Feather Falling and Belayed companions

[Guest]

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

Mere moments before death, Will Green hastily scrawled:
>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
>> Yes you *are*, you ridiculous buffoon! Until such time as the flier
>> DECIDES TO CARRY THE ADDITIONAL WEIGHT - something that he cannot be
>> compelled to do, all this "weight" you assume he is subjected to is nothing
>> more than an unbalanced force, and all that will result from their addition
>> is that the flier will *move* in response to that force. You are ASSUMING,
>> with no basis in the game mechanics and a staggering _absence_ of basis in
>> fact, that a flier's lifting force somehow works just as if he were standing
>> on the ground! *NO*.
>
>Jeff, in case you still don't get what Michael is (I believe) trying to
>tell you:
>
>If a dragon falls on a Flying wizard, the wizard isn't intentionally
>lifting -- exerting upward force -- on the dragon, as he would if he
>were trying to carry a large object. The dragon is merely pushing down
>on him. He isn't *carrying* the dragon any more than he'd be *carrying*
>a stone giant if it lassoed him and started tugging.
>
>How, you may ask, does the spell know the difference between downward
>force due to a carried object and downward force due to a falling
>dragon? It's *magic.* It knows.

No, the spell does not know. It doesn't even care. The spell allows
its target to fly for the spell's duration, so long as it carries less
than a set amount of weight. If the target tries to carry more
weight, it cannot fly. If the target then decides to drop some
weight, it will once again be able to fly. At no time does the spell
stop working.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

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

MisterMichael <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > Does Polymorph change the target's Type?
>>
>> Why, yes it does! Don't you remember the flap about this with respect to
>> Wild Shape and Animal Growth?
>
> I don't think I was involved in that flap. Weird, though -
>according to his example a wizard/troll is [Giant] [augumented
>humanoid]. Does charm person work on [augmented humanoid]s?

Nope. The type itself is what makes a creature vulnerable (or not)
to a (target="One humanoid creature") spell. From the SRD 3.5:

"Augmented Subtype: A creature receives this subtype whenever
something happens to change its original type. Some creatures
(those with an inherited template) are born with this subtype;
others acquire it when they take on an acquired template. The
augmented subtype is always paired with the creatures original
type. A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits
of its current type, but the features of its original type."


>> > On the topic of overloads, don't forget every single defensive
>> >barrier spell that is pressed against its antithesis. Catastrophic
>> >failure ensues. "Pop"! IIRC, 2nd Ed versions of endure elements
>> >catastrophically failed if subjected to magical elemental damage.
>> >"Pop"!
>>
>> I don't understand... that's "until discharged", one of the spell
>> duration types, right?
>
> The 2E spell provided protection for a very long time against
>nonmagical elemental damage; but if subjected to magical damage it
>would fail immediately (though taking a smidgen off the top as it
>goes). This isn't a "discharged" issue.

Well, in 3.5E, the spell would certainly be worded like Stoneskin,
or Protection from Energy, which are both "duration: 10 min./level
or until discharged", where the discharge condition is "prevent so
much total damage".

Donald

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:21:58 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(Donald Tsang) wrote:

>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>> But I don't think it would be hard to overload a spell
>>>intentionally and need a rule to cover what happens. You'd think they would
>>>have covered that one...
>>
>>It is hard, for the first reason that I mention...spells which are even
>>capable of being overloaded are nearly nonexistant in the first place.
>
>Perhaps for "overloaded", specifically, but there are probably
>plenty of instances where a spell subject becomes "invalid":
>
>If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm?

Page 237 of 3.0 (Polymorph spell description)

"The subject retains its own type (for example "humanoid").

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:21:58 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>> But I don't think it would be hard to overload a spell
>>>intentionally and need a rule to cover what happens. You'd think they would
>>>have covered that one...
>>
>>It is hard, for the first reason that I mention...spells which are even
>>capable of being overloaded are nearly nonexistant in the first place.
>
>Perhaps for "overloaded", specifically, but there are probably
>plenty of instances where a spell subject becomes "invalid":

No, there really aren't.

>If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm?

Nothing. The rules specifically cite a dog polymorphed into a human is
immune to Charm Person.

 

[Guest]

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

David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>>non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm?
>
>Page 237 of 3.0 (Polymorph spell description)
>
>"The subject retains its own type (for example "humanoid").

The 3.0 PH had about five errata to Polymorph Self. The 3.5 PH
specifically has the target's type change (this was one of the big
differences in both Polymorph and Wild Shape), and that feature
hasn't been erratta'd (yet).

See: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a

--
Donald

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>>non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm?
>
>Nothing. The rules specifically cite a dog polymorphed into a human is
>immune to Charm Person.

Where?

Donald

 

[Guest]

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

Mere moments before death, Donald Tsang hastily scrawled:
>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>>If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>>>non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm?
>>
>>Nothing. The rules specifically cite a dog polymorphed into a human is
>>immune to Charm Person.
>
>Where?

Apparently, it's one of those unwritten rules. The dog being immune
to Charm Person is covered by the spell targeting rules, and RotG has
expanded on that.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050510a

"Assuming New Types: A creature that assumes a new form through a
polymorph effect generally assumes all the types and subtypes of the
assumed form. It loses its own type, but its base attack bonus and
base saving throws don't change. In effect, the polymorphed creature
gains the augmented subtype for its original type. For example, a
human polymorphed into a cat becomes an animal (augmented humanoid).
The change in types makes the polymorphed subject immune to certain
effects and attacks that could affect it when in normal form and also
makes the subject susceptible to effects and attacks that affect the
assumed form. For example, a human polymorphed into a cat is no longer
susceptible to the charm person spell (despite its augmented humanoid
subtype), but it becomes susceptible to a ranger's favored enemy
ability (if the ranger has chosen animals as a favored enemy)."



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

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

On 2 Jun 2005 14:49:50 -0700, "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> scribed
into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:

>> Then there is part 2, where these overloaded conditions are unlikely.
>> Dragon grabs onto your skivvies to try to cancel your spell? Ok, stop
>> flying and free-fall. Just because you have fly active doesn't mean you
>> need to be flying for it to stay active. Spell remains in effect because it
>> isn't supporting any weight at all, and certainly not the dragon. Dragon
>> can keep falling, or dragon can let go. My vote is that he'd let go.
>
>The problem is a bit more general than "overload", I phrase it as
>"target of a continuing spell becomes ineligable as a target for that
>spell later becomes eligable again prior to the time the spell's
>duration would expire normally".

I understood the phrasing. I just don't think it matters. What spells are
actually affected by this possibility? Damn few. The majority of the ones
that are; various protection circles and related abjurations, have a
specifically stated course of effect when their limit is reached.

>It's still not common, but I think it may be more frequent than you
>are suggesting.

I've not seen any evidence of this.

>Awhile back someone asked about permanent spells, death, and raise
>dead in cases where the spell is castable only on creatures not on
>objects (and the dead body is an object). If the spell remains
>present but inactive/suppressed while the target it was cast on is
>inelligable then that would make a noticable difference from the
>fails entirely interpretation since each such spell costs hundreds
>of EP.

Ok, but it wouldn't...raise dead is an instantaneous effect, and does not
linger in any fashion, else you could cast dispel magic and kill the person
again. If you cast it on someone who was no eligable (say, killed and then
polymorphed into a chair), then it would simply fail.

>What if I polymorph someone under a permanent enlarge person into
>a non-humanoid?

The polymorph supercedes the enlargement for its duration. If/when the poly
goes away, then he will return to his normal form, with the enlarging
intact.

 

[Guest]

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

"MisterMichael" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1117750378.817455.71080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Does Polymorph change the target's Type?
>
>

Yes, says so under the description of the spell.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:58:49 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
<monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:

>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>
>> If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>> non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm? I'm sure you
>> can think of other examples.
>
>Absolutely. I cast an Extended Gust of Wind spell that
>includes Abdul in its area. Abdul is a Medium
>creature. Abdul fails his saving throw, so Abdul is
>unable to move forward against the force of the wind.
>Bobo casts Enlarge Person on Abdul. Abdul is now
>Large. Large creatures may move normally within a Gust
>of Wind's area...but Abdul was a valid target when I
>cast the spell! Is Abdul still affected by the spell
>(unable to move forward against the force of the
>wind)? Is his movement somehow *partially* limited?
>
>I submit that only an idiot would rule he/it is.

Note however that the wind is still there and if Abdul shrinks back
down he'll still be affected by it.

 

[Guest]

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

David Johnston wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:58:49 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
> <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Donald Tsang wrote:
> >>
> >> If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
> >> non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm? I'm sure you
> >> can think of other examples.
> >
> >Absolutely. I cast an Extended Gust of Wind spell that
> >includes Abdul in its area. Abdul is a Medium
> >creature. Abdul fails his saving throw, so Abdul is
> >unable to move forward against the force of the wind.
> >Bobo casts Enlarge Person on Abdul. Abdul is now
> >Large. Large creatures may move normally within a Gust
> >of Wind's area...but Abdul was a valid target when I
> >cast the spell! Is Abdul still affected by the spell
> >(unable to move forward against the force of the
> >wind)? Is his movement somehow *partially* limited?
> >
> >I submit that only an idiot would rule he/it is.
>
> Note however that the wind is still there and if Abdul shrinks back
> down he'll still be affected by it.

Correct. I have never claimed, as others have, that
the spell necessarily ENDS, just that it ceases to be
effective.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

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

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in
news:429FAE51.1F6ABC5B@comcast.net:

> David Johnston wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:58:49 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
>> <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Donald Tsang wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>> >> non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm? I'm
>> >> sure you can think of other examples.
>> >
>> >Absolutely. I cast an Extended Gust of Wind spell that
>> >includes Abdul in its area. Abdul is a Medium
>> >creature. Abdul fails his saving throw, so Abdul is
>> >unable to move forward against the force of the wind.
>> >Bobo casts Enlarge Person on Abdul. Abdul is now
>> >Large. Large creatures may move normally within a Gust
>> >of Wind's area...but Abdul was a valid target when I
>> >cast the spell! Is Abdul still affected by the spell
>> >(unable to move forward against the force of the
>> >wind)? Is his movement somehow *partially* limited?
>> >
>> >I submit that only an idiot would rule he/it is.
>>
>> Note however that the wind is still there and if Abdul shrinks
>> back down he'll still be affected by it.
>
> Correct. I have never claimed, as others have, that
> the spell necessarily ENDS, just that it ceases to be
> effective.

The difference, in the above quoted scenario, the spell affects
an area, the WIND, affects the target. Whereas in the Feather fall
scenario the SPELL affects the target.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:n8idnXSu67fpLALfRVn-pw@comcast.com:

> Well, technically, I suppose, when it comes to magic, no, but
> there is a "set of physics" in the world of fantasy outside of the
> magic. So it is relevant to what happens when the spell fails.
>
>

There you go again, stating that the spell fails. So why do you
keep arguing with those who say that the spell fails?

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:i5GdnXkH-JPxLgLfRVn-jA@comcast.com:

> Look, if that's all you've got, then we thank you for your
> contributions thus far, and you may go along your merry way.
>
>

The irony, that you think your contributions have been of any
value.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:q5dv91l57tb9c4md01hjl7ag3mog50drgi@4ax.com:

> I'm saying that by this interpretation of the rules you can stand in
> midair forever with *NO* magic by simply not taking move actions.
>

I think you need to relearn how to read for comprehension.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 00:25:20 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>>If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>>>non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm?
>>
>>Nothing. The rules specifically cite a dog polymorphed into a human is
>>immune to Charm Person.
>
>Where?

3.0 PHB, Page 152: If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the
characteristics of the spell (range, area, etc) cannot be made to conform,
the casting fails and the spell is wasted. For example, if you cast Charm
Person on a dog (even a dog polymorphed into a human), the spell fails
because a dog is the wrong sort of target for the spelll.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:58:49 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
<monarchy@comcast.net> scribed into the ether:

>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>
>> If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>> non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm? I'm sure you
>> can think of other examples.
>
>Absolutely. I cast an Extended Gust of Wind spell that
>includes Abdul in its area. Abdul is a Medium
>creature. Abdul fails his saving throw, so Abdul is
>unable to move forward against the force of the wind.
>Bobo casts Enlarge Person on Abdul. Abdul is now
>Large. Large creatures may move normally within a Gust
>of Wind's area...but Abdul was a valid target when I
>cast the spell! Is Abdul still affected by the spell
>(unable to move forward against the force of the
>wind)? Is his movement somehow *partially* limited?
>
>I submit that only an idiot would rule he/it is.

This does nothing to break the spell. Gust of Wind doesn't care if you cast
it at a dozen Tarrasques or nothing at all. No aspect of the things inside
the Gust have any effect on the Gust itself.

If changing a human to a sylph changes him to a fey, then the charm would
be broken.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:48:58 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:41:17 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
>Johnston) wrote:
>
>>>>> I think Goslin has at least the glimmering of a point. It seems to me
>>>>> that if a backpack attached to you "weighs" on the Fly spell, then a
>>>>> dragon attached to you must do so as well.
>>>>
>>>> Which is only relevant *if* you take move actions *while* a dragon is
>>>>hanging onto your ankle.
>>>> However, if you are grappled by the dragon, you cannot *take* move
>>>>actions.
>>>> CARRYING A DRAGON IS A *COMPLETELY* *VOLUNTARY* *EXERCISE*.
>>>
>>>In other words, you can stand there in space forever so long as you
>>>don't take move actions?
>>
>>No. You can only stand there until your flying spell expires. Until
>>then, why the hell not?
>
>I'm saying that by this interpretation of the rules you can stand in
>midair forever with *NO* magic by simply not taking move actions.

Your interpretation of his interpretation is wrong. People fall
without taking move actions.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 01:58:39 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:429FAE51.1F6ABC5B@comcast.net:
>
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:58:49 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
>>> <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Donald Tsang wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>>> >> non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm? I'm
>>> >> sure you can think of other examples.
>>> >
>>> >Absolutely. I cast an Extended Gust of Wind spell that
>>> >includes Abdul in its area. Abdul is a Medium
>>> >creature. Abdul fails his saving throw, so Abdul is
>>> >unable to move forward against the force of the wind.
>>> >Bobo casts Enlarge Person on Abdul. Abdul is now
>>> >Large. Large creatures may move normally within a Gust
>>> >of Wind's area...but Abdul was a valid target when I
>>> >cast the spell! Is Abdul still affected by the spell
>>> >(unable to move forward against the force of the
>>> >wind)? Is his movement somehow *partially* limited?
>>> >
>>> >I submit that only an idiot would rule he/it is.
>>>
>>> Note however that the wind is still there and if Abdul shrinks
>>> back down he'll still be affected by it.
>>
>> Correct. I have never claimed, as others have, that
>> the spell necessarily ENDS, just that it ceases to be
>> effective.
>
> The difference, in the above quoted scenario, the spell affects
>an area, the WIND, affects the target. Whereas in the Feather fall
>scenario the SPELL affects the target.

And obviously it is not going to affect other things that decide for
some strange reason to grab onto or sit on the target.

 

[Guest]

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

Mere moments before death, David Johnston hastily scrawled:
>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 01:58:39 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in
>>news:429FAE51.1F6ABC5B@comcast.net:
>>
>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:58:49 -0700, Senator Blutarsky
>>>> <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Donald Tsang wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If you cast Charm Person on someone who then Polymorphs into a
>>>> >> non-humanoid (say, a Fey), what happens to the Charm? I'm
>>>> >> sure you can think of other examples.
>>>> >
>>>> >Absolutely. I cast an Extended Gust of Wind spell that
>>>> >includes Abdul in its area. Abdul is a Medium
>>>> >creature. Abdul fails his saving throw, so Abdul is
>>>> >unable to move forward against the force of the wind.
>>>> >Bobo casts Enlarge Person on Abdul. Abdul is now
>>>> >Large. Large creatures may move normally within a Gust
>>>> >of Wind's area...but Abdul was a valid target when I
>>>> >cast the spell! Is Abdul still affected by the spell
>>>> >(unable to move forward against the force of the
>>>> >wind)? Is his movement somehow *partially* limited?
>>>> >
>>>> >I submit that only an idiot would rule he/it is.
>>>>
>>>> Note however that the wind is still there and if Abdul shrinks
>>>> back down he'll still be affected by it.
>>>
>>> Correct. I have never claimed, as others have, that
>>> the spell necessarily ENDS, just that it ceases to be
>>> effective.
>>
>> The difference, in the above quoted scenario, the spell affects
>>an area, the WIND, affects the target. Whereas in the Feather fall
>>scenario the SPELL affects the target.
>
>And obviously it is not going to affect other things that decide for
>some strange reason to grab onto or sit on the target.

That is not necessarily true. If those other things do not put the
target over max load, there's no reason they shouldn't land safely
(outside of the spell duration simply ending).



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

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

Mere moments before death, Loren Pechtel hastily scrawled:
>
>I'm saying that by this interpretation of the rules you can stand in
>midair forever with *NO* magic by simply not taking move actions.

Then you're an idiot.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

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

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Will Green hastily scrawled:

>>Jeff, in case you still don't get what Michael is (I believe) trying to
>>tell you:
>>
>>If a dragon falls on a Flying wizard, the wizard isn't intentionally
>>lifting -- exerting upward force -- on the dragon, as he would if he
>>were trying to carry a large object. The dragon is merely pushing down
>>on him. He isn't *carrying* the dragon any more than he'd be *carrying*
>>a stone giant if it lassoed him and started tugging.
>>
>>How, you may ask, does the spell know the difference between downward
>>force due to a carried object and downward force due to a falling
>>dragon? It's *magic.* It knows.
>
> No, the spell does not know. It doesn't even care. The spell allows
> its target to fly for the spell's duration, so long as it carries less
> than a set amount of weight. If the target tries to carry more
> weight, it cannot fly. If the target then decides to drop some
> weight, it will once again be able to fly. At no time does the spell
> stop working.

What's that got to do with dragons falling on wizards?

Also, there's no rule saying the spell is merely suppressed. That's one
interpretation, and probably the one I'd choose, just because it's
kinder to players. The other interpretation is that the spell fizzles
completely; the magic would have fizzled if the wizard had been carrying
so much when he cast it, so it fizzles if he starts carrying too much
after it's already been cast.

-Will

 

[Buser]

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

>The other interpretation is that the spell fizzles completely; the
>magic would have fizzled if the wizard had been carrying so much when
>he cast it, so it fizzles if he starts carrying too much after it's
>already been cast.
>
>-Will

The problem in this thread appears to be the definition of 'carrying'.
The original problem at the start of the thread involved a ring of
Feather Fall and a group of people falling off a cliff while tied
togather. It is generally agreed that a Feather Fall or Fly spell will
fizzle if the target exceeds the weight limit of the spell. It is also
generally agreed that the spell will fail if the weight limit is
exceeded within the duration of the spell.

The only two questions seem to be the manner in which the spell will
fail, and when a character is considered to be carrying something that
would cause them to exceed the weight limit. The stuff about a flying
wizard and a dragon is pointless because at no point would the wizard be
'carrying' the dragon. Held tight in a claw or pinned to it's chest
during a belly flop mabey, but not carrying.

The manner in which the spell fails is, to the best of my knowledge,
officially left to individual DMs to decide. However most DMs would
probably cause a Feather Fall or Fly spell to be supressed while the
character is carrying too much weight as opposed to the spell being
dispelled by too much weight. But I do belive that the method of failure
is left up to the DM.

The difficulty with the definition of the word 'carrying' in this
instance is apparently more divisive. If a rope connecting someone using
Feather Fall and another object is considered 'carrying' then I forsee
the net, lasso, and grappling hook becoming favored weapons to use on
entities using magical flight/levitation. However if the person using
Feather Fall is connected to an unsupported object then it would be
reasonable to apply the weight limit rules for the spell untill such
time as the burdening object ceases to be unsupported. That would be the
point at which the manner in which the spell fails becomes critically
important.

Of course since a Ring of Feather Fall has a constant effect it wouldn't
matter. The instant that the character wearing it is below the weight
limit of the spell on the ring, it takes effect again. The instant in
which the falling character is no longer supporting excess weight, they
resume Feather Falling and have a safe landing. Excluding someone
landing on top of them of course.

--
The careful application of terror is also a form of communication.

 

[Guest]

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

Mere moments before death, buser@heck.huh hastily scrawled:
> >The other interpretation is that the spell fizzles completely; the
> >magic would have fizzled if the wizard had been carrying so much when
> >he cast it, so it fizzles if he starts carrying too much after it's
> >already been cast.
> >
> >-Will
>
>The problem in this thread appears to be the definition of 'carrying'.

Wrong.

>The original problem at the start of the thread involved a ring of
>Feather Fall and a group of people falling off a cliff while tied
>togather. It is generally agreed that a Feather Fall or Fly spell will
>fizzle if the target exceeds the weight limit of the spell.

There is most certainly no such agreement.

>It is also
>generally agreed that the spell will fail if the weight limit is
>exceeded within the duration of the spell.

Read the thread again before you butt in with any more of your
stupidity.

>The only two questions seem to be the manner in which the spell will
>fail, and when a character is considered to be carrying something that
>would cause them to exceed the weight limit. The stuff about a flying
>wizard and a dragon is pointless because at no point would the wizard be
>'carrying' the dragon. Held tight in a claw or pinned to it's chest
>during a belly flop mabey, but not carrying.

Even if he was "carrying" the dragon, that fact would be irrelevant.

>The manner in which the spell fails is, to the best of my knowledge,
>officially left to individual DMs to decide.

What happens under these circumstances is explicitly spelled out in
the rules.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>>Nothing. The rules specifically cite a dog polymorphed into a human is
>>>immune to Charm Person.
>>
>>Where?
>
>3.0 PHB, Page 152: If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the
>characteristics of the spell (range, area, etc) cannot be made to conform,
>the casting fails and the spell is wasted. For example, if you cast Charm
>Person on a dog (even a dog polymorphed into a human), the spell fails
>because a dog is the wrong sort of target for the spelll.

Try using 3.5e, please. 3.5e Polymorph is completely different from
3.0e Polymorph Self... for one thing, the subject's type actually changes.

Also, the 3.0e PH's "Polymorph Self" is out of date, even for 3.0e games.
It was officially superceded by at least two of the splatbooks.

Donald