Feather Falling and Belayed companions

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:YKudnRZZqe4svwjfRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> The characters are traversing a mountain pass, all of them belayed
together
> with rope, and one of the characters is wearing the ring of feather
falling,
> when "all of a sudden at the whim of the DM who wishes to be a prick like
> that", something nasty or unexpected knocks the entire mess of them off
the
> ledge/precipice/whatever. They are, as a group, now in free fall off the
> side of a cliff.

After quickly reading the 3E SRD and looking over the books for 3.5, I think
I have a legal answer.

The ring takes effect in 3E after the first 3 feet. In 3.5, it is 5 feet.
Minor
difference but in this case it could stop the splat.

Initially, the ring functions and slows the wearer. However, it only works
briefly if the ring wearer is first or last in line. If in the middle of the
group
then the spell is immediately overloaded and fails. This is really
meaningless
but included for completeness. The feather fall ring wearer eventually
becomes
last in the string regardless of where he started.

The next part depends on whether or not it has limited charges. I'll assume
unlimited charges. Because the trigger is falling X number of feet, you
could
empty all the charges in a long fall as feather fall is triggered every X
number
of feet if overloaded. Also the description doesn't seem to limit charges.
Charges stop firing if the spell takes effect if charges are limited.

Now, Regardless of what position our ring wearer started, all who were
tied together eventually go splat. Apply falling damage as needed. The
exception is for those that are wearing the feather fall ring. As each body
hits the ground, the weight stops pulling on the rope. If there is more than
3 or 5 feet between each of them, depending on which set of rules, then
the ring takes effect and saves the ring wearer from damage.

For the reality fans, there is no allowance for deceleration. The effect is
instantaneous and I would assume that the spell effect prevents damage
from any sudden deceleration due to falling acceleration before the spell
is activated.

There. I think that fits within 3E and 3.5 rules. Where was that rules
lawyer
guy when you needed him?

 

[Guest]

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

CryptWolf wrote:
> For the reality fans, there is no allowance for deceleration. The effect is
> instantaneous and I would assume that the spell effect prevents damage
> from any sudden deceleration due to falling acceleration before the spell
> is activated.
> There. I think that fits within 3E and 3.5 rules. Where was that rules
> lawyer guy when you needed him?

I don't have the books at work, but I thought when the spell is working, it's a
gentle fall, but after it ends, it's a speedy pickup to regular distance fall
damage.

From the srd3.5, of the spell Feather Fall:

"The affected creatures or objects fall slowly. Feather fall instantly changes
the rate at which the targets fall to a mere 60 feet per round (equivalent to
the end of a fall from a few feet), and the subjects take no damage upon landing
while the spell is in effect. However, when the spell duration expires, a normal
rate of falling resumes."
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> writes:

> "Senator Blutarsky" <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:429629DE.4BA3A266@comcast.net...
>> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> >
>> > My common sense tells me that feather fall would act even if a person
> were
>> > "over-encumbered", even if it acted in a somewhat less effective manner,
>>
>> This is why there is a general lack of respect for your
>> "common sense" on this newsgroup.
>
> Not so much, really. There is a SPECIFIC lack of respect, from one person,
> but he's a cock to everyone, so there is that.

No.

Because it is *obvious* to anyone with a reading ability above that of
a 12-year old that you don't read and understand the rules.

The rules are simple: you don't meet the prerequisites for a spell,
the spell doesn't work at all, unless the spell description says
otherwise.

The fact that you are trying to discuss something that is so obvious
it doesn't need discussing paints you as, quite frankly, an idiot.

And yes, I know I have stated that I usually agree with MSB, so you'll
probably disregard my opinion. That still means that your statement
that only one person disrespects you is *provably* false, again
proving that, yes, Jeff, you *are* an idiot.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

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

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> writes:

> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>>
>> "MisterMichael" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:1117140781.644614.221230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > So do you now wish to tell us that you can't see how all the *other*
>> > spells in the game with weight limits stop working when one extra pound
>> > is added that takes them over the top? Teleport has a weight limit. Fly
>> > has a weight limit. Levitate has a weight limit. Tenser's Floating
>> > Disk has a weight limit.
>>
>> So, in your game, what you're telling us is that if you has some situation
>> where a PC was levitating and being laden up with stuff, the instant he hit
>> X+1 pounds(whatever the limit is), he would plummet out of the sky, until
>> such a point where he dropped the oil flask that put him over the top, at
>> which point, he comes to a screeching levitatinous halt. And somehow *I* am
>> the one without common sense here, righty-o there, Mikey.
>
> Leaving aside the "screeching" hyperbole, THAT'S
> EXACTLY CORRECT, you twit!

IMO it still isn't correct.

The spell has fizzled. The fact that the conditions that caused the
fizzle don't exist anymore does not reinstate the spell's effect
(unless the spell description notes that the effect can be temporarily
suppressed).

The only way to reinstate a fizzled spell's effect is by recasting it,
according to my reading of the rules.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 27 May 2005 07:27:34 +0200, Mart van de Wege
<mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>Because it is *obvious* to anyone with a reading ability above that of
>a 12-year old that you don't read and understand the rules.
>
>The rules are simple: you don't meet the prerequisites for a spell,
>the spell doesn't work at all, unless the spell description says
>otherwise.
>
>The fact that you are trying to discuss something that is so obvious
>it doesn't need discussing paints you as, quite frankly, an idiot.
>
>And yes, I know I have stated that I usually agree with MSB, so you'll
>probably disregard my opinion. That still means that your statement
>that only one person disrespects you is *provably* false, again
>proving that, yes, Jeff, you *are* an idiot.

The rules make it very clear what happens when you *CAST* such an
impossible spell.

They do not address what happens when the spell becomes overloaded
while it's running.

Also, the strict interpretation being promoted on here has another
problem: The ring doesn't work for someone with more than 100 pounds
of gear. It's very easy for a fighter to exceed that.

As I see it, trying to impose a weight limit on what the guy can lift
while under the spell just causes too many headaches. Thus I think
the more sensible ruling is that there is no weight limit beyond the
fact that the guy with the ring is going to be holding an awful lot of
weight on those ropes.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <jLlle.145$q4.144@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
> news:me-B6FC5C.19494526052005@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > If instead of being attached to a falling party the FFer was being drawn
> > down by a high-speed winch which was bolted to the bottom of the chasm,
> > would that negate the Feather Fall because the FFer is "equipped" with
> > the planet? If an Ogre lassos you and pulls on the rope are you
> > "equipped" with the Ogre?
>
> Feather fall only affects *Free falling* targets. Please, Kevin. READ
> THE SPELL DESCRIPTION. Goslin is an idiot for not reading it before
> posting, and you are now doubly so. Every single one of your but-ifs is
> decisively settled by the simple expedient of reviewing the rule!

I read that, but my thinking is that if you interpret "free falling" too
strictly you get unwanted results. My example of a downdraft is one.
It seems daft on the face of it that a 5kph downdraft makes feather
falling impossible for anyone, but a feather falling giant can carry an
elephant.

If we are reading "free falling" that strictly, then holding up an
umbrella as you fell would also cancel a Feather Fall, and you could
prevent someone from feather falling by attaching a piece of thin string
to their back and letting it run through your hand as they fell.

I strongly suspect the intention of that clause was to close off the
trick from earlier editions of using Feather Fall on non-falling targets
for various purposes. Normally I'm a strict literalist when it comes to
spell effects, but I am finding the language on this one fuzzy enough
that I have to fall back on trying to divine writer intent to some
extent in this case, and my inclination is to believe that the intent
with the 3e rewrite was that you could get around falling damage even if
there is a downdraft or you had an umbrella, but you absolutely couldn't
use Feather Fall for anything other than controlling a rapid descent.

> > I would say a reflex save is fairest but the DC would depend on the
> > circumstances of the fall and how much warning they had that they were
> > about to take a nosedive.
>
> Unfortunately, doing so sets a quickdraw-negating precedent; if one can
> draw and slash in one second during a fall...

I disagree, I think it would only be such a precedent if you let them
get around the actions-per-round limits by making such a save. If they
fell in combat I would be happy to allow a suitable save to let someone
resolve their draw-and-slash before we resolve them hitting the ground,
but that would be their move action and their standard action used up.

> > Firstly, what happens if the subject of a FF experiences a downward
> > force greater than their weight plus their carrying capacity?
>
> If it ain't free fall, it ain't feather fall.

Okay, but if you cast the spell and then after it has taken effect you
encounter a downward (or upward) non-equipment force is the Feather Fall
dispelled, suppressed, or does it have a partial effect?

> > I do not think the FF text gives us a definitive answer to either
> question.
>
> Except that it did.

I can see how you can plausibly get a definitive answer to the question
of what subjects are legitimate targets for a Feather Fall, although I
do not like that reading myself and I think it is questionable. It
certainly doesn't tell us what happens when a happy Feather Faller
encounters an unexpected downward force, or for that matter an upward
one.

--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

 

[Guest]

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

"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:87is15me61.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
> Because it is *obvious* to anyone with a reading ability above that of
> a 12-year old that you don't read and understand the rules.

You're right, I haven't fully read and admittedly don't fully understand the
rules. Hence the question.

> The rules are simple: you don't meet the prerequisites for a spell,
> the spell doesn't work at all, unless the spell description says
> otherwise.


This seems like an appropriate time for a statement. I asked a rules
question, for a definitive answer from the rules about a specific situation,
and for the time being, nobody has given me a rule quote that would cause me
to think that anything that has been said is anything BUT personal
interpretation, and I can personally interpret on my own just fine.

Many people have been saying that if the conditions of the spell are not met
at the time of casting, the spell fails, and this I would agree with, but in
this particular instance, at the time of casting, spell conditions are NOT
being exceeded, so I am therefore seeking a FURTHER rule that indicates what
happens DURING a spell when the spell limits are exceeded, and it would
APPEAR that there is no specific rule that indicates what happens to a spell
when the conditions are exceeded. Does it completely stop functioning
forever, as many people have indicated? If so, where's that rule? Does it
get completely supressed until the conditions cease to be exceeded, and then
resume for the duration? If so, where's THAT rule? Does it cease to
function as effectively, working progressively worse as the condition is
exceeded by more and more? If so, where is THAT rule? Do ya see what I'm
getting at?

> The fact that you are trying to discuss something that is so obvious
> it doesn't need discussing paints you as, quite frankly, an idiot.

If this is so patently obvious, if it's very clearly in the rules, find the
rule. So far, what I've been hearing is interpretation and conjecture, NOT
rules. I'm fully happy to declare myself an idiot and concede to the
respective superior knowledges of every poster, if only what was being told
to me was an explicit rule.

> And yes, I know I have stated that I usually agree with MSB, so you'll
> probably disregard my opinion. That still means that your statement
> that only one person disrespects you is *provably* false, again

Well it wasn't so much that only one person disrespects me, it's that one
person is unduly influencing the jury, if you will. But hey, that's
alright, if I'm such an idiot, it should be a trivial matter to PROVE me
wrong. And honestly, I'd like it very much if there were a definitive
answer to this, as it would seriously make my life easier.

--
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?)

"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:87ekbtmdxn.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
> The spell has fizzled. The fact that the conditions that caused the
> fizzle don't exist anymore does not reinstate the spell's effect
> (unless the spell description notes that the effect can be temporarily
> suppressed).
>
> The only way to reinstate a fizzled spell's effect is by recasting it,
> according to my reading of the rules.

So, by that line of reasoning, I take it that if a large creature locks you
up when in mid air, any weight based spell would suddenly cease, even if the
time of that contact is only the briefest of moments? That's pretty silly,
dude.

--
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?)

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-D8AAB2.00551328052005@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > Feather fall only affects *Free falling* targets. Please, Kevin.
READ
> > THE SPELL DESCRIPTION. Goslin is an idiot for not reading it before
> > posting, and you are now doubly so. Every single one of your but-ifs is
> > decisively settled by the simple expedient of reviewing the rule!
>
> I read that, but my thinking is that if you interpret "free falling" too
> strictly you get unwanted results. My example of a downdraft is one.
> It seems daft on the face of it that a 5kph downdraft makes feather
> falling impossible for anyone, but a feather falling giant can carry an
> elephant.

A fine subtlety, but an irrelevant one, to my thinking. As long as the
individuals in question are behaving as projectiles in that airstream would,
they're freely falling. Holding an umbrella or even a parachute is
perfectly ok, the fact that you're draggy is a non-issue with respect to
whether or not you are falling freely. Being tied to a winch that is
pulling you down, however ...

> > If it ain't free fall, it ain't feather fall.
>
> Okay, but if you cast the spell and then after it has taken effect you
> encounter a downward (or upward) non-equipment force is the Feather Fall
> dispelled, suppressed, or does it have a partial effect?

If the conditions for FF to operate are violated, it ends.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ghe91ppd3egnnpijfl8o9iaphrrojpf66@4ax.com...
> >here: (1) the dragon continues flying, taking the
> >wizard along with him whether the wizard likes it or
> >not, or (2) the dragon chooses to stop flying and
> >become "dead weight," in which case both it *and the
> >wizard* drop like stones.
>
> That doesn't look like what he's saying at all.
> I think what he's saying is that if the flying guy is grappled the fly
> spell remains in effect, it's just unable to overcome the dragon.
> When released he can fly off rather than plummet.

While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_ is
irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries himself
out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is no
encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:h6Ile.734$s64.182@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_
is
> irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries
himself
> out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is no
> encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
> encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.

At LEAST be internally consistent. You have said, multiple times in the
past that if the conditions for casting a spell are somehow exceeded, even
during the duration of the spell, it instantaneously and irrevocably fails,
ceasing to function altogether.

By this rationale, despite your having said that feather falling would fail,
as soon as you cut the ropes that belay your companions, the feather fall
would kick in again. This runs contrary to everything you have thus far
said about spell failure.

So which is it? Does the spell fail completely(as you originally stated),
or is it just supressed(as in the case of this fly spell example)? If so,
find that rule, quote it, and call me an idiot. If not, admit you were
simply providing your interpretation, and call me an idiot(since I'm sure
that's the only thing you're really interested in doing anyways).

--
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 Fri, 27 May 2005 16:42:53 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8ghe91ppd3egnnpijfl8o9iaphrrojpf66@4ax.com...
>> >here: (1) the dragon continues flying, taking the
>> >wizard along with him whether the wizard likes it or
>> >not, or (2) the dragon chooses to stop flying and
>> >become "dead weight," in which case both it *and the
>> >wizard* drop like stones.
>>
>> That doesn't look like what he's saying at all.
>> I think what he's saying is that if the flying guy is grappled the fly
>> spell remains in effect, it's just unable to overcome the dragon.
>> When released he can fly off rather than plummet.
>
> While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_ is
>irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries himself
>out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is no
>encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
>encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.

Dragon folds his wings momentarily then drops the wizard.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "Mart van de Wege" wrote
> > The spell has fizzled. The fact that the conditions that caused the
> > fizzle don't exist anymore does not reinstate the spell's effect
> > (unless the spell description notes that the effect can be temporarily
> > suppressed).
> >
> > The only way to reinstate a fizzled spell's effect is by recasting it,
> > according to my reading of the rules.
>
> So, by that line of reasoning, I take it that if a large creature locks
you
> up when in mid air, any weight based spell would suddenly cease, even if
the
> time of that contact is only the briefest of moments? That's pretty
silly,
> dude.

Its very silly, and would only apply if the Large Creature was not flying on
its own and depended on the flying PC to hold it up. Now, if the flying
creature just grabbed on and kept flying the spell would not stop as the PC
is not carrying any extra weight.
But you already know this, don't you?

John

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:54:07 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>news:87ekbtmdxn.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
>> The spell has fizzled. The fact that the conditions that caused the
>> fizzle don't exist anymore does not reinstate the spell's effect
>> (unless the spell description notes that the effect can be temporarily
>> suppressed).
>>
>> The only way to reinstate a fizzled spell's effect is by recasting it,
>> according to my reading of the rules.
>
>So, by that line of reasoning, I take it that if a large creature locks you
>up when in mid air, any weight based spell would suddenly cease, even if the
>time of that contact is only the briefest of moments? That's pretty silly,
>dude.

Yes, your example is very silly.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:40:05 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> scribed into the ether:

>On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:42:53 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
><mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:8ghe91ppd3egnnpijfl8o9iaphrrojpf66@4ax.com...
>>> >here: (1) the dragon continues flying, taking the
>>> >wizard along with him whether the wizard likes it or
>>> >not, or (2) the dragon chooses to stop flying and
>>> >become "dead weight," in which case both it *and the
>>> >wizard* drop like stones.
>>>
>>> That doesn't look like what he's saying at all.
>>> I think what he's saying is that if the flying guy is grappled the fly
>>> spell remains in effect, it's just unable to overcome the dragon.
>>> When released he can fly off rather than plummet.
>>
>> While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_ is
>>irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries himself
>>out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is no
>>encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
>>encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.
>
>Dragon folds his wings momentarily then drops the wizard.

Splat goes the wizard.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:02:27 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:h6Ile.734$s64.182@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_
>is
>> irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries
>himself
>> out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is no
>> encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
>> encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.
>
>At LEAST be internally consistent. You have said, multiple times in the
>past that if the conditions for casting a spell are somehow exceeded, even
>during the duration of the spell, it instantaneously and irrevocably fails,
>ceasing to function altogether.

Grappling with dragon != carrying weight of dragon.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:52:09 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>news:87is15me61.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
>> Because it is *obvious* to anyone with a reading ability above that of
>> a 12-year old that you don't read and understand the rules.
>
>You're right, I haven't fully read and admittedly don't fully understand the
>rules.

So why do you persist in arguing with those that do?

 

[Guest]

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

Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 27 May 2005 07:27:34 +0200, Mart van de Wege
> <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>>Because it is *obvious* to anyone with a reading ability above that of
>>a 12-year old that you don't read and understand the rules.
>>
>>The rules are simple: you don't meet the prerequisites for a spell,
>>the spell doesn't work at all, unless the spell description says
>>otherwise.
>>
>>The fact that you are trying to discuss something that is so obvious
>>it doesn't need discussing paints you as, quite frankly, an idiot.
>>
>>And yes, I know I have stated that I usually agree with MSB, so you'll
>>probably disregard my opinion. That still means that your statement
>>that only one person disrespects you is *provably* false, again
>>proving that, yes, Jeff, you *are* an idiot.
>
> The rules make it very clear what happens when you *CAST* such an
> impossible spell.
>
> They do not address what happens when the spell becomes overloaded
> while it's running.
>
Same as what happens when someone casts an opposing spell, I guess? It
is the most logical and sane reading of the rules, and D&D magic has
always worked in that binary on/off manner.

> Also, the strict interpretation being promoted on here has another
> problem: The ring doesn't work for someone with more than 100 pounds
> of gear. It's very easy for a fighter to exceed that.
>
Then perhaps:

1. The standard ring isn't targeted at Fighters? Or...

2. The Fighter should splurge out more cash for a higher-level
version?

> As I see it, trying to impose a weight limit on what the guy can lift
> while under the spell just causes too many headaches.

We're not trying to *impose* a weight limit. The weight limit is a
*prerequisite* for the spell, and it's right there in the description.

> Thus I think the more sensible ruling is that there is no weight
> limit beyond the fact that the guy with the ring is going to be
> holding an awful lot of weight on those ropes.

That would make the standard CL1 ring *way* too powerful. Sorry,
that's by no means a sensible reading of the rules.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:56:36 +0200, Mart van de Wege
<mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>> The rules make it very clear what happens when you *CAST* such an
>> impossible spell.
>>
>> They do not address what happens when the spell becomes overloaded
>> while it's running.
>>
>Same as what happens when someone casts an opposing spell, I guess? It
>is the most logical and sane reading of the rules, and D&D magic has
>always worked in that binary on/off manner.

It can be argued either way.

>> Also, the strict interpretation being promoted on here has another
>> problem: The ring doesn't work for someone with more than 100 pounds
>> of gear. It's very easy for a fighter to exceed that.
>>
>Then perhaps:
>
>1. The standard ring isn't targeted at Fighters? Or...
>
>2. The Fighter should splurge out more cash for a higher-level
> version?

If this were the case I think the book would have said something in
the item description. Since it doesn't mention this all-to-likely
possibility I can only conclude that the minimum weight limit is his
max encumberance.

>> Thus I think the more sensible ruling is that there is no weight
>> limit beyond the fact that the guy with the ring is going to be
>> holding an awful lot of weight on those ropes.
>
>That would make the standard CL1 ring *way* too powerful. Sorry,
>that's by no means a sensible reading of the rules.

How often will people be belayed together. Note, also, that my
proposed solution bangs people up pretty well.

 

[Guest]

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

"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a70f91p6bh2t0n7csp8fp9m7les6sfgcc9@4ax.com...
> The rules make it very clear what happens when you *CAST* such an
> impossible spell.
>
> They do not address what happens when the spell becomes overloaded
> while it's running.

This is the exact point I've been trying to get across. Yes, it's obvious
that a person cannot cast feather fall while they are laden down with 1000
pounds of "stuff"(adventurers and their gear), that much is handled by the
rules. But in the instance I provided, there is only the briefest moment
where the character actually weighs that much, and that would be at the
EXACT moment the character is pulled off the mountain by the other tumbling
characters. Since that moment is over in a fraction of a second, being the
charitable DM that I am, I will grant a PC the fact that the spell will NOT
fail based on that criteria, because any wizard who has learned feather fall
would probably then have been warned as such: "Do it before you fall, or
while you're falling, but NOT while you're being pulled over the edge."

So, if there's no rule, I guess I have to make one up to cover that
situation, and I will NOT be using the "it stops working" interpretation
provided by MSB.

However, I'd like to give every opportunity for an actual RULE to be stated,
since, admittedly, I do not know the rules of 3E well at all. I am a 3E
moron(or, if you prefer, I'm simply a moron, to make MSB's life a little
easier).

--
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?)

"John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:lIMle.257671$cg1.39749@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Its very silly, and would only apply if the Large Creature was not flying
on
> its own and depended on the flying PC to hold it up. Now, if the flying
> creature just grabbed on and kept flying the spell would not stop as the
PC
> is not carrying any extra weight.
> But you already know this, don't you?

Yes, but if the rule were applied in this manner, and the PC in question WAS
fighting a dragon, at least in our campaign, dragons are (by definition) of
super-genius intelligence, and would know the ways to cease a spell from
functioning, especially one as ubiquitously useful in combat as "Fly".
Therefore, a smart dragon (as ALL dragons are) would simply latch on, cease
flying and plummet for a round, and then... let go... poof, end of
wizard...

This "immediate spell cessation" bit could potentially lead to many such
abuses of that little caveat of spell casting, including horrific abuses
done by the players. For example, since Monster Summoning allows the PC to
designate their "appearance point"(at least it's that way in 2E), a VERY
fast way of ending ALL spells of this nature are to have the summoned
creatures appear about 2 feet ABOVE any affected wizard. A few would latch
on before they fell(making appropriate saving throws or something), and that
would be the end of the wizard(not to mention all of your summoned
creatures). But honestly, to kill a wizard for the cost of a monster
summoning spell simply because the wizard was flying at the time? That's a
cheap price if you ask me.

Yes, I understand that if the conditions of the spell are not met before
it's even cast, well, that's one thing, but to have spells immediately cease
functioning altogether if the limits are exceeded, well, that opens up a
whole can of worms that I DOUBT any DM, even the most experienced one, could
possibly prepare for, given that (at least in OUR campaign) players tend to
be crafty little buggars, and would find the ways to exploit spells rather
easily(like in our flying example). Furthermore, the cessation of spells by
PC's in the manner described above would, at least in OUR campaign, be cause
for rather significant mutiny on the part of the players, and I wouldn't
blame them in the slightest.

--
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 message
news:jn6f919jkfljhsjs3g5n5maba88dkt0bg9@4ax.com...
> >You're right, I haven't fully read and admittedly don't fully understand
the
> >rules.
>
> So why do you persist in arguing with those that do?

Well, at first, I had a legitimate question. Then, in a single post, I was
declared a moron, and then told that the rule was both obvious and
intelligent, and THEN I was described a "rule" that didn't apply, and told
that despite the fact that it didn't apply, that the "rule" was obvious, and
I was stupid.

Thus far, I haven't seen a *RULE* that supports the interpretation that is
being put forth, yet somehow the interpretation is being universally
supported as 100% true and accurate, not to mention supported by the rules,
but nobody can seem to quote the rule that appears to be universally
accepted as true.

At THIS point, I just want to know about this "rule" that supposedly exists
but nobody can find for me. I fully admit I'm a 3E moron, but nobody can
find the "rule" that everyone says is both obvious and applicable. As such,
I'm left to wonder who the real idiot is, the guy calling me a moron for
missing such an obvious rule that he can't find, or the guy who points out
that the ones doing the name-calling STILL haven't found this obvious rule
that supports their position.

On a side note, I'm *STILL* waiting for an official rule, and not an
interpretation. Until that time, I'm not really "arguing the rules", I'm
just pointing out that no rules are being argued, just interpretations.

--
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?)

"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:150f91lce7j4abtls5fkgd3ua46aplu2vh@4ax.com...
> > While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_
is
> >irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries
himself
> >out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is
no
> >encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
> >encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.
>
> Dragon folds his wings momentarily then drops the wizard.

*IRRELEVANT*. Once the wizard is able to move under his own power again,
he can fly as he pleases when it's his turn to move.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e6Rle.1820$MI4.1490@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:150f91lce7j4abtls5fkgd3ua46aplu2vh@4ax.com...
> > > While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*.
_Moving_
> is
> > >irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries
> himself
> > >out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is
> no
> > >encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
> > >encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.
> >
> > Dragon folds his wings momentarily then drops the wizard.
>
> *IRRELEVANT*. Once the wizard is able to move under his own power again,
> he can fly as he pleases when it's his turn to move.

I'm sorry, but you're just being stupid now. Not two posts ago, you were
saying that encumbrance would cause the instant cessation(not SUSPENSION but
CESSATION) of a feather fall when the feather fall was overloaded. Then you
say that a wizard who is wrapped up by a dragon that then plummets for a
round has a fly spell that does NOT cease, despite the fact that your claim
of my stupidity rests on the very fact that, in your mind, spells cease
instantly when they are overloaded. How much do dragons weigh, do you
think? A few dozen tons? Just how strong ARE your wizards?

IF you were being consistent in your position, the fly spell would cease the
INSTANT the dragon stopped flying and basically "rested" on the noggin of
the wizard(something it could easily do if it successfully grappled the
wizard). But you're not being consistent now.

I can see very clearly that you simply want to call me a moron, and you
either don't know what you're talking about or don't care to tell me what
you really think. Fine by me. Go right ahead. Here... here's a space for
you to do it(press the M key, then the O key... that's it... you can do
it)...









--
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 wrote:
> Consequently, when the weight limit is exceeded, the spell ENDS, and
> the user plummets until an abrupt encounter with the earth (or a feather
> fall spell) puts and end to his fall.

Surely then, by the same logic, if 2 targets of the same Haste spell
were to move further than 30ft from each other the Haste would end as
they're no longer valid targets. Or a Reduce Animal cast on a small
animal immediately ceases as the animal is no longer within the allowed
size range. I'm sure that can't be right.