Feather Falling and Belayed companions

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:52:48 -0700, ~consul
<consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:

>
>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.

I don't see why the spell would be cancelled in the first place just
because it won't have any effect.

 

[Guest]

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

David Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:52:48 -0700, ~consul
>>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.
> I don't see why the spell would be cancelled in the first place just
> because it won't have any effect.

Yeah, as the example is, it doesn't go into effect until the FF person is
weighted. So, to further the example, 5 people A-E are tied and falling. A-D are
falling like a stone, E is going feathery, and A-D's weight is spooling the rope
away from E. When the rope plays out to the fullest, E is weighted past the
spell limits, and the spell ends early.
--
"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?)

On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:11:23 -0700, ~consul
<consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:52:48 -0700, ~consul
>>>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.
>> I don't see why the spell would be cancelled in the first place just
>> because it won't have any effect.
>
>Yeah, as the example is, it doesn't go into effect until the FF person is
>weighted. So, to further the example, 5 people A-E are tied and falling. A-D are
>falling like a stone, E is going feathery, and A-D's weight is spooling the rope
>away from E. When the rope plays out to the fullest, E is weighted past the
>spell limits, and the spell ends early.
>--

I see no reason for the spell to end early. It seems sufficient to me
that it have no effect while the weight is in excess of its limit.

 

[Guest]

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

David Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:11:23 -0700, ~consul
>>David Johnston wrote:
>>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:52:48 -0700, ~consul
>>>>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.
>>>I don't see why the spell would be cancelled in the first place just
>>>because it won't have any effect.
>>Yeah, as the example is, it doesn't go into effect until the FF person is
>>weighted. So, to further the example, 5 people A-E are tied and falling. A-D are
>>falling like a stone, E is going feathery, and A-D's weight is spooling the rope
>>away from E. When the rope plays out to the fullest, E is weighted past the
>>spell limits, and the spell ends early.
> I see no reason for the spell to end early. It seems sufficient to me
> that it have no effect while the weight is in excess of its limit.

Wait, then does "no effect" mean drop as a stone or drop as a feather? I'm in
the drop as a stone crowd. You are in the drop as a feather?

When the spell ends, by either duration or weight limit, drop as a stone.
--
"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?)

On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:40:20 -0700, ~consul
<consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:11:23 -0700, ~consul
>>>David Johnston wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:52:48 -0700, ~consul
>>>>>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.
>>>>I don't see why the spell would be cancelled in the first place just
>>>>because it won't have any effect.
>>>Yeah, as the example is, it doesn't go into effect until the FF person is
>>>weighted. So, to further the example, 5 people A-E are tied and falling. A-D are
>>>falling like a stone, E is going feathery, and A-D's weight is spooling the rope
>>>away from E. When the rope plays out to the fullest, E is weighted past the
>>>spell limits, and the spell ends early.
>> I see no reason for the spell to end early. It seems sufficient to me
>> that it have no effect while the weight is in excess of its limit.
>
>Wait, then does "no effect" mean drop as a stone or drop as a feather? I'm in
>the drop as a stone crowd. You are in the drop as a feather?

Obviously if they dropped like a feather then the spell would be
having an effect.

>
>When the spell ends, by either duration or weight limit, drop as a stone.

As I said, I see no reason for the spell to end because the weight
limit is exceed. Dump the extra weight before the spell's duration
runs out and you should once again see the spells effects.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>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.

It stops working at all. Look at the Fly spell in the SRD for an
example of "ceasing to function" versus "duration ends"; in the
case of Feather Fall, the effects are the same...


>Up until this point, NOBODY has quoted a verifiable rule that
>describes the OFFICIAL rule for what happens in that instance.

Under 3.5e? Don't you still play 2E?


I've avoided this discussion up 'til this point, but I thought I'd toss
in my two cents, just for fun:

Since it says "a large creature or object counts as two Medium
creatures or object, a Huge creature or object counts as two Large
creatures or objects, and so forth", it's reasonably clear that
turning into a Large creature or object, or taking on additional
load that shifts one up to the next size class, can make a creature
or object an invalid target for the original spell (though I would
automatically partition the available caster levels evenly, so that
two Medium creatures receiving a CL 8 Feather Fall spell would be
able to encompass the weight of a Huge object without losing its
effect).

At that point, the spell ceases to function on that object ("a
normal rate of falling resumes")


Donald

 

[Guest]

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

"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:d7j0b9$3es$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >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.
>
> It stops working at all. Look at the Fly spell in the SRD for an
> example of "ceasing to function" versus "duration ends"; in the
> case of Feather Fall, the effects are the same...

*ARE* they... well, thanks for clearing that up. And where is that effect
described for the feather fall spell, again? 😉

The whole point NOW is that there is no general rule for what happens when a
spell is overloaded. There are specific rules, that apply to each spell(as
in the case of fly, apparantly, don't have time to look), but there is no
GENERAL rule, and there is no SPECIFIC rule that applies to feather fall.
There are OTHER spells that specifically fail, or specifically reduce
effectiveness or what have you, but those effects apply to specific spells.
Since there is no specific feather falling rule, and there is no ubiquitous
general rule that applies to ALL spells unless otherwise noted, we are free
to interpret how we wish, hence this thread.

Yes, I know we can extrapolate and interpret based on other spells and such,
but I'd rather give my PC's the benefit of the doubt when it comes to
interpretation. As such, if there is no rule in general, and no specific
feather fall rule, I'm VERY likely to give them somewhat of a break when
ruling on such things. However, if there WERE a rule, I would follow it.
Hence, I'm looking for a RULE, *NOT* an interpretation.

> >Up until this point, NOBODY has quoted a verifiable rule that
> >describes the OFFICIAL rule for what happens in that instance.
>
> Under 3.5e? Don't you still play 2E?

Yes, but I'd take pretty much ANYTHING right now.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> It stops working at all. Look at the Fly spell in the SRD for an
>> example of "ceasing to function" versus "duration ends"; in the
>> case of Feather Fall, the effects are the same...
>
>*ARE* they... well, thanks for clearing that up. And where is that effect
>described for the feather fall spell, again? 😉

Under "there's no active spell there, since the target has become
illegal".

Actually, it's "when the spell duration expires, a normal rate of
falling resumes" being the effect same as "if you're not under the
effects of an active Feather Fall, you obviously fall at your normal
rate".


>The whole point NOW is that there is no general rule for what happens when a
>spell is overloaded. There are specific rules, that apply to each spell(as
>in the case of fly, apparantly, don't have time to look), but there is no
>GENERAL rule, and there is no SPECIFIC rule that applies to feather fall.

No, the SPECIFIC rule is that if a target becomes invalid, the spell
effect is suppressed, just as if it had been placed in an antimagic
field. There's specific rules on how to treat a larger/heavier target,
so it's fairly obvious that increasing the weight of a previous target
should use those rules.

It's very much like this rule in the SRD, under Stacking Effects:
"One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can
render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but
one has rendered the other useless in some fashion."


>Yes, I know we can extrapolate and interpret based on other spells and such,
>but I'd rather give my PC's the benefit of the doubt when it comes to
>interpretation.

The benefit of the doubt comes in allowing "extra levels" to
distribute evenly on the original targets... if there aren't enough
levels to hold the weight, then... freefall. The character or
characters with the Feather Fall on them will "instantly" decelerate
to 60 ft/round when the last free-falling character hits the ground
(and thus doesn't act as extra weight anymore), so they probably
won't take damage...


Donald

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 20:53:25 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

>"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.

Actually I'm not saying the spell effect is "suppressed". I'm saying
that, under the rules, Feather Fall has no power to keep you from
getting towed by a rope. The spell effect is not "exceeding its
parameters". It is not "suppressed. The capabilities of the spell
are clearly set out in the description of the spell. It is still
affecting the character's x-many pounds. That character is then being
towed downward by a rope. Feather Fall will not keep you from being
pulled forward or back by a rope. And it won't keep you from being
pulled up or down by a rope. It does not turn off, temporarily or
permanently. It keeps operating continuously. It just isn't relevant
to that kind of situation. That's what the rules say. It's pretty
much the same thing with Tenser's Disc and Fly. If you exceed the
limit of what the disc can carry it does not disappear. It's still
there. It just can't lift all that weight so it sits there on the
ground until you lighten the load, duration expires, or you walk out
of range of it. And if a big dragon flys up and and "lands" on you,
your Flight spell doesn't disappear. You are just pushed downward
until and unless you fly out from under it.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 06:47:44 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:GPTme.4229$MI4.773@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> about dragons "sitting on you". There is an issue of opposed forces that
>> you need to master.
>> It has been explained to you over and Over and OVER AGAIN that
>> ****DRAGONS CANNOT TURN THEMSELVES INTO YOUR ENCUMBRANCE WHILE YOU ARE
>> FLYING***** (without a lasso).
>
>Not so much, actually. It has been TOLD to me, but it has never been
>sufficiently explained such that a dragon CAN'T be made into a person's
>encumbrance, simply by ceasing to fly when over the top of a character. If
>they aren't supporting their weight, and they land on top of someone, who's
>encumbrance ARE they?

They aren't anyone's encumberance. They're just a downward moving
obstacle.

 

[Guest]

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

Donald Tsang wrote:
> Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >The whole point NOW is that there is no general rule for what happens when a
> >spell is overloaded. There are specific rules, that apply to each spell(as
> >in the case of fly, apparantly, don't have time to look), but there is no
> >GENERAL rule, and there is no SPECIFIC rule that applies to feather fall.
>
> No, the SPECIFIC rule is that if a target becomes invalid, the spell
> effect is suppressed, just as if it had been placed in an antimagic
> field.

Is this really a _rule_, as in, in the rulebooks? If so, could you let
us know where this rule is? Or is it just your opinion on what should
happen? - One which I kind of agree with BTW.

I say 'kind of' as you can't just blanket rule that the conditions for
spell failure when the spell is cast apply throughout the duration of
the spell (as you said "target becomes invalid") as it does silly
things when you cast Reduce Animal on a small creature, or Haste on a
couple of bods, only to see one move more than 30 feet from the other.
A more subtle rule that that is obviously required.

 

[Guest]

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

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:429cb2f2.35449292@news.telusplanet.net...
> of range of it. And if a big dragon flys up and and "lands" on you,
> your Flight spell doesn't disappear. You are just pushed downward
> until and unless you fly out from under it.

I agree with that assessment. Unfortunately, by the rules that MSB seems to
play by, any movement by the wizard while under a heavy weight load would
result in the instant nullifcation of the spell.

The point of the "dragon falling on wizards head" example was to display how
his rule was "unnecessarily harsh", for lack of better polite phrasing. Fly
spells can be overwhelmed in my game in a situation like previously laid
out, but that doesn't make them go away. The wizard would be able to fly if
the weight was removed/escaped from, regardless of how much weight was on
them during the spell's duration. If they get rid of the extra weight, they
can fly again.

From what you said, it would make NO sense for a character with a ring of
feather falling to belay himself at all. If someone else fell, and the ring
activated, it would be instantly nullified by the other characters falling.
Personally, I don't like DISCOURAGING what I would consider intelligent
play(the belaying of mountaineering characters). If a person knew that
their feather fall would instantly fail, they would not belay themselves
with the rest of the party, leading to just GOBS of ripe opportunities for
any flying creature to make off with that lone character very quickly and
easily, never to be seen or heard from again.

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gfbq91pde8h5bmh7pnd3ou6r5iociij0b9@4ax.com...
> 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.

To be perfectly honest, I can suspend my disbelief for long enough for the
sake of simplicity to simply say that feather fall will work up to the
weight limit of a character, differences in strength and load be damned. If
you're wearing a ring of feather falling and a girdle of giant strength,
more power to ya, you can hold up the empire state building if you like. I
would even go so far as to recommend to my players that they put the ring of
feather falling on the strongest character to get the most benefit from it.
Like I said, I'm charitable like that.

--
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?)

Marc L. wrote:
> The fact that no such rules exist reinforces the idea that
> spells cannot have their limits exceeded while active,

Assuming by 'active' you mean 'remaining just as effective', yes.

But I figure you mean 'remaining effective in any way' which is what
I'd go with, although even that's not guaranteed to be right.

> which
> reinforces the idea that an overloaded active spell dies.

How does it reinforce it? I don't see that it reinforces either the
theory that the spell dies / ends or the theory that the spell is
suppressed.

 

[Guest]

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

<IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117557230.802633.287050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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).

Yes I was making a composite response because I'm a little behind the
thread and not sure exactly who said what and when. I wasn't disagreeing
with you.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QIednSP-3LSTagHfRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> "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.

Yes in fact it is, which is why this thread is so stupidly pointless.

> 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.

Which means that nothing happens when those limits are exceeded or it
would provide detail. Duh!

> 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.

Why would there be an official rule to describe what happens to a spell
that does not affect its target?

> 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.

No, some people have merely confused the casting failure rule. An ongoing
spell would not fail, nor would it have any affect on something it can't
affect.

> 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.

People are calling it idiotic because that is exactly what your approach
is. If there was proportional degradation it would appear in the rules.
Absence implies a boolean functionality. It really is just this simple and
disturbs me that so much conversation has been generated.

 

[Guest]

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

Marc L. wrote:
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:QIednSP-3LSTagHfRVn-uA@comcast.com:
>
> > 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.
>
> If the spell fails, it means it fails, which means the spell no
> longer has effect. What do you find confusing about this?

I think the fact that you've claimed it fails, whilst most (I believe)
but not all the other people in this thread now seem to be in the 'it's
only suppressed' camp indicates that the proper way to handle it is
unknown (hence the confusion).

 

[Guest]

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

David Johnston wrote:
>>When the spell ends, by either duration or weight limit, drop as a stone.
> As I said, I see no reason for the spell to end because the weight
> limit is exceed. Dump the extra weight before the spell's duration
> runs out and you should once again see the spells effects.

Ah, okay. As I see it, maybe the writers didn't build such an effect into the
rule as they didn't envision someone falling from so far a height that they have
enough time to dump excess weight to make a difference.

You want that other spell, "Panicked Fall" if you want those guys dumping the
excess weight to resume falling at a slower rate.
--
"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?)

Mere moments before death, Donald Tsang hastily scrawled:
>Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>>"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>> It stops working at all. Look at the Fly spell in the SRD for an
>>> example of "ceasing to function" versus "duration ends"; in the
>>> case of Feather Fall, the effects are the same...
>>
>>*ARE* they... well, thanks for clearing that up. And where is that effect
>>described for the feather fall spell, again? 😉
>
>Under "there's no active spell there, since the target has become
>illegal".

That isn't what is happening in this instance. The target has not
become illegal, it is still "One Medium or smaller free-falling object
or creature/level..."

This situation is much like a Large or larger creature moving through
the area of effect of a Gust of Wind spell. The spell is still
working, and any other Medium or smaller creatures would still be
buffeted about, but the Large creature doesn't care about that.



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?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xq2dncIZrKGfowHfRVn-3w@comcast.com:

> So, I will submit to admitting to being
> just such an idiot, as soon as you find the rule that applies to
> what happens when spells are exceeded in mid-duration, rather than
> before they are cast.
>

The fact that no such rules exist reinforces the idea that
spells cannot have their limits exceeded while active, which
reinforces the idea that an overloaded active spell dies.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:UZOdncg3sI1GKQDfRVnytw@pipex.net...
> is. If there was proportional degradation it would appear in the rules.
> Absence implies a boolean functionality. It really is just this simple and
> disturbs me that so much conversation has been generated.

Don't you think that something like this would at least warrant a one-liner
in the rules somewhere, if only to confirm your interpretation? When we
haven't got a rule to cover something, we have to interpret, infer and
extrapolate from existing rules, resulting in varied rules being applied.
While what you say is definitely *AN* interpretation, it isn't the only one.
So once again, I would remind you that this conversation is ultimately about
the difference between the RULES and the INTERPRETATIONS.

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9668686494943mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:xq2dncIZrKGfowHfRVn-3w@comcast.com:
>
> > So, I will submit to admitting to being
> > just such an idiot, as soon as you find the rule that applies to
> > what happens when spells are exceeded in mid-duration, rather than
> > before they are cast.
> >
>
> The fact that no such rules exist reinforces the idea that
> spells cannot have their limits exceeded while active, which
> reinforces the idea that an overloaded active spell dies.

I guess that depends on your point of view. If there were a rule, it would
be very clear. But alas, we are left rule-less in this situation. It would
appear that many people agree that ending or suppressing the spell when it
becomes overloaded is the way to go, a very binary approach. But
unfortunately, we are left without a definitive rule to make this less
interpretive. A case can definitely be made for the approach that you are
advancing, I'm not arguing that. But any other approach that doesn't
explicitly break the rules is likewise just as equally valid, mainly because
in both cases, there is no rule to tell you that you're wrong. Which is
kind of why I was hoping to find a 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?)

rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
news:429c6515.15513631@news.telusplanet.net:

> 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

I like that. So if at the bottom a monster grabs on to the rope
and pulls hard, down hard, comes the last character.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

"CryptWolf" <RWilliams01nospam@no.spam.sceinet.no.spam.com> wrote in
news:1117584981.fea6d22f815bb5e05daaede81236d142@teranews:

> 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.
>
>

I'd say just like the spell. As soon as the weight exceeds the
limit, the spell shuts down. When the correct conditions again apply,
character falling, weight does not exceed the limit, the ring recasts
the spell.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:QIednSP-3LSTagHfRVn-uA@comcast.com:

> 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.
>
>

If the spell fails, it means it fails, which means the spell no
longer has effect. What do you find confusing about this?

--
Marc