Feather Falling and Belayed companions

[Guest]

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

One of the voices in my head - or was it Senator Blutarsky? - just
said...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> >
> > "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.
>
> I'm not a cock to everyone.
>
> I think you've miscounted. By a lot.

He gets more like Burke by the day. He, too, made himself an utter
pariah in this group and yet somehow got it into his head that MSB was
solely to blame for it all.

It actually looked like Goslin might have a couple of interesting posts,
and I was considering removing him from my killfile, but the "At least
be internally consistent!" post, where "internally consistent"
apparently means "stupid enough to think being grappled by something
[note - not even grappling it, *being* grappled] is the same thing as
carrying it" just proves why I put him there in the first place. The
quoted parts of it I've seen must be the most moronic thing I've read
since, well, the last time I read one of his posts, and in the meantime
I've marked about 90 first-year CT papers, some with such whoppers as
"Capital punishment has existed for more than 150 years" and "The police
usually catch the criminals and are charged with the crime".

 

[Guest]

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

<IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117278723.790236.282100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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 they're no longer valid targets.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.

Uh oh, sounds like a skeptic... don't worry, MSB will set you straight.
*rolls eyes*

You're correct, that *CAN'T* be right. If spells that exceed listed
paramaters instantaneously fail, every spell that has a limited area of
effect would INSTANTLY fail once ANYONE leaves the area of effect. That
CAN'T be right.

On a side note, I'm STILL waiting for someone to point to this apparantly
obvious and applicable "rule" that everyone KNOWS to be right, but somehow
can't seem to produce that supports their viewpoint.

--
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?)

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

> "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...
>
The dragon in that case is still holding the character, not vice
versa, so the weight limit still wouldn't kick in.

Do you have to work hard to reach this level of stupidity?

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?)

"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:87hdgnemt5.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
> The dragon in that case is still holding the character, not vice
> versa, so the weight limit still wouldn't kick in.
>
> Do you have to work hard to reach this level of stupidity?

Yes, it's quite difficult to be as stupid as I am.

Ok, knowing that I'm quite stupid, tell me this: when someone jumps on your
back, is that person carrying their own weight, or are you? I only ask
because, well, you know, being retarded like I am, I often get involved in
piggyback races, and it would appear that in YOUR world, when someone jumps
are your back, they don't weigh an ounce! That would be SO cool, if I lived
in your world, because then me and my retarded friends wouldn't have sore
backs from giving each other piggyback rides.

I hope that through my sarcasm you see the point. If not, I'd seriously
look into the college of stupidity that I attended, you need some SERIOUS
schooling to drag yourself up from idiot to moron.

--
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?)

In article <_HHle.728$s64.364@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "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 ...

The thing is, you're still deciding for yourself what "free falling"
means. Ruling out downdrafts and updrafts is a good move and one I
support, but I think we should overlook other sufficiently trivial
forces as well, such as a pixie or a string pulling upwards on your ear
or downwards on your toe. As long as you are heading on an uncontrolled
splat curve I am relaxed about feather falling even if for some reason
you are accelerating at 9.7 or 9.9 m/s/s rather than 9.8.

That is my interpretation of "free falling". It's worth mentioning that
the text specifies "free falling" as distinct from charging or being
swung, not as distinct from falling while clutching the end of an
unrolling spool of string.

> > > 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.

Cite? I just read through (what I believe to be) the relevant chunk of
the 3.5 PHB and found nothing to indicate that was the case.

--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

 

[Guest]

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

"Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
news:me-6A40A8.23020428052005@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > If the conditions for FF to operate are violated, it ends.
>
> Cite? I just read through (what I believe to be) the relevant chunk of
> the 3.5 PHB and found nothing to indicate that was the case.

I've been asking for that cite for a while, but it hasn't been forthcoming.
Maybe your calmer, more rational demeanor will incent him enough to find it
for us.

The only thing I'm noting about this particular belief that exceeding spell
tolerances causing instant spell ending is that it would appear, at least
from the small sample of responders, that it seems fairly universally
accepted as true, so I could concieve that SOMEWHERE in the rules, there is
a rule to cover it, because it's not just MSB that thinks it's true. He may
very well be right, and he just can't find the rule. If that's the case, if
he IS right, I would hasten to say that the rule he refers to is FAR too
well hidden, and a person could be understandably forgiven for not finding
it.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that if *I* can't find it(not like I've
delved far into 3E rules), and *YOU* can't find it(you sound like you HAVE
read the rules fairly well), and even *HE* (MSB, who appears to know the
rules) can't find it, then maybe the rule he's clinging to for dear life
doesn't exist. But hey, I'm willing to hear the guy out at least.

--
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?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
> I haven't said that I know the rules better than you, I think it's obvious I
> don't. All I am doing is informing you that the rule you have chosen to use
> as the reason for why it would fail DOES NOT APPLY. I'm not telling YOU
> what the rules are, you are telling ME, and I'm finding the rules don't
> apply to the situation described, and you're calling me a moron.

Yes, *because* you moronically conclude that "the rules
don't apply to the situation described." We can point
you to the rules time and time again, but since you
don't UNDERSTAND the things you read, it's rather
pointless.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

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

In article <BOCdnQJNUuCw7gXfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
> news:me-6A40A8.23020428052005@news01.comindico.com.au...

> However, I have a sneaking suspicion that if *I* can't find it(not like I've
> delved far into 3E rules), and *YOU* can't find it(you sound like you HAVE
> read the rules fairly well), and even *HE* (MSB, who appears to know the
> rules) can't find it, then maybe the rule he's clinging to for dear life
> doesn't exist. But hey, I'm willing to hear the guy out at least.

Back in the days of 3.0 I kept up with stuff and had a tolerable grasp
of the rules. Since 3.5 came out and I've moved away from my gaming
group, I've stopped tracking the rules as seriously and I no longer
consider myself clued up.

I think there's a good chance MSB is right, but I would like a cite just
to prove it.

--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l_qdnZBs9_07mwXfRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> Thus far, I haven't seen a *RULE* that supports the interpretation that is
> being put forth,

Do you really wish to contend that the text of Feather Fall does not
explain exactly the conditions under which it can operate?
Hmm?

*Pathetic*.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:F8ednSzis9XUlQXfRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > 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.

Gahh! Watch the irony meter!

> 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.

*Encumbrance*.

> 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?

Again, we see you continuing with this bizarre assertion that a dragon
grappling a wizard somehow "encumbers the wizard".
Why on earth do you think that dragging the wizard along for a ride
encumbers him? Please show us at *exactly* what point in the game mechanics
the wizard is "forced" to carry the dragon with his fly spell. All you have
to do is locate a point in time when the wizard tries to take Flying
movement while holding up the weight of a dragon.

> I can see very clearly that you simply want to call me a moron,

<chortles>
Goslin, we call you a moron, because YOU ARE.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b72dnQ3wFoNTkQXfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> Now, all that said, the example in question is where the dragon CEASES TO
> FLY, and basically "lands on your head" in mid flight(presumably in order
to
> accomplish this, first a grapple must be made). This action, intentional
on
> the dragon's part, would INSTANTLY cause your encumbrance to shoot up

No. <shakes head sadly> Please, Goslin. Put this *stupid* meme of
yours away. You simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND how the game's grappling mechanics
work. In addition to the highly amusing postulate that large monsters now
impose *encumbrance* penalties on their victims (!), you also keep insisting
that this somehow forces the wizard to carry the dragon. How? There's no
mechanism for it in the way the game plays. As soon as the grapple begins,
movement is irrelevant (without opposed grapple checks or the use
of -20-penalty mechanics).
Further, if you're going to make such a wild hash of the movement rules,
you may as well give the wizard a little credit - nothing forces him to try
to Fly against the weight of the dragon!
In short, you're wrong using the right rules, and you're wrong using your
*own* assumptions.
You are wrong, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

This is why we call you a moron.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lZ0me.2133$MI4.113@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:l_qdnZBs9_07mwXfRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> > Thus far, I haven't seen a *RULE* that supports the interpretation that
is
> > being put forth,
>
> Do you really wish to contend that the text of Feather Fall does not
> explain exactly the conditions under which it can operate?

No, the conditions of it's standard operation are fairly clear. The only
thing that's NOT clear is what happens when the conditions are exceeded.
Find that rule for us, please. You seem to know the rules better than
anyone in this thread, and we've been BEGGING you(in our own obnoxious way)
to find that rule, but you haven't done so.

This thread ends in an admitted victory for you if you find that rule for
me. I will concede to your brilliance, and fully admit that I am a
gibbering moron, and anything else you wish to refer to me as, provided you
can find that rule. I honestly would like to see that rule. You seem
utterly convinced that it's the case, that the rule exists and applies. You
simply haven't produced that rule. Simple. Elegant. Painless. Find the
rule, prove your case, and I will gladly capitulate to your astounding
brilliance.

Truth be told, I just don't have the patience to sift through the entire SRD
to try to find something that ISN'T in the obvious places where it would
likely be(with the spell descriptions, etc). I've looked in the obvious
places. I can't find it. You seem convinced it's in the rules, and you've
probably read every rule there is like a hundred times. Ok, fine, you know
the rules better than me, so YOU find it, if you're so convinced.

--
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:y21me.2140$MI4.2102@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Again, we see you continuing with this bizarre assertion that a
dragon
> grappling a wizard somehow "encumbers the wizard".

See my post about the piggyback rides, and then tell me that having a dragon
sitting on your head DOESN'T encumber you.

> Why on earth do you think that dragging the wizard along for a ride
> encumbers him? Please show us at *exactly* what point in the game
mechanics
> the wizard is "forced" to carry the dragon with his fly spell. All you
have
> to do is locate a point in time when the wizard tries to take Flying
> movement while holding up the weight of a dragon.

I'd like to know precisely what force keeps the person in the air while he's
not moving, if not the fly spell. If the fly spell is keeping one person,
his gear and armor, in the air, even without movement, and then that person
suddenly finds themselves to weigh as much as one person, his gear, armor
and a DRAGON, yeah, if your position were consistent, that fly spell would
fail. But your position is NOT consistent, which is ironically the primary
reason, in this case, why you are calling me stupid. But nonetheless, it's
amusing to watch you call yourself a moron.

--
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?)

"Senator Blutarsky" <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4298D81E.74B08C60@comcast.net...
> Yes, *because* you moronically conclude that "the rules
> don't apply to the situation described." We can point
> you to the rules time and time again, but since you
> don't UNDERSTAND the things you read, it's rather
> pointless.

The LONE RULE that has been quoted to me is this:
If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of
the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is
wasted

I found it in the "Magic Overview" part of the SRD, so it's both there and
in the PHB.

It's very clear. If you try to CAST a spell outside parameters, it fails.
The parameters of feather fall, at the time of casting, are NOT being
exceeded, as has been demonstrated previously. Only *AFTER* the spell is
cast do the parameters exceed tolerances.

So, once AGAIN, find the rule that describes what happens when a spell is
cast while tolerances are good, and then tolerances are exceeded while the
spell is operating.

--
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 Sat, 28 May 2005 13:08:28 GMT, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> scribed into
the ether:

>In article <_HHle.728$s64.364@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "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 ...
>
>The thing is, you're still deciding for yourself what "free falling"
>means. Ruling out downdrafts and updrafts is a good move and one I
>support, but I think we should overlook other sufficiently trivial
>forces as well, such as a pixie or a string pulling upwards on your ear
>or downwards on your toe. As long as you are heading on an uncontrolled
>splat curve I am relaxed about feather falling even if for some reason
>you are accelerating at 9.7 or 9.9 m/s/s rather than 9.8.

[nit] You are always falling at 9.8 m/s/s whether you are holding an anvil
or suspended under a parachute...these things only affect your maximum
airspeed, not your acceleration [/pick]

 

[Guest]

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

In article <TuSdnRxMvrhBcAXfRVn-oQ@comcast.com>,
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:lZ0me.2133$MI4.113@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:l_qdnZBs9_07mwXfRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> > > Thus far, I haven't seen a *RULE* that supports the interpretation that
> is
> > > being put forth,
> >
> > Do you really wish to contend that the text of Feather Fall does not
> > explain exactly the conditions under which it can operate?
>
> No, the conditions of it's standard operation are fairly clear. The only
> thing that's NOT clear is what happens when the conditions are exceeded.
> Find that rule for us, please.

What he said.

(Who would have thought I of all people would say that in response to
Jeff Goslin? It is a funny old world).

--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

 

[Guest]

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

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

> "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:87hdgnemt5.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
>> The dragon in that case is still holding the character, not vice
>> versa, so the weight limit still wouldn't kick in.
>>
>> Do you have to work hard to reach this level of stupidity?
>
> Yes, it's quite difficult to be as stupid as I am.
>
> Ok, knowing that I'm quite stupid, tell me this: when someone jumps on your
> back, is that person carrying their own weight, or are you?

We're both not flying, are we?

>
> I hope that through my sarcasm you see the point.

I saw no sarcasm. Just stupidity. That would fit, as intelligence is a
prerequisite for sarcasm.

Honestly, you even fail at being insulting. MSB is *much* better at
that than you (and better at it than me too, for that matter).

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?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:1ruh91lk34pvd25k49amss17hoiblklbh8@4ax.com...
> >The thing is, you're still deciding for yourself what "free falling"
> >means. Ruling out downdrafts and updrafts is a good move and one I
> >support, but I think we should overlook other sufficiently trivial
> >forces as well, such as a pixie or a string pulling upwards on your ear
> >or downwards on your toe. As long as you are heading on an uncontrolled
> >splat curve I am relaxed about feather falling even if for some reason
> >you are accelerating at 9.7 or 9.9 m/s/s rather than 9.8.
>
> [nit] You are always falling at 9.8 m/s/s whether you are holding an anvil
> or suspended under a parachute...these things only affect your maximum
> airspeed, not your acceleration [/pick]

[nit of nit] I believe he was referring to the forces that such trival
things would apply. It is the force of gravity that causes the
acceleration, and therefore any trivial but detectable reverse force(such as
a pixie on a string holding you back from above) would slightly impact the
speed with which the force of gravity accelerates you. [/pick]

--
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:878y1zdixq.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
> > Ok, knowing that I'm quite stupid, tell me this: when someone jumps on
your
> > back, is that person carrying their own weight, or are you?
>
> We're both not flying, are we?

We're both still affected by GRAVITY, are we not? Or does GRAVITY not exist
in your neck of the woods? I hate it when I have to spell it out for
people.

--
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?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "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.

Another thought about how Feather Fall works (SRD):

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

This could be interpreted as saying that if you cast this on someone
who was falling and was overloaded in some way (e.g. tied to their
companions), there's no reason that you couldn't just target that
person and up to their maximum load worth of stuff, but not the rest of
their stuff (i.e. not their companions in this case).

I don't necessarily see that the existance of 'extra stuff' should make
the spell fail at all _as_long_as_ you make sure you don't include that
'extra stuff' in the targeting of your spell.

Here's an example that may make this clearer:

The party has found a really heavy chest full of gold. However, as Bob
the Barbarian tries to pick it up the ground beneath the chest gives
way and it starts to fall. Bob is quite greedy however, and this greed
is almost the death of him as he decide's not to let go and is pulled
down with the chest. Willy the Wizard immediately casts Feather Fall on
Bob - but specifically states that he's _not_ including the heavy chest
in his targetting. The Feather Fall has been targetted legally and so
is up and running but the effect has been suppressed as Bob is
currently overloaded by the chest. Eventually, Bob decides that letting
go may be the best course of action. The Feather Fall is no longer
suppressed and Bob floats down to the ground. The chest crashes to the
ground, scattering gold all over, and waking up the Red Dragon...

Willy the Wizard is allowed to choose the target(s) of the spell. Part
of this for Feather fall is "including gear and carried objects up to
each creature's maximum load" - so why shouldn't he be allowed choose
_which_ gear or carried goods is included?

I'm not sure myself, but I certainly think in the example I've shown
that it makes more sense to interpret the spell in this way. Who knows?

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:rc0j91tkp5jfo9v6scttsjbuijlsnp4f6l@4ax.com...
> >Well, I won't spare you that attempt. I agree that grappling is
different
> >from carrying, but if the wizard doesn't do something to move out of the
> >way, all a dragon has to do is grapple the wizard, then let go and drop,
>
> So in the same breath that you agree they are different, you proceed to
> give them equivalence. Go you.

Huh? The grapple is only included as a game mechanism to indicate that the
dragon is successfully sitting on top of the wizard in some manner. Then
it's just a matter of "air dunking" him, like kids in a pool(but this time
in the air). Ignore the grapple if you like. Whatever game mechanic tells
you that the dragon has positioned himself overtop of the wizard and in
contact with him(I thought grapple would be a good way to ensure this).
From that point forward, according to your rules, he doesn't have to do
squat to end that fly spell EXCEPT drop like a stone the next round. The
fly spell would be overpowered, the wizard would be effectively "carrying"
the dragon, and the spell would end, according to this as yet uncovered
"rule" that everyone says exists that nobody can find.

> > Imagine any of a number of strange situations where a wizard suddenly
finds
> >himself weighed down. Maybe Jack the Wizard is climbing the beanstalk,
and
> >the Giant drops his bucket and it lands on the wizard's head upside down.
> >That's a big bucket, it probably weighs more than the wizard can carry.
>
> Which is also a serious hazard to the wizard, and stands a not indecent
> chance of flat out killing him on impact. In any event, the wizard is
under
> no obligation to carry the bucket. He could try flying out either directly
> to the bottom, or at an angle to tip the bucket over so it will continue
> down without him.

Well, while I agree that a giant bucket bonking a wizard on the head would
be detrimental to his health, assuming he survives the impact, and likewise
assuming that the bucket adds enough weight to the wizard's head, according
to this unseen rule that has been described, the fly spell would INSTANTLY
dissipate into nothingness. So, alive or dead, the wizard's fly spell is
over. According to this rule that I haven't seen but has been described to
me.

Say, where can I find this rule that applies here? I'm a 3E moron, that
much is clear, but everyone seems to be able to find it and I can't, so I
was hoping to find that rule maybe perhaps SOMETIME before hell freezes
over.

> >Puts the DRAGON at risk?
>
> It's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing.
>
> > How?
>
> Splat.

The dragon only falls for a round, then pulls out of the dive. By that
point, the wizard's fly spell is over, but luckily, the dragons wings
haven't poofed out of existance by a stroke of irrational logic.

> > If he's high enough, he can go for a full
> >round without flying, drop about 1000 feet or so, and be done with the
> >wizard, during which time,
>
> They probably hit the ground...

Dragons don't fly too high in your game, I guess. Bear in mind that all it
takes is but an INSTANT of overweightedness, for this "rule" you keep
clinging to (but can never find) to apply. So, one second of drop puts him
down about (rounded off) 10 meters or 30 feet, assuming negigeble air
resistance. In the first INSTANT of free fall by the dragon, the wizard is
overweight and the spell presumably fails.

But hey, this is a rule YOU'RE using, not me, and I still can't find it, so
please, I'd love to see this rule for myself, if you can find it, because
you know what, I still can't seem to find it.

> > EITHER the spell caster takes mongo damage
> >himself from the spell he cast(like, say fireball on himself), OR he
wasted
> >an action trying to dig a dagger into the dragon, woopie.
>
> Or he casts flesh to stone, and you end up with chunks o' stone dragon.

Of course, in OUR campaign, dragons are far more powerful than the Monster
Manual indicates, so making a saving throw is not too terribly difficult for
them. But we're getting away from the point, again. Say, getting back to
the point, HAVE YOU FOUND THAT RULE YET???

> >Why not do it all? You seem to be focussing on how silly it would be to
> >JUST end the fly spell, and honestly, if I were a dragon, I would go all
out
> >to kill the wizard, and do everything in my power to get it done,
including
> >breathing on him and then dropping him just to make sure.
>
> Or you could breathe on him again, or eat him, and be sure that way.
> Dropping a spellcaster is hardly making sure. Hell, if he has a ring of
> feather falling (or the appropriate contingency spell), he doesn't even
> need to be concious to not die.

I guess this is a problem for wizards of slightly LESS than
grand-uber-poohbah-super-duper-wizard-sorcerer-o-plenty-o-magic that YOU are
assuming we're talking about. Contingency? Damn, boy, what's that take,
like a 15th level wizard or something? For the record, I was thinking about
more along the lines of 5th-ish level wizards.

> Further, we have this little gem from the spell description:
>
> Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the
> magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6
> rounds. If it reaches the ground in that amount of time, it lands safely.
> If not, it falls the rest of the distance, taking 1d6 points of damage per
> 10 feet of fall. Since dispelling a spell effectively ends it, the subject
> also descends in this way if the fly spell is dispelled, but not if it is
> negated by an antimagic field.
>
> So it isn't as though the overweighted spell user is falling like a stone.

If the spell fails at 1500 feet, I doubt that the missing 60-360 feet of
space will make much of a difference between 120d6 and 150d6(although if
memory serves, falling maxes out at 20d6, so either way, it doesn't much
matter). If the guy doesn't have another fly spell, it's just a way for him
to prolong the inevitable. 😉 Besides, what self respecting wizard would
have multiple fly spells? Everyone knows it's fireball and lightning bolt!
😉

--
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 Sat, 28 May 2005 19:09:17 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
<monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:

>The DRAGON keeps him in the air, you idiot! Or
>doesn't, in which case they *both* drop like stones!
>
>Seriously, what the hell is wrong with your brain?

The dragon can choose to drop like a stone and then recover. However,
by the logic being presented here the fly spell is gone and the wizard
keeps on falling.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:26adnTzMLOZ3cwXfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:y21me.2140$MI4.2102@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Again, we see you continuing with this bizarre assertion that a
> dragon
> > grappling a wizard somehow "encumbers the wizard".
>
> See my post about the piggyback rides, and then tell me that having a
dragon
> sitting on your head DOESN'T encumber you.

So, let me get this straight. You're really going to claim that a mage is
*carrying* a
dragon on a piggyback ride? Heh. That's the funniest thing I've read in
months.

Did it ever occur to you that the mage's strength has a critical mass on the
amount of weight it can bear? Anything under that value and the mage can
indeed piggyback the target around, but anything OVER that value switches
priority to the LARGER creature. So, according to you, when you're sitting
on some skinny guy, as you claimed you do in another post, the skinny guy is
piggybacking you? LOL.

--
In an old 1E campaign I played in, there was this half-dwarf, half-orc
character. They called him a dorc. -Solomoriah
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. -Edward Langley,
Artist (1928 - 1995)

 

[Guest]

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

<IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117368777.422331.34520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Willy the Wizard is allowed to choose the target(s) of the spell. Part
> of this for Feather fall is "including gear and carried objects up to
> each creature's maximum load" - so why shouldn't he be allowed choose
> _which_ gear or carried goods is included?
>
> I'm not sure myself, but I certainly think in the example I've shown
> that it makes more sense to interpret the spell in this way. Who knows?
>

While I'm all about being "charitable" when I DM, I think that the situation
you describe could be referred to as "overly charitable". In the instance
above, even this charitable DM would say that the initial parameters for the
casting of the spell had been exceeded, therefore causing spell failure, as
per the previously pointed out rule.

--
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:rc0j91tkp5jfo9v6scttsjbuijlsnp4f6l@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 03:45:56 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> scribed into the ether:

<snip stuff about fly spell failing due to being over loaded>

> Further, we have this little gem from the spell description:
>
> Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still
> aloft, the magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward
> 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds. If it reaches the ground
> in that amount of time, it lands safely. If not, it falls
> the rest of the distance, taking 1d6 points of damage per 10
> feet of fall. Since dispelling a spell effectively ends it,
> the subject also descends in this way if the fly spell is
> dispelled, but not if it is negated by an antimagic field.
>
> So it isn't as though the overweighted spell user is falling like a stone.

Read the first and last sentences of this description and explain why this
is relevant. The fly spell is overloaded, but its duration has not expired,
and it has not been dispelled; there is no reason to suppose any of the
paragraph applies to this particular situation. Apparently, by conventional
wisdom the spell has simply failed as if it could not be cast.

Courtesy of "Senator Blutarsky" <monarchy@comcast.net>, the rule that has
been quoted is:
> I don't use the SRD, but here it is from the PHB (page
> 171): "SPELL FAILURE: If you ever try to cast a spell
> in conditions where the characteristics of the spell
> (range, area, or the like) cannot be made to conform,
> the casting fails and the spell is wasted."

if this is indeed the only rule that comes close to applying in this
situation then I would imagine the rule most people are thinking of would go
something along the lines of:

"FAILURE OF A SPELL THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CAST SUCCESSFULLY: If the
conditions that apply to a spell that has already been successfully cast
change to a point where the characteristics of the spell (range, area, or
the like) can no longer be made to conform, the spell fails
catastrophically, and any remaining duration is wasted"

Since the rule I have just quoted is a pure fiction of my imagination it
could also by saying something like; "...the spell fails as if it's duration
has expired."; or "...the spell fails as if it had been dispelled."; or even
"...the spell fails in whatever way makes most sense to the DM and the rest
of the players"

For this reason it would be very nice to see a relevant official rule on
this. It'd make adjudicating this particular situation so much easier. This
appears to be what Jeff and a few others want as well, rather than opinions,
which while nice and sensible (ymmv) appear to have no backing from the
rules.

--
All the best,
RF