Feather Falling and Belayed companions

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:46ednWCNX6UZ7gTfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> Truth be told, it would be situationally dependent in terms of
> implementation. In the case of an overloaded feather faller, I would
> probably decrease the damage proportionally to how close the weight was to
> what the PC could bear. If it's over by a factor of 10, the damage
> reduction is reduced from 100% to about 9%. In other words, a 200 foot
fall
> by belayed characters would result in 20d6 damage * 91%(more or less,
> 11/10). That's just me. YMMV. Obviously it does.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... Goslin!

Someone, bronze this monument to human idiocy already.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news😀_Tme.4235$MI4.1665@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> However, the silence on "proportional effects" (as well as basic
> English) is deafening, and speaks volumes - the only rational conclusion
one
> can make from the available information is that a spell operating in
> conditions for which it cannot work *does not*, and it's just as simple as
> that.

I have not been silent, I've been very up front about it. I would have to
make something up to handle it, and I would choose proportional reduction of
effectiveness. Examples are in previous posts.

And BTW, you don't get off that easily. You indicated that it was a RULE
when this first started, NOT an interpretation(as you interpret above).
Furthermore, if it IS an interpretation, YOUR interpretation is no more
valid than any other interpretation, EVEN interpretations that you find
silly and stupid, because NO interpretation has anything solid to back it
up.

If you want to talk about DEAFENING SILENCE, say, chum, where's the rule you
seem to think is so easy to find yet you can't find it? Where is that
again, page minus 145 of the Non-PHB? Thought so.

--
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:X%Tme.4237$MI4.1153@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:i6udnb6iA4bZCwTfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> > 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.
>
> While flying, there is *no* way to "sit" on anyone. Please learn the
> definition of "unbalanced forces".

There is literally no way for a wizard to avoid it, if he is under the
effects of a fly spell. If the wizard isn't flying, he hovers in mid air,
still under the influence of the fly spell. If he ISN'T moving, when he is
sat on, the fly spell would initially work to keep him hovering, and then
fail, because of the weight. If he IS moving, and the wizard is sat on by
something large(a dragon), the dragon need only force the wizard under it's
substantial girth and then stop flying for a second to have the fly spell
affecting the wizard cease to function.

--
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?)

Symbol wrote:
> <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.
>
> You're right it isn't the same. The casting would fail on an invalid
> target but a spell already functioning obeys its description. Feather fall
> describes the weight of load a target may carry so clearly the spell would
> not function on an overloaded individual (until such time as they land or
> release their burden).

You're agreeing with me but it seems to me that you think you're
disagreeing. But maybe I'm mistaken.

The claim (which I was disputing) was that the Spell Failure rules
apply even after the spell has been cast, and that they would cause the
spell to _end_ (not just be suppressed). Your point is about a spells
effects being suppressed - a point which I agree with (in fact, it's a
point I've already made myself).

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1117537342.870967.83670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Now I could say...
> > So when can we expect you to call yourself an "Idiot"?>
>
> Never. There is nothing idiotic about concluding that a spell exceeding
> its mandate does so decisively

And yet you say other people are idiots for not reading and / or
understanding the rules when they claim something is RAW when it's not.
Or even when they put forward an alternate interpretation to your own.
Hypocritical perhaps?

I apologise for the guilty pleasure I'm getting from this 😱)

 

[Guest]

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

Loren Pechtel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:09:48 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
>>obvious to anyone that there are two possibilities
>>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.

The fly spell is still in effect because the weight limit hasn't been reached,
the the dragon is still flying and is adding the wizard's weight to his Dragon
carrying limit, not the other way around.
--
"Thank goodness, that Amnesty International likened the US to only the Soviet
Gulag. If they had said we were like the Nazi's, then we would know that it was
just hyperbole. I mean, really now."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

[SNIP]

> If you are hell bent on being an idiot, at least make things fall
> appropriately. As long as there are no other forces at work, take the ratio

Of course there is another force at work, air resistance.

> of the lifting force to the total weight and use that to see what effective
> G you're at (ie; 250 pounds of lift against 1000 pounds creates an
> unbalanced acceleration of 75% G). Call that modifier (75%, etc.) "K". The
> same falling velocities are reached for varying ratios according to
> Distance/K - so falling at 50% G it takes 400 feet to fall to the same speed
> as a 200 foot fall. Therefore you can use this ratio to immediately
> identify the appropriate falling damage simply by multiplying the fall
> distance by K and comparing to the normal 10-200' fall damage scale. Someone
> falling 600 feet at 10% effective g would take damage as if from a 60 foot
> fall; 6d6.

I would tend myself to cap this at the appropriate percentage of 20d6
on the basis that terminal velocity will also be lower. i.e. you always

max out damage after 200' of falling.

In practice this limit will be too low since drag goes up as the cube
of velocity and energy as only the square, so one could also argue
for the always use 20d6 as the maximum. Either is a close enough
approximation for D&D if you needed one as long as you are consistent.

Note: Nothing above is intended in any way to actually endorse any
view of slowfalling when a featherfall spell becomes overloaded.

DougL

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> On a side note, wouldn't the feather falling guy in the tethered group STILL
> be saved from splat damage? If you think about it, he's gonna be at the top
> of the "rope chain", and he's gonna presumably be the last one to hit. If
> there are 10 feet of rope between PC's, and everyone else plummets
> mercilessly, the duration of feather fall says something like (paraphrasing)
> "until you hit the ground or 1 round per level". So, assuming the 1 round
> per level thing isn't exceeded, surely the spell is still running when the
> last person splats and you are now 10 feet off the ground, right? I mean,
> the duration hasn't been exceeded, and now the spell's listed parameters are
> being met(since every other character has splatted onto the ground already).
> So, what's up with that?

I'd say that yes, for the bookkeeping you'd have to do, if you want to have the
FF guy be last, and wait until the rope spools out before you cancel the spell,
that'd be fine.
The point of spell failure (besides duration, which is spell _ending_) is when
the weight limit is reached, not on point of contact with a _possible_ weight
limit. The ring itself, (isn't that one of the original criterias from the OP?)
says you have to fall for x amount of feet before it activates anyways, so once
it is weighed down by that amount and for x distance, the spell goes into
effect, and then out of effect once the limit is reached.
Have the ring go on and off until it runs out of charges.
I think a better arguement is not to have the rope per se, but to argue for the
team to be tethered even closer, and then have them within the range of the
spell target ranges.
--
"Thank goodness, that Amnesty International likened the US to only the Soviet
Gulag. If they had said we were like the Nazi's, then we would know that it was
just hyperbole. I mean, really now."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[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.

You're right it isn't the same. The casting would fail on an invalid
target but a spell already functioning obeys its description. Feather fall
describes the weight of load a target may carry so clearly the spell would
not function on an overloaded individual (until such time as they land or
release their burden).

One cheesy workaround is to cast the spell on an object (for which size in
the only consideration) to which everyone is tethered. It is probably more
sensible to rule that even one uncarried object or untargeted person would
negate the effect of the spell in a "tether" situation but that is beyond
the scope of the RAW.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>>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.

That's because they are physically attached to the body. It wasn't using a spell.
--
"Thank goodness, that Amnesty International likened the US to only the Soviet
Gulag. If they had said we were like the Nazi's, then we would know that it was
just hyperbole. I mean, really now."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> Truth be told, it would be situationally dependent in terms of
> implementation. In the case of an overloaded feather faller, I would
> probably decrease the damage proportionally to how close the weight was to
> what the PC could bear. If it's over by a factor of 10, the damage
> reduction is reduced from 100% to about 9%. In other words, a 200 foot fall
> by belayed characters would result in 20d6 damage * 91%(more or less,
> 11/10). That's just me. YMMV. Obviously it does.

The Fly spell has written indications on what happens when the spell ends, you
descend 60ft for 1d6 rounds, then fall like a stone. It's part of the spells
nature and a safety feature built into it. Feather Fall doesn't. If the writers
wanted it to be a gradual event, they would have written it in.

If the magic reality doesn't say anything, then we go by the planar realities,
or the assumed real world realities where ones fall like all stones should. Like
a rock.

If your planar reality has some sort of stated/implied lingering magic essence,
where a spell ends, sorta leaves a residue, then I could see you making a case
for a drift downwards.
--
"Thank goodness, that Amnesty International likened the US to only the Soviet
Gulag. If they had said we were like the Nazi's, then we would know that it was
just hyperbole. I mean, really now."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> I am calling people idiots for failing to recognize that the spell
> description of Feather Fall lays out the boundaries of its operation quite
> explicitly.

So you're claiming you don't berate people for not knowing the rules,
and that you wouldn't have leapt on someone else in a frothing frenzy
if _they_ had made a rule up without bothering to check? OK, whatever
you say 😱)

> You are welcome to attempt to explain how my decision to favor a
> different conclusion that is consistent with the available rules

So you're claiming it was a 'different conclusion' (suggesting an
interpretation?) and you weren't implying that it was actually how the
rules work. OK, whatever you say 😱)


Anyway, this is obviously going nowhere productive now, so, until next
time...

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EN-dnf74FJDEdgvfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> "Senator Blutarsky" <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4296735C.51DB1221@comcast.net...
> > > I'd like to see that rule. Find it. Quote it. From the SRD. Go
for
> it.
> > > Find the rule that says "exceeding spell limits causes instant spell
> > > cessation." Once you find that rule, I'll concede. Until then,
you're
> just
> > > saying how things are in your idiotic campaign.
> >
> > 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."
>
> Well, the only problem with the application of that caveat is that the
> conditions actually CONFORM at the time of casting.

I hate to say it but yes, they have quoted an irrelevant rule at you.

You are still wrong though. A spell behaves as described in its
description. Feather Fall by implication (a lack of alternative
description) functions in a binary way. It either effects its target or it
does not according the listed restrictions. That isn't an interpretation
either, it is understanding the spell.

 

[Guest]

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

<IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117537342.870967.83670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Wow. Rules for what spells "still do" when THEY CANNOT WORK, missing
> > from the game rules? AMAZING!
> >
> > Now, after a few days of home renovation, I've had some time to
ponder
> > examples, and I think that my instinct to "crack" the spell is perhaps
> > overly harsh;
>
> Now I could say...
> So when can we expect you to call yourself an "Idiot"?>

Never. There is nothing idiotic about concluding that a spell exceeding
its mandate does so decisively - it happens all the time in the game rules
for a variety of effects. The fundamental point is unchanged - while the
conditions under which the rules claim that a spell _can_ operate are
violated, it does not perform at all.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UaudnW1mvoiZ2wHfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:X%Tme.4237$MI4.1153@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:i6udnb6iA4bZCwTfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> > > 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.
> >
> > While flying, there is *no* way to "sit" on anyone. Please learn the
> > definition of "unbalanced forces".
>
> There is literally no way for a wizard to avoid it, if he is under the
> effects of a fly spell.

Please learn the definition of UNBALANCED FORCES.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

<IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117560103.841734.281190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > <IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1117537342.870967.83670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Now I could say...
> > > So when can we expect you to call yourself an "Idiot"?>
> >
> > Never. There is nothing idiotic about concluding that a spell
exceeding
> > its mandate does so decisively
>
> And yet you say other people are idiots for not reading and / or
> understanding the rules when they claim something is RAW when it's not.
> Or even when they put forward an alternate interpretation to your own.
> Hypocritical perhaps?
>
> I apologise for the guilty pleasure I'm getting from this 😱)

I am calling people idiots for failing to recognize that the spell
description of Feather Fall lays out the boundaries of its operation quite
explicitly. Outside of them is *NON OPERATION*. Whether non-operation is
"duration continues but spell has no effect" or "spell ends" are both
legitimate, and neither idiotic, because they both conform to the BLATANTLY
OBVIOUS BIT WHERE THE SPELL SAYS IT CANNOT DO MORE THAN IT CAN DO.
You are welcome to attempt to explain how my decision to favor a
different conclusion that is consistent with the available rules is somehow
the same as Kevin or Loren or Jeff posting on the topic IN COMPLETE
IGNORANCE OF WHAT THE SPELL DESCRIPTION SAYS, and, having been provided with
the relevant information, continuing to mew defiantly as to *what* it says.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:ZpWdnYzbz5sy5gHfRVnytA@pipex.net...
> You are still wrong though. A spell behaves as described in its
> description. Feather Fall by implication (a lack of alternative
> description) functions in a binary way. It either effects its target or it
> does not according the listed restrictions. That isn't an interpretation
> either, it is understanding the spell.

The whole reason why this thread got started in the first place was because
it is most definitely NOT clear what happens when a spell fails
mid-duration. Up until this point, NOBODY has quoted a verifiable rule that
describes the OFFICIAL rule for what happens in that instance.

The description of feather fall gives the limits of the spell's proper
function(I just re-read it), but gives no indication of what would happen if
those limits were exceeded while the spell is being used, which is the
entire thrust of this thread.

It is clear what happens if someone tries to cast feather fall while
overloaded from the start(that rule was made clear), but it is NOT clear
what happens if someone tries to cast feather fall when the initial
parameters are met(as in the case of pretty much ANYONE in free fall), but
after the spell takes effect, the caster is suddenly overwhelmed by
weight(as in the case of belayed characters suddenly snapping taut the ropes
between them and the spell caster who is now feather falling).

I would honestly appreciate it if someone COULD find the official rule, and
not just an interpretation, NOT because I want to be either proven right or
proven wrong, but just so I *know* what the official party line is when it
comes to this sort of thing. The de facto party line(as opposed to the
official party line), from many folks here, is that the spell completely
fails, and while that's perfectly valid for an interpretation, that's all it
is, an interpretation. So, maybe you can succeed where MSB has failed,
maybe you can find the rule that he seems to believe so fervently is in the
rule books but can't find. If there IS a rule, I'll use it, but barring
that, I'll have to use what most people seem to consider illogical,
proportional degradation type of failure, rather than instant and complete
failure.

--
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 Tue, 31 May 2005 19:12:23 GMT, "Richard Fielding"
<richard.f@blueyonder.spam?no.co.uk> wrote:


>> However, the silence on "proportional effects" (as well as basic
>> English) is deafening, and speaks volumes - the only rational conclusion
>> one
>> can make from the available information is that a spell operating in
>> conditions for which it cannot work *does not*, and it's just as simple as
>> that.
>
>Personally I dont think I would use a proportianal system for a situation
>like this either, mainly because I'd see it as too much hassle. Ending the
>spell as if its duration had expired, and allowing lingering effects, also
>seems wrong; if the spell has failed, well then the spell has /failed/. This
>leaves me with the option of either the spell "cracking", or its effects
>being suppressed while it is overloaded. The spell "cracking" has marginally
>more support from the rules if you squint hard enough, but suppression of
>effects seems more playable.

Given the situation where you have three guys belayed together and one
of them is under a feather fall spell that can't handle the weight, I
would assume that he's still under a feather fall spell. That means
that he falls slower than his two friends until he reaches the end of
the ropes slack. Then, because feather fall doesn't protect you from
being pulled by a rope at all, he will speed up to the velocity of his
two friends without slowing them down at all. Then when his two
friends finally hit bottom, his feather fall spell will keep him from
hitting at the same speed. He'll instantly slow down and land softly.
It isn't physics. It's magic. D&D magic at that.

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6T0ne.4297$MI4.2652@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Yes, of course - the authors WROTE DOWN THE *WEIGHT LIMITS OF THE
> SPELLS* but "overlooked" that they might be exceeded and STILL NEED TO
WORK?

I'm not going to argue with you about this, except to say that in REAL life,
there are thankfully few things that fail catastrophically. And yes, you
can feel free to point out the numerous admitted examples of it happening,
but the bottom line is that more often than not, a catastrophic failure
happens when the "published" limits of something are exceeded by a
relatively large amount.

I play a lot of paintball. We use carbon fiber wrapped high pressure tanks
to store our air. They are rated to 3000 or 4500 psi(depending on the model
you buy). Overfilling such a tank, to say, 3001 psi or 4501 psi will NOT
rupture the tank, but rather may(after a while) cause a bulge in the tank
which may(after a while) be a potential point of breach style catastrophic
failure. However, even when the "catastrophic failure" happens, the side of
the tank blows out and the gas escapes, generally blowing the tank around
the area rather spectacularly as the air escapes, but it doesn't completely
blow up like a grenade. Even without that possible failure, if you wanted
to test the limits of a tank, you would have to MASSIVELY overfill it in
order to intentionally blow out the tank. The 3000 psi tanks we use are
rated to 10,000 psi of burst pressure. TEN THOUSAND PSI. That's when the
thing bulges out a side. Even THEN, it's unlikely that the air will escape.
I have no idea what the specific "air escaping out a breach in the side"
pressure is for a new tank, but I'd wager it's upwards of 15000 psi.

The reason I bring this up is simple. In the case of a spell, it would be
monunmentally stupid of a highly intelligent, spell casting wizard creating
a spell to give the precise limits of the complete and utter failure of a
spell designed to save lives, like feather fall. Sure, it PROBABLY
wounldn't work as well as if you stayed within the safety limits, but at
LEAST you'd be able to get SOME use out of it. At least, that's how things
would work in MY game. Your game is OBVIOUSLY different.

And yes, there are PLENTY of examples of catastrophically failing devices in
the modern world, and no, you don't need to bring them up, because for every
example of a patently catastrophic failure, there are dozens that I could
bring up that fail over time. So please, don't bother going down that road.

--
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?)

"DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote in message
news:1117568455.262473.91400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > If you are hell bent on being an idiot, at least make things fall
> > appropriately. As long as there are no other forces at work, take the
ratio
>
> Of course there is another force at work, air resistance.

Not necessarily relevant. Terminal velocity kicks in at 175 feet per
second (~120 mph) for someone trying to slow their fall with arms outspread.
It takes about 5.5 seconds to reach TV - but TV is much higher than the 113
fps that marks the 20d6 damage velocity (reached at 3.5 sec of 1g falling).
But we can check on this to be sure for the low-acceleration cases. A
quick poke at the drag equation (F=C*V^2) shows us that terminal velocity
changes with the square root of K (where k is the percentage of G that
you're effectively accelerating). For 40% to 99% G, terminal velocity is at
or above 113 fps, so 20d6 max is still appropriate. 30% G is 95 fps (the
speed of a 140 foot fall/14d6; 20% G is 75 fps (the speed of a 90 foot fall;
9d6), 10% is 55 (the speed of a 50 foot fall; 5d6).
So if you were going to go apeshit with this, multiply the fall by
your %K to get the similar 1-g fall height, and clip to 14/9/5 d6 for
30/20/10% K, or, for simplicity's sake, use "max damage dice = min(20d6 |
50*K, which charts a vaguely similar course).

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:429c6515.15513631@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:12:23 GMT, "Richard Fielding"
> Given the situation where you have three guys belayed together and one
> of them is under a feather fall spell that can't handle the weight, I
> would assume that he's still under a feather fall spell. That means
> that he falls slower than his two friends until he reaches the end of
> the ropes slack. Then, because feather fall doesn't protect you from
> being pulled by a rope at all, he will speed up to the velocity of his
> two friends without slowing them down at all. Then when his two
> friends finally hit bottom, his feather fall spell will keep him from
> hitting at the same speed. He'll instantly slow down and land softly.
> It isn't physics. It's magic. D&D magic at that.

This is a fine point. Once they hit the ground, he is no longer
encumbered! If we have reason to believe the spell is still within its
duration, then he may be saved. But if the ring has to 'reboot' he has to
fall 5 feet on his own to reactivate the effect ... which is likely all the
slack in the rope. 🙁

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news😛B3ne.3114$s64.2330@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:429c6515.15513631@news.telusplanet.net...
> > On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:12:23 GMT, "Richard Fielding"
> > Given the situation where you have three guys belayed together and one
> > of them is under a feather fall spell that can't handle the weight, I
> > would assume that he's still under a feather fall spell. That means
> > that he falls slower than his two friends until he reaches the end of
> > the ropes slack. Then, because feather fall doesn't protect you from
> > being pulled by a rope at all, he will speed up to the velocity of his
> > two friends without slowing them down at all. Then when his two
> > friends finally hit bottom, his feather fall spell will keep him from
> > hitting at the same speed. He'll instantly slow down and land softly.
> > It isn't physics. It's magic. D&D magic at that.
>
> This is a fine point. Once they hit the ground, he is no longer
> encumbered! If we have reason to believe the spell is still within its
> duration, then he may be saved. But if the ring has to 'reboot' he has to
> fall 5 feet on his own to reactivate the effect ... which is likely all
the
> slack in the rope. 🙁

Minor nit to pick, but the original poster was using 3E and it would be 3
feet.
For 3.5 rules, it is 5 feet. Also, if the spell has to be triggered, a major
DC to
get the timing just right to save his life depending on the length of the
rope.

As a side note, it is nice to see someone else agrees with my earlier
response.
My only problem depends on how the ring acts when the limits are exceeded.
As of this post, I haven't had time to do much research.

Instincts tell me that unless otherwise noted, spells fail if limits are
exceeded.
On the other hand, my instinct is to rule against any attempts at expanding
rules.
It wasn't so much as a rule about spells as it was a general statement on
the
rules as written. It basically said if it wasn't in the rules then it wasn't
allowed.
Now if I can just remember where I read that and hopefully at least an
analog is in the 3E SRD or 3.5 rules. Nothing less than a rules quote will
make some of the people in this news group happy.

This also seems to be the only sane thread remaining.

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AY1ne.4324$MI4.3483@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> You are welcome to attempt to explain how my decision to favor a
> different conclusion that is consistent with the available rules is
somehow
> the same as Kevin or Loren or Jeff posting on the topic IN COMPLETE
> IGNORANCE OF WHAT THE SPELL DESCRIPTION SAYS, and, having been provided
with
> the relevant information, continuing to mew defiantly as to *what* it
says.

Not to point out the obvious, but I'm still waiting for the rule that says
MSB is always right. I have a feeling that this is the only rule you'll be
able to dig up("MSB is always right"), and I doubt it's in a rule book
anywhere, though if it is, wow, I didn't know THAT either. 😉

Again, we're talking about the rule for what happens when spells are
exceeded mid-duration. Find this supposedly easily discovered and
blinkeredly obvious rule that many folks can't find, but you apparantly CAN
find but are unwilling to divulge the secret to us, and I for one will be
happy to admit that you are right, and then thank you for your dogged
insistence that I am simply too stupid for words, having shown yourself to
be right, even to this submoron of a poster.

--
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?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:429c6515.15513631@news.telusplanet.net...
> Given the situation where you have three guys belayed together and one
> of them is under a feather fall spell that can't handle the weight, I
> would assume that he's still under a feather fall spell. That means
> that he falls slower than his two friends until he reaches the end of
> the ropes slack. Then, because feather fall doesn't protect you from
> being pulled by a rope at all, he will speed up to the velocity of his
> two friends without slowing them down at all. Then when his two
> friends finally hit bottom, his feather fall spell will keep him from
> hitting at the same speed. He'll instantly slow down and land softly.
> It isn't physics. It's magic. D&D magic at that.

Truth be told, if someone pointed me to a rule that said "spell effects that
exceed their parameters mid-duration are suppressed until the parameters
return to normal", this is PRECISELY how I would handle it. Everyone BUT
the feather faller splats at normal rate, and then the feather faller gets
to pick up his friends with a sponge. But alas, nobody can point that rule
out to me, so I'm left, being a more charitable DM than most here, with
opting to go for graduated damage that would potentially allow more
characters to live, all with gobs of damage, rather than killing everyone
except one character. That's just me, though, and it would appear that
everyone else's mileage WILL vary.

--
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 Tue, 31 May 2005 19:43:58 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

>It is clear what happens if someone tries to cast feather fall while
>overloaded from the start(that rule was made clear), but it is NOT clear
>what happens if someone tries to cast feather fall when the initial
>parameters are met(as in the case of pretty much ANYONE in free fall), but
>after the spell takes effect, the caster is suddenly overwhelmed by
>weight(as in the case of belayed characters suddenly snapping taut the ropes
>between them and the spell caster who is now feather falling).

And it's even less clear what happens when it's a ring.

The creator obviously doesn't know how much the guy wearing the ring
will weigh. Taking the results of caster level 1 produces a ring that
won't work for most tanks and yet the ring does not note this limit.
This would say that the weight limit of the ring is higher than a
simple reading of the spell would suggest.