Feather Falling and Belayed companions

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:rhe5a1t8d6gpknemnutq9tuhlsbhggubvk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 03:29:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> >I pointed out that you were incorrectly understanding the breadth of the
> >concept of the jet (a jet engine is called such because it creates a jet,
> >after all). In fact, you're even wrong on that account; a jet with
> >sufficient thrust will support weight without the use of a wing or
forward
> >motion (see Harrier or other VTOL vehicle, or the F-16's ability to
> >accelerate straight up).
>
> A harrier doing VTOL or any other plane going verticle is not being
> supported by anything in the same way as a horizontal aircraft is.

That's the point. They are being supported on ... jets of air.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

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.

<shakes head sadly>

Turns don't work like that, Nik (and I'm pretty sure
you know it, so we'll just assume that was a brain
fart). If, on my turn, I walk 30 feet, I don't *stop*
walking while you take your turn, then resume walking
when it's my turn again. I am considered to be in the
process of walking the entire time.

Likewise, if, on my turn, I hover, I continue to hover
until it is my turn again.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

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

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
>
> 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.

100% agreed.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

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

Senator Blutarsky wrote:

> Symbol wrote:
>
>>What frigging rules? There are *NO RULES* that state an ongoing spell
>>fizzles because they bloody don't. Somebody made an error early on a cited
>>a rule that applied to *CASTING* spells. Since then too many of you are
>>being bloody stupid instead of readjusting for the error.
>
>
> All right. I'm getting a little tired of seeing you
> misrepresent this (though I believe it's an honest
> mistake on your part), so let's clear it up. I'm the
> one who cited the rule, and there was no "error." What
> happened was that in his reply, Goslin disingenuously
> snipped the follow-up sentence, which noted that the
> cited rule (obviously) did not apply specifically to
> spells that had already been successfully cast

Aplogies. I hadn't counted on Goslin's dishonesty and obviously must
have missed your original argument. Never the less, some people are
obviously assuming that this rule applies to existant spells as they are
making claims that failure agrees with the rules.

>, but
> that it would invite major abuses to not extend the
> reasoning to such spells. THAT's all the "readjusting"
> anyone needs to do.

What abuses? A spell doesn't have to fail for its effects to no longer
function (by parameters described in the descriptions). If you have
something else in mind please explain.

 

[Guest]

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

Senator Blutarsky wrote:

> Symbol wrote:
>
>>What frigging rules? There are *NO RULES* that state an ongoing spell
>>fizzles because they bloody don't. Somebody made an error early on a cited
>>a rule that applied to *CASTING* spells. Since then too many of you are
>>being bloody stupid instead of readjusting for the error.
>
>
> All right. I'm getting a little tired of seeing you
> misrepresent this (though I believe it's an honest
> mistake on your part), so let's clear it up. I'm the
> one who cited the rule, and there was no "error." What
> happened was that in his reply, Goslin disingenuously
> snipped the follow-up sentence, which noted that the
> cited rule (obviously) did not apply specifically to
> spells that had already been successfully cast

Aplogies. I hadn't counted on Goslin's dishonesty and obviously must
have missed your original argument. Never the less, some people are
obviously assuming that this rule applies to existant spells as they are
making claims that failure agrees with the rules.

>, but
> that it would invite major abuses to not extend the
> reasoning to such spells. THAT's all the "readjusting"
> anyone needs to do.

What abuses? A spell doesn't have to fail for its effects to no longer
function (by parameters described in the descriptions). If you have
something else in mind please explain.

 

[Guest]

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

Symbol wrote:
>
> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>
> > Symbol wrote:
> >
> >, but
> > that it would invite major abuses to not extend the
> > reasoning to such spells. THAT's all the "readjusting"
> > anyone needs to do.
>
> What abuses? A spell doesn't have to fail for its effects to no longer
> function (by parameters described in the descriptions).

Agreed. But what Goslin was suggesting was that the
spell would neither "fail" *nor* cease to function just
because its parameters were exceeded. Whether the
spell actually fails (fizzles, expires, dissipates,
terminates, etc.) or simply ceases to function (is
suppressed for some period of time, temporarily
negated, or momentarily rendered moot) depends, IMO,
upon the exact wording of the spell description, its
intended effects, and the DM's common sense.

I hope that clears up *my* position on the topic, at
least.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:45:00 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:

>It's the horizontal motion of the plane that creates the airflow that gives
>the verticle lift that the plane requires to stay aloft. Airplane no move =
>airplane hit ground.

Yes, the airplane needs to move. But it is still the air that is
supporting the plane. The upward force that keeps the plane aloft
comes from AIR. The air below the wing is pushing harder than the air
above the wing, so the plane does not fall.

 

[Guest]

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

Will Green wrote:

> 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.
>

Since the rules treat the two things differently this is an irrelevant
consideration.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:02:14 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:rhe5a1t8d6gpknemnutq9tuhlsbhggubvk@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 03:29:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> >I pointed out that you were incorrectly understanding the breadth of the
>> >concept of the jet (a jet engine is called such because it creates a jet,
>> >after all). In fact, you're even wrong on that account; a jet with
>> >sufficient thrust will support weight without the use of a wing or
>forward
>> >motion (see Harrier or other VTOL vehicle, or the F-16's ability to
>> >accelerate straight up).
>>
>> A harrier doing VTOL or any other plane going verticle is not being
>> supported by anything in the same way as a horizontal aircraft is.
>
> That's the point. They are being supported on ... jets of air.

No, supported BY jets of air. The hockey puck on the air table is being
supported ON jets of air. One is internal, the other is external.

 

[Guest]

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

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch hastily scrawled:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:02:14 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
><mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:
>
>>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>>news:rhe5a1t8d6gpknemnutq9tuhlsbhggubvk@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 03:29:21 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>>> >I pointed out that you were incorrectly understanding the breadth of the
>>> >concept of the jet (a jet engine is called such because it creates a jet,
>>> >after all). In fact, you're even wrong on that account; a jet with
>>> >sufficient thrust will support weight without the use of a wing or
>>forward
>>> >motion (see Harrier or other VTOL vehicle, or the F-16's ability to
>>> >accelerate straight up).
>>>
>>> A harrier doing VTOL or any other plane going verticle is not being
>>> supported by anything in the same way as a horizontal aircraft is.
>>
>> That's the point. They are being supported on ... jets of air.
>
>No, supported BY jets of air. The hockey puck on the air table is being
>supported ON jets of air. One is internal, the other is external.

You're funny. Tell another one.



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

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 17:24:00 GMT, Chad Lubrecht <chad.lubrecht@verizon.net>
scribed into the ether:

>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:45:00 GMT, Matt Frisch
><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>
>>It's the horizontal motion of the plane that creates the airflow that gives
>>the verticle lift that the plane requires to stay aloft. Airplane no move =
>>airplane hit ground.
>
>Yes, the airplane needs to move. But it is still the air that is
>supporting the plane. The upward force that keeps the plane aloft
>comes from AIR. The air below the wing is pushing harder than the air
>above the wing, so the plane does not fall.

Put a stationary boat in the water, stand on the land, put a plane in the
air that isn't moving...

2 of those will be fine, the last will not. Air alone is NOT SUFFICIENT. It
must be moving.

And please, no bullshit about how all matter is constantly in motion, you
know damn well what I mean.

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:qit3a1dkbp6aqnv1q5hccg7mckrtmitn88@4ax.com...
> >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?

You'll note that I haven't bothered to respond to actual content from either
him or you in quite some time. I'm in a nitpicking phase where I poke you
guys with sticks, so I have technically "responded", but I haven't bothered
to actually respond to your respective arguments for a while now.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
news:2ge5a1t74jf0e15j7m52opkec555prbh4k@4ax.com:

>>> The weight of people.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not the weight, the density. Sheesh.
>
> Are you familiar with people made of helium?
>

No, but I am familiar with people riding in blimps.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> Matt Frisch wrote:
> > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > >
> > > 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?
>
> You'll note that I haven't bothered to respond to actual
> content from either him or you in quite some time. I'm
> in a nitpicking phase where I poke you guys with sticks,
> so I have technically "responded", but I haven't bothered
> to actually respond to your respective arguments for a
> while now.

So you're a coward who lost many, many arguments. We already knew
that, though.

We're talking about the responses you made *very* recently. Long
ones. Those aren't "poking with sticks".

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 19:45:24 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:qit3a1dkbp6aqnv1q5hccg7mckrtmitn88@4ax.com...
>> >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?
>
>You'll note that I haven't bothered to respond to actual content from either
>him or you in quite some time.

Your definition of "quite some time" varies wildly from the rest of
humanity, considering your last such post was what, 2 days ago?

> I'm in a nitpicking phase where I poke you
>guys with sticks, so I have technically "responded", but I haven't bothered
>to actually respond to your respective arguments for a while now.

Uh huh. So Jeff, where are those high school physics links to show us how
unbalanced forces work?

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:01:08 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
>news:2ge5a1t74jf0e15j7m52opkec555prbh4k@4ax.com:
>
>>>> The weight of people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not the weight, the density. Sheesh.
>>
>> Are you familiar with people made of helium?
>>
>
> No, but I am familiar with people riding in blimps.

D&D not the Hindenberg...and yes, I know the Hindenberg was hydrogen.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:31:34 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 00:01:08 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
>scribed into the ether:
>>
>> No, but I am familiar with people riding in blimps.
>
>D&D not the Hindenberg...and yes, I know the Hindenberg was hydrogen.

Hot air balloons are not unknown in many D&D campaigns, though.

 

[KAOS]

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

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:46:04 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> dared speak in front of ME:

>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 17:43:12 -0600, Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com>
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>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.
>
>The weight of people.

On their own, no.

With proper gear to spread that weight out across a greater surface
area, absolutely. Hence Marc's correction to 'density.'

--
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

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:2ge5a1t74jf0e15j7m52opkec555prbh4k@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 03:22:08 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
> scribed into the ether:
>
> >Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
> >news:m8f4a1d6sb640aak20p4e2dbe8qfbi7k45@4ax.com:
> >
> >> The weight of people.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Not the weight, the density. Sheesh.
>
> Are you familiar with people made of helium?

Yeah, they speak in very high pitched voices, it's pretty funny, so much so
that it's hard to take them seriously. I keep hearing them say "We wish to
welcome you to... Munch... Kin... Laaaaaand!"

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

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

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1118032331.9c1633eee34d4461b06a7f11d0259f4f@teranews...
> We're talking about the responses you made *very* recently. Long
> ones. Those aren't "poking with sticks".

I count "a long time" in terms of usenet, by the number of posts in the
thread, not the number of days it's been going on. A long time ago here has
got to be hundreds of posts at least, at least sufficiently long for this
thread to have drifted into the realm of jet propulsion. Enjoy the thread,
though, I'll just let you guys babble on about airflows and helium and jets
and such.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:z2toe.1319$HM.453@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Billy Yank" <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns966BC04B587CEbillyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11...
> > Suddenly, Michael Scott Brown, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the
> > darkness and exclaimed:
> >
> > > Even with a successful check, all the foes you hold counts as part of
> > > your load (creatures can fly only of lightly loaded). If you're
> > > overloaded, you must drop all foes or stall, even if you don't have a
> > > minimum forward speed. If you choose to hang on, you stall and all
> > > foes in your grasp fall along with you. You cannot recover from the
> > > stall until you shed your excess load.
> >
> > This passage here seems to answer the question of what happens when a
> > flying wizard get overloaded.
>
> Yup. Imagine that. It's like, what we've been telling Jeffie all
this
> time.

I read the entire material provided. I saw *NOTHING* which vindicates
either side in the particular instance of a large creature(eg dragon)
dropping on the head of a smaller creature. That you think it does is
clearly a case of selective interpretation. I'll leave it at that. Yes,
you may now call me a moron, but bear in mind that your post is out there
for anyone to read, and I highly recommend you don't press the issue by
bringing it up again for someone to disagree with you, because this
particular section of quoted rule interpretations does nothing to resolve
the question at hand in the instance of the fly spell failure by
overloading, as previously laid out.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

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

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1118032331.9c1633eee34d4461b06a7f11d0259f4f@teranews...
> So you're a coward who lost many, many arguments. We already knew
> that, though.

Notice how Jeffie has completely vanished now that it has been proven
decisively that *every* *single* *thing* he believed was wrong, be it 2nd
Edition or 3rd?

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ziToe.1$jX6.0@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
> news:1118032331.9c1633eee34d4461b06a7f11d0259f4f@teranews...
> > So you're a coward who lost many, many arguments. We already knew
> > that, though.
>
> Notice how Jeffie has completely vanished now that it has been proven
> decisively that *every* *single* *thing* he believed was wrong, be it 2nd
> Edition or 3rd?

No, Mikey, I've vanished because I got the answer to my question. The
answer is this: there is NO explicit rule that handles the generic case of
a spell failure in mid duration. There are interpretations of the existing
rules to handle such an event, and I will be using the suppression model
myself.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 05:53:48 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
wrote:

>No, Mikey, I've vanished because I got the answer to my question.

Brave Sir Goslin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Goslin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Goslin!


--
js

 

[Guest]

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

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> Symbol wrote:
>
>>Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Symbol wrote:
>>>
>>>, but
>>>that it would invite major abuses to not extend the
>>>reasoning to such spells. THAT's all the "readjusting"
>>>anyone needs to do.
>>
>>What abuses? A spell doesn't have to fail for its effects to no longer
>>function (by parameters described in the descriptions).
>
>
> Agreed. But what Goslin was suggesting was that the
> spell would neither "fail" *nor* cease to function just
> because its parameters were exceeded.

Yeah but he's an idiot.

> Whether the
> spell actually fails (fizzles, expires, dissipates,
> terminates, etc.) or simply ceases to function (is
> suppressed for some period of time, temporarily
> negated, or momentarily rendered moot) depends, IMO,
> upon the exact wording of the spell description, its
> intended effects, and the DM's common sense.
>
> I hope that clears up *my* position on the topic, at
> least.

Sure.