatures (including
>gear and carried objects up to each creature’s maximum load)..."
>
>So if I'm carrying too much (more than my max load), and someone casts
>FF on me, can I drop my things and safely step off that cliff, or will I
>plummet?

You would be safe, so long as the spell duration was sufficient.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns966AE201CEBCFmastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:q92dnX4U946IZT3fRVn-ow@comcast.com:
>
> > The thing you're forgetting is that when the fly spell is
> > inactive, the person hovers in place.
>
> Bullocks. Cite please.

It would appear that it's clearly NOT how it works in 3E(as shown by many
others), and unfortunately, I don't have my 2E books up here, but that's how
we've always played a fly spell(non-specified travel results in a hovering
in place, ala a levitation spell), and while I haven't explicitly looked up
the rule, that's how EVERYONE I've played with has done a fly spell.
Granted, no 3E experience, but LOTS of 2E and prior experience.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1117846758.6c0cbb5bea8d1eef74168dbaff63296b@teranews...

> Liar. Hovering requires an action.

It does? Since when?

--
All the best,
RF
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Richard Fielding wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> >
> > Liar. Hovering requires an action.
>
> It does? Since when?

I've already cited this, in message-ID:
<1117846658.ada058b455dcf02a8d2608e31ea995e7@teranews>
The references are:
( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a ),
( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040720a ) and the
/fly/ spell's description, which states good maneuverability.

"Spells such as fly... actually grant the subject a fly speed"
"A creature with good maneuverability... can hover as free action."

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1117862100.338afaa94b59a71aecd3c7df7b0d9bbb@teranews...
> Richard Fielding wrote:
>> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
>> >
>> > Liar. Hovering requires an action.
>>
>> It does? Since when?
>
> I've already cited this, in message-ID:
> <1117846658.ada058b455dcf02a8d2608e31ea995e7@teranews>
> The references are:
> ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a ),
> ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040720a ) and the
> /fly/ spell's description, which states good maneuverability.
>
> "Spells such as fly... actually grant the subject a fly speed"
> "A creature with good maneuverability... can hover as free action."

sorry, the possibility that it might be a /free/ action completely slipped
my mind, and
I'd already replied by the time I read your other responses.

--
All the best,
RF
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Richard Fielding wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> > > > Liar. Hovering requires an action.
> > >
> > > It does? Since when?
> >
> > I've already cited this
>
> sorry, the possibility that it might be a /free/ action
> completely slipped my mind, and I'd already replied by
> the time I read your other responses.

No problem.

There's an interesting corrolary to this. Since it's a free action,
rather than an immediate action, it cannot be performed on someone
else's turn, so any forcible motion of a character *will* cause them
to start falling, as they cannot choose to hover *until* their turn.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:qrj2a11i5aos5vhb0b3v3cj9oumkt69led@4ax.com...
> No Jeff, I'm not kidding you. You really are a moron. See, that's part of
> the definition of the ground...there's GROUND there. It pushes back. Air
> doesn't.

Air doesn't push back... you heard it here folks.

As an aside, you might not want to mention this to Chuck Yeager. He's
pretty geeked about the whole "sound barrier" thing, so, you know, let's
just keep this between us.

(Air *DOES* push back, just not as much as the ground does. It's called air
resistance.)

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
] "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
] news:qrj2a11i5aos5vhb0b3v3cj9oumkt69led@4ax.com...
] > No Jeff, I'm not kidding you. You really are a moron. See, that's part of
] > the definition of the ground...there's GROUND there. It pushes back. Air
] > doesn't.
]
] Air doesn't push back... you heard it here folks.
]
] As an aside, you might not want to mention this to Chuck Yeager. He's
] pretty geeked about the whole "sound barrier" thing, so, you know, let's
] just keep this between us.
]
] (Air *DOES* push back, just not as much as the ground does. It's called air
] resistance.)

Don't worry Jeff, they will refute the existance of air pressure. Or
claim you really meant something else.

JimP.
--
djim70 at tyhe cableone dot net. Disclaimer: Standard.
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/new.html AD&D May 29, 2005
Registered Linux user#185746 http://linux.drivein-jim.net/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1117864435.8885135a1100386b61df42d81e31e2a9@teranews...

> There's an interesting corrolary to this. Since it's a free action,
> rather than an immediate action, it cannot be performed on someone
> else's turn, so any forcible motion of a character *will* cause them
> to start falling, as they cannot choose to hover *until* their turn.

So, this dragon bull rushes this wizard, the wizard falls 150 ft, then he
gets chance to use his spell to stop himself? fair enough.

--
All the best,
RF
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Richard Fielding wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> >
> > There's an interesting corrolary to this. Since it's a
> > free action, rather than an immediate action, it cannot
> > be performed on someone else's turn, so any forcible
> > motion of a character *will* cause them to start
> > falling, as they cannot choose to hover *until* their
> > turn.
>
> So, this dragon bull rushes this wizard, the wizard
> falls 150 ft, then he gets chance to use his spell
> to stop himself? fair enough.

Yeah, it sounds right to me, but he probably wouldn't fall the full
150 ft. Remember that each turn is actually just resolving the
character's last six seconds' worth of action. I'd do a random roll
to see how far the character fell before being permitted to catch
himself.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1117864691.dcf7afd54add15fa6af3b720f4a556be@teranews...

> Personally, I'm in the "a target who becomes ineligible during a
> spell's duration has the effect of the spell on them suppressed until
> the target becomes eligible again, if that occurs during the remaining
> duration of the spell; also, you cannot cast a spell on a target who
> is already ineligible" camp. This fits nicely with how antimagic
> works, too.

Same here, though I could also see an argument for "spell ends, magic
fizzles, you got nuthin'" based on the rules for spells failing as they get
cast, but it doesn't quite convince me.

--
All the best,
RF
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Richard Fielding wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I'm in the "a target who becomes ineligible
> > during a spell's duration has the effect of the spell on
> > them suppressed until the target becomes eligible again,
> > if that occurs during the remaining duration of the
> > spell; also, you cannot cast a spell on a target who is
> > already ineligible" camp. This fits nicely with how
> > antimagic works, too.
>
> Same here, though I could also see an argument for
> "spell ends, magic fizzles, you got nuthin'" based
> on the rules for spells failing as they get cast,
> but it doesn't quite convince me.

Agreed. I can see the argument, and kinda agree with it... But both
have some support (while proportional failure, of course, has none),
so I'm going with the one that's a little more playable.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> Marc L. wrote:
> > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > >
> > > The thing you're forgetting is that when the fly
> > > spell is inactive, the person hovers in place.
> >
> > Bullocks. Cite please.
>
> It would appear that it's clearly NOT how it works
> in 3E(as shown by many others), and unfortunately,
> I don't have my 2E books up here, but that's how
> we've always played a fly spell(non-specified
> travel results in a hovering in place, ala a
> levitation spell), and while I haven't explicitly
> looked up the rule, that's how EVERYONE I've
> played with has done a fly spell. Granted, no 3E
> experience, but LOTS of 2E and prior experience.

Most of us have lots of 2e and prior experience as well. Doesn't it
tell you something that none of us do this?

More relevant, 2e /fly/ worked in a similar fashion to 3.x fly,
without the "land safely" clause... Making it a spell that was
*easier* to be a cock GM about. In fact, the fact that the duration
always had a random element *forced* the GM to be somewhat of a cock
about the spell ("The exact duration of the spell is always unknown to
the spellcaster, as the variable addition is determined secretly by
the DM.")

As for hovering: "Using the fly spell requires as much concentration
as walking," and "The maneuverability class of the creature is B."
Huh. Looks like the 2e fly spell also gives the equivalent of good
maneuverability to its recipient, which means standard rules about
flying creatures apply. I don't have 2e materials, but IIRC, MC B is
almost directly analogous to 3e's good maneuverability.

In other words, you and everyone you've played with have been
adjudicating the spell wrong. You and everyone you've played with is
*not* a particularly useful measure of a rule's accuracy or its rate
of use.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 22:30:05 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>>Umm, the previusly cast PERMANENT spell, like say arcane sight or
>>>enlarge person is only castable on persons not objects. Does it
>>>come back when the person is raised?
>>
>>Ok, sorry, I misread. I believe there's an official rule somewhere that
>>spells of this type are canceled on the death of the receipient, and
>>raising them does not bring the spell back with it.
>
>This kind of "I believe there's" isn't good enough for this discussion
>(the discussion centers on whether it's actually "cancelled", or just
>"suppressed"); can you find a cite, please?

I scanned through some of the FAQs and errata sections, as well as the
books themselves and couldn't find it. In the description for the raise
dead spell, it makes this mention:

Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the
subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone.

Based on that, it would seem that a permenant spell would remain intact.

But damnit, I do remember reading it somewhere.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:37:25 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
>news:A6Yne.16018$4u.15742@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> Michael Scott Brown wrote:

>> That is, in fact, what I was trying to say. Jeff is trying to equate
>> downward pressure on the Flier from above with "encumbrance," which is
>> silly, because the Flier, presumably, in the example we've been
>> fighting, isn't pushing *upward* on the dragon as he would be if he were
>> *carrying* it.
>
>The thing you're forgetting is that when the fly spell is inactive, the
>person hovers in place.

No, if the fly spell is inactive, you FALL. Hovering means that you are
being PUSHED UPWARDS at 9.8 meters per second. If the spell is not doing
this, then you are going to be moving downwards.

If a real life flying creature stops flapping its wings, it falls. Hovering
requires effort. So too with the fly spell (but without the arm flapping).

>You guys seem to think that there is will involved in keeping yourself in
>the air, and there isn't

Prove it.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 21:18:22 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
>news:1117846117.3a05a319949e22eb853556f2ea9ae053@teranews...
>> > You guys seem to think that there is will involved in
>> > keeping yourself in the air, and there isn't,
>>
>> Since, of course, there's no will involved in keeping anything with
>> good maneuverability (like bees, wasps, and bats) in the air, either.
>
>Only as much "will" as it takes to stand. Sure you, have to decide to do
>it, but once you've decided to stand, the amount of "will" it takes to
>continue standing is negligeble at best.

Irrelevant. What happens the instant that will ceases, as if say the
standing person became unconcious? They fall down. Hovering requires the
same will as standing, but IT DOES REQUIRE WILL.

> The only SENSIBLE thing to do is
>to assume that a person not explicitly moving will float in place, and not
>PLUMMET OUT OF THE SKY!!!

That's not sensible in the least. If you were under the effects of a
levitate spell, then you'd stay in one place, but fly doesn't work that
way.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:33:37 -0400, Nikolas Landauer
<dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> scribed into the ether:

>Marc L. wrote:
>> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> >
>> > The thing you're forgetting is that when the fly spell is
>> > inactive, the person hovers in place.
>>
>> Bullocks. Cite please.
>
>He's flat-out wrong. I've already cited that /fly/ gives you good
>maneuverability, and hovering is a free action for anyone with good or
>perfect maneuverability. Its being an action of any sort means that
>it requires intent, and thus Jeff's wrong about this. That said, he
>hasn't responded to those posts yet, so he may mea culpa this once he
>sees them, if he has any remnants of integrity left.

Don't hold your breath.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer scribed into the ether:
> >
> > Jeff's wrong about this. That said, he hasn't responded
> > to those posts yet, so he may mea culpa this once he
> > sees them, if he has any remnants of integrity left.
>
> Don't hold your breath.

Oh, I'm not. It's not like I haven't seen his behavior before.

I expect an attempt to backpedal, or, more likely, plain cowardice.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Nikolas Landauer hastily scrawled:
>Richard Fielding wrote:
>> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
>> >
>> > There's an interesting corrolary to this. Since it's a
>> > free action, rather than an immediate action, it cannot
>> > be performed on someone else's turn, so any forcible
>> > motion of a character *will* cause them to start
>> > falling, as they cannot choose to hover *until* their
>> > turn.
>>
>> So, this dragon bull rushes this wizard, the wizard
>> falls 150 ft, then he gets chance to use his spell
>> to stop himself? fair enough.
>
>Yeah, it sounds right to me, but he probably wouldn't fall the full
>150 ft. Remember that each turn is actually just resolving the
>character's last six seconds' worth of action. I'd do a random roll
>to see how far the character fell before being permitted to catch
>himself.

Why not just use the Bull Rush rules?



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin