Feather Falling and Belayed companions

Page 12 - 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?)

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
news:uqj2a1tfqi551q7d108sofbite66pd8jqi@4ax.com:

> 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.
>
>

Agreed, he'll come back and say, "By inactive, of course I mean
that the user stops deciding where to fly and therefore just hovers."

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

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in
news:42A12AD2.11B788D7@comcast.net:

> Frankly, I think you're just being pedantic on this
> one, but I'll be a man and own up to it. Sorry
>

No, you're being rather stupid. We compare two different spells,
one that affects objects and people, the other the air in an area.
Two very different things you idiot. Not being pedantic at all. Now,
stop being childish and accept it.

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

Mere moments before death, Marc L. hastily scrawled:
>Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:42A12AD2.11B788D7@comcast.net:
>
>> Frankly, I think you're just being pedantic on this
>> one, but I'll be a man and own up to it. Sorry
>>
>
> No, you're being rather stupid. We compare two different spells,
>one that affects objects and people, the other the air in an area.
>Two very different things you idiot. Not being pedantic at all. Now,
>stop being childish and accept it.

No, you're being pedantic.



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?)

Nikolas Landauer <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in
news:1117867499.baf47992ca1fcaa2360bc212862e5b6f@teranews:

> 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.
>

Makes sense to me.

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xN-dnbQymv9e8jzfRVn-tQ@comcast.com:

> Some things are beyond the requirement for proving. So I didn't
> bother.

Translated from Jeffspeak to English, "I know there's no way I
can prove it, so I will pretend I don't have to."

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

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
news:qrj2a11i5aos5vhb0b3v3cj9oumkt69led@4ax.com:

> Failing someone's fly spell by overloading it means that the flier
> has to agree to carry the weight. If they do that, then the
> consequences are their own damn fault.
>
>

Er, not quite. If while you are flying around I manage to glue a
big rock on your back, you HAVE been forced to carry the weight, no
consensus required. However, dumping the weight on you allows you to
shrug it off.

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

Nikolas Landauer <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in
news:1117881535.74a6edeb367e260d110768231ebee707@teranews:

> 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.
>

That last part seems rather obvious.

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

Marc L. wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> That last part seems rather obvious.

You'd think, but he keeps on making the claim as if it isn't.

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

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> 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?

This is meant for after resolving the bull rush. The bull rush checks
the flier's normal movement, and the flier cannot recover enough to
move another direction or hover until their own turn. There is going
to be some gap between the bull rush and the flier's turn. This is
the span of time in which the flier falls.

--
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:
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> 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?
>
>This is meant for after resolving the bull rush. The bull rush checks
>the flier's normal movement, and the flier cannot recover enough to
>move another direction or hover until their own turn. There is going
>to be some gap between the bull rush and the flier's turn. This is
>the span of time in which the flier falls.

There is no span of time.



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?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "~consul" <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
> news:d7qom9$8a6$1@gist.usc.edu...
>
>>Jeff Goslin wrote:
>>
>>>We know that "the real world" doesn't apply, but there must be some
>>>semblance of order in the universe. In OUR universe, the laws of
>>>physics provide MOST of that order, so if we need to have a set of rules,
>>>it helps OUR understanding of the rules to base it on something we are
>>>familiar with. Physics is a good basis.
>>
>>I understand what you are talking about, but ... in this case, the spell
>>does one thing. Slow you down. If there is no more spell, it shouldn't slow
>>you down. It's all that it is rigged to do. Nothing else.
>
> *IF* there is no more spell. Ultimately, that's the entire point of this
> thread. Are spells cancelled, are they suppressed, are the gradiantly less
> effective, what's the deal? Nobody can seem to tell me that.

The spells tell you.

/Fly/ allows the target creature to fly at a given speed and
manoeuvrability for various encumberance levels.
It does not allow over-encumbered people to fly: you can tell this,
as spells are always explicit in their description, it only provides
flight speeds for light, medium, and heavy encumberance. Creatures who
are suddenly encumbered beyond the spell's ability to provide any effect
will fall. Reducing encumberance to light will improve your flight to
60/Good.

/Featherfall/ can only affect creatures and gear up to their
maximum load. An over-encumbered creature cannot be affacted.

/Levitate/ can only affect up to 100 lb per level.


A non-instantanious targetted spell should (IMO) obviously fail if
it can no longer affect it's target. You /could/ otherwise rule the
magic is supressed, but that has some side-effects that I don't much like.



P.S. Real world physics makes for piss poor analogies of the vague
and arbitrary system of sympathetic magic DnD provides.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, tussock hastily scrawled:
>
> A non-instantanious targetted spell should (IMO) obviously fail if
>it can no longer affect it's target.

Bah.



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?)

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 05:39:55 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"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.)

Does air support weight? No? Hmm...

Way to strawman...again...

Way to ignore the rest of a post to dwell on irrelevancies of
phrasing...again...

There is but one virtue that you possess, Jeff; consistancy.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch hastily scrawled:
>On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 05:39:55 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
>scribed into the ether:
>>
>>(Air *DOES* push back, just not as much as the ground does. It's called air
>>resistance.)
>
>Does air support weight? No? Hmm...

Yeah, actually it does. Just not very much.



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?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:40:55 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> dared speak in front of ME:

>On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 05:39:55 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>"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.)
>
>Does air support weight? No? Hmm...

Bouyancy, same as water. Just at lower levels.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 13:44:11 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
>news:qrj2a11i5aos5vhb0b3v3cj9oumkt69led@4ax.com:
>
>> Failing someone's fly spell by overloading it means that the flier
>> has to agree to carry the weight. If they do that, then the
>> consequences are their own damn fault.
>>
>>
>
> Er, not quite. If while you are flying around I manage to glue a
>big rock on your back, you HAVE been forced to carry the weight, no
>consensus required. However, dumping the weight on you allows you to
>shrug it off.

You could also force someone to carry extra weight by crawling inside them,
but I'm trying to stick with things that might actually happen.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch hastily scrawled:
>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 13:44:11 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
>>news:qrj2a11i5aos5vhb0b3v3cj9oumkt69led@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Failing someone's fly spell by overloading it means that the flier
>>> has to agree to carry the weight. If they do that, then the
>>> consequences are their own damn fault.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Er, not quite. If while you are flying around I manage to glue a
>>big rock on your back, you HAVE been forced to carry the weight, no
>>consensus required. However, dumping the weight on you allows you to
>>shrug it off.
>
>You could also force someone to carry extra weight by crawling inside them,
>but I'm trying to stick with things that might actually happen.

Hm. Interesting. Are D&D characters encumbered by food once it is
eaten? If so, why isn't there an encumbrance factor for a character's
weight?

Obviously, the answer is no, because this is D&D. But, if one wanted
to add a bit more of that kind of mechanics to D&D you could define a
baseline weight for each race and count the rest as encumbrance. Of
course, this is the sort of option for someone who enjoys paperwork
more than roleplaying, imo.



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?)

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 04:44:53 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
>news:1117850446.a9c66a74dec22aab0303fa69ad9e02e7@teranews...
>> Which is rather noticeable when one stops trying to stand... One
>> falls. Unconsciousness, for instance. When something too heavy hits
>> someone who is standing, oddly enough, they have a strong tendency to
>> *fall over*.
>
>Except that a fly spell very clearly can hover in mid air. If one falls
>unconscious, they are still supported by the ground, in the case of walking
>around.

Ludicrous. Tell us Jeff, when a standing person becomes unconcious, do
they:

A) Stay in one place, unmoving.
or
B) Fall down

Hint: The fly spell works exactly the same.

> Likewise, if one falls unconscious mid air, I would rule they hover
>in mid air until they are healed, killed or the duration of the spell runs
>out. That's just me, though.

That is not however, the rules.

>> > I think I would have noticed. Maybe I was just not
>> > paying close enough attention
>>
>> You rarely do... And it's rather stupid to keep arguing on something
>> if you're *not paying attention* to the discussion of it.
>
>Why would I bother to pay attention to chicken little MSB over there?

Why would you post multi-hundred line responses to his posts if you don't
pay attention to them?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Qf6dnaCyI8ROAD3fRVn-og@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > ... and Goslin chooses ... PAINTBALL as the foundation of his
intuitions.
>
> No, I chose the failure possibility of something I'm familiar with. But
> your attempt at poisoning the well is duly noted.
>
> You're just pissed that I could kick you ass at paintball, admit it. 😉

Goslin, I *glory* in the fact that I am not a competitor in paintball.

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q92dnX4U946IZT3fRVn-ow@comcast.com...
> The thing you're forgetting is that when the fly spell is inactive, the
> person hovers in place.

I have an inactive fly spell on myself all the time.
<jumps>
I never seem to hover, Jeffie.


> That means that there is a force pushing the caster
> UP. Given that the standard inactive procedure is to hover, that means
that
> unless the caster CHOOSES to get out of the way somehow, the hovering will
> continue for as long as magically possible.

This is fascinating. Jeffie continues to believe that the Fly spell's
"hover program" magically acts just like a ground reaction force, and that
that "hovering" and "push upwards as hard as you can until the spell
breaks!" are somehow interchangeable concepts. It couldn't possibly be the
case that hovering might set the spell's lift to ... exactly the weight of
the wizard, and no more than that!

> be overloaded in a matter of nano-seconds. THAT means that a person who
is
> suddenly weighted down DOESN"T HAVE A CHOICE as to what happens,

Correct - they *move*, as a result of unbalanced forces against the
initially adequate lift.

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

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 17:39:14 -0400, Larry Geyer
<larrygeyer@comcast.net> wrote:

>...What also floats in air? ...ooooh, nevermind, don't go there.

Well, if you can keep it from melting, hydrogen ice floats in uranium
hexaflouride gas at room temperature/pressure.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Richard Fielding" <richard.f@blueyonder.spam?no.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v7boe.216720$Cq2.197879@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > "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.

It's actually a move action for less maneuverable creatures, if possible
at all.

-Michael
 
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.

Tsk. Any forcible motion of the character will cause them to _move_.
Hence the bull rush rules.

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

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

This is probably the best way to do it (though there is little
difference in outcome with respect to the original question). A vaguely
similar example would be Dominating someone under the effects of Protection
from Evil; as long as PFE is up Domination can't be exercised, but it _can_
if the PFE is brought down.

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1padnd_ML8jJ9zzfRVn-2w@comcast.com...
> "Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
> news:1117850446.a9c66a74dec22aab0303fa69ad9e02e7@teranews...
> > Which is rather noticeable when one stops trying to stand... One
> > falls. Unconsciousness, for instance. When something too heavy hits
> > someone who is standing, oddly enough, they have a strong tendency to
> > *fall over*.
>
> Except that a fly spell very clearly can hover in mid air. If one falls
> unconscious, they are still supported by the ground, in the case of
walking
> around. Likewise, if one falls unconscious mid air, I would rule they
hover
> in mid air until they are healed, killed or the duration of the spell runs
> out. That's just me, though.

Yes, it is just you. Hovering is a move or free action depending on the
maneuverability of the flier. You are *wrong*.

> I seem to recall reading very clearly the the fly spell functions
regardless
> of concentration or will, but it may have been a 2E thing. Oh well, maybe
> it changed. I haven't got my books with me here upstairs.

2E PhB
"This power enables the wizard to bestow the power of magical flight...
able to move.. rate of 18..The maneuverability class of the creature is B.
Using the fly spell requires as much concentration as WALKING, so most
spells can be cast while hovering or moveing slowly (movement of 3). "

You are *wrong* about the concentration required. Further, this means
that your assertion as to what an unconscious Fly-er should do is wrong
*EVEN ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN EDITION OF THE GAME*.

Further, for someone who bitches about how spells "should" work in this
magical failsafe fashion that prevents them from failing to work when
overloaded, because "wizards are smart" and wouldn't design something that
worked any other way....
"The exact duration of the spell is always unknown to the spellcaster,
as the variable addition is determined secretly by the DM.

In short, a person using fly for a long time has an extremly high risk
OF FALLING OUT OF THE AIR TO HIS DEATH!!!!

And while I have the book out; 2E Feather Fall says "The feather fall
affects one or more objects or creatures .. as long as th emaximum weight of
the creatures or objects does not exceed a combined total of 200 pounds plus
200 pounds per level of the spellcster. For example, a 2nd level wizard has
...a weight limit of 600 pounds when casting this spell."

Now, here's a little logic game for you. When given a statement "The
{spell} affects {creatures} as long as the maximum weight does not exceed
{X}", what do you think is result if the maximum weight is X+1?

> Why would I bother to pay attention to chicken little MSB over there? All
> he does is rant and scream that the sky is falling.

A convenient lie. Tell it to yourself some more!

-Michael