Feather Falling and Belayed companions

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Also, the 3.0e PH's "Polymorph Self" is out of date, even for 3.0e games.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It was officially superceded by at least two of the splatbooks.

....And, that passage doesn't speak to what happens to a spell cast on
what used to be a valid target if the target later becomes invalid.



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 message
news:i5GdnXkH-JPxLgLfRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> We know that "the real world" doesn't apply, but there must be some
> semblance of order in the universe.

... and Goslin chooses ... PAINTBALL as the foundation of his intuitions.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Varl" <bsmith@premier1.net> wrote in message
news:KuKdnUU3P446SwLfRVn-gw@seanet.com...
> proximity to the ground upon release of the wizard, I think chances would
be
> pretty slim that he'd be able to pull out of it via Fly. Terminal velocity
> would probably piledrive the mage right into the ground....unless you rule
> that the magic of the Fly spell can compensate for such rapid
deceleration.

The best option in that case may be to simply end the fly spell; this
triggers a feather fall effect with a fixed falling velocity.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> 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)."

Of course, this still tells us nothing about what
happens to a Charm Person spell *already in place* on a
humanoid who then Polymorphs into a non-humanoid
creature.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

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

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
> >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!
>
> Abdul was never, and can never be a valid target for Gust of Wind,
> it's an area of effect spell.

I didn't mean "target" as in the term-of-art used in
the context of targeted spells; rather, I meant it as
in "a creature that is susceptible to a particular
spell's effect." My apologies for the sloppy
terminology.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

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

Symbol wrote:
>
> What frigging rules? There are *NO RULES* that state an ongoing spell
> fizzles because they bloody don't. Somebody made an error early on a cited
> a rule that applied to *CASTING* spells. Since then too many of you are
> being bloody stupid instead of readjusting for the error.

All right. I'm getting a little tired of seeing you
misrepresent this (though I believe it's an honest
mistake on your part), so let's clear it up. I'm the
one who cited the rule, and there was no "error." What
happened was that in his reply, Goslin disingenuously
snipped the follow-up sentence, which noted that the
cited rule (obviously) did not apply specifically to
spells that had already been successfully cast, but
that it would invite major abuses to not extend the
reasoning to such spells. THAT's all the "readjusting"
anyone needs to do.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 04:26:12 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:

>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.

Good for 3.5.

>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.

*shrug* I prefer the RAW as I have them. Your mind does not change when
polymorphed into a new body, and the charm spell is attacking the mind. It
should fail on a dog in whatever form.

Course, technically, "Charm Animal" should work on all humanoids too, since
they are animals as well, but we live with it.

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zWXne.94$HM.53@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:i5GdnXkH-JPxLgLfRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> > We know that "the real world" doesn't apply, but there must be some
> > semblance of order in the universe.
>
> ... and Goslin chooses ... PAINTBALL as the foundation of his intuitions.

No, I chose the failure possibility of something I'm familiar with. But
your attempt at poisoning the well is duly noted.

You're just pissed that I could kick you ass at paintball, admit it. 😉

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:O2Yne.96$HM.21@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Now, continuing on, you're furthermore saying that no character can be
> > forced to carry weight in mid air, and by extension, they can't be
forced
> to
> > carry weight on the GROUND either
>
> It's not as if the critical distinction hasn't already been explained
> to Jeffie. People standing on the ground most certainly do not experience
> unbalanced forces when weight is added.

When not in use, the recipient of a fly spell hovers. This means that a
person who is flying has balanced forces acting upon him. That means that
if you add weight to the system outside of what the force can handle, you've
just unbalanced it, and according to YOUR rules, that would end the spell.
QED.

> > It probably won't WORK very well, heck, it probably won't work
> > for very long at all, especially in mid air, but hey, all you need is to
> > increase someone's total weight for a fraction of a second, long enough
> for
> > the magic to realize that it's overweight, and the spell will fail,
> according to the rules you've laid out.
>
> ... except that for fliers, this never happens, due to UNBALANCED
> FORCES.

Except for that little caveat that when the balanced forces get overwhelmed,
they become UNBALANCED forces.

You're trying to tell me that it's impossible for a person to get forced
into the ground, ala Wile E Coyote and a boulder. Ok then, fine by me,
nobody gets squished in your world. Whatever, dude.

> > It's been fun, but you've gone off the deep end like MSB. Instantly
> failing
> > spells are downright STUPID because it would be fairly easy to force
them
> to
> > fail,
>
> Prove it, bitch.

I already have, you're just in denial.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Here's you problem, "in the real world" does not apply.
> 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.
>
> We know that "the real world" doesn't apply, but there must be some
> semblance of order in the universe. In OUR universe, the laws of physics
> provide MOST of that order, so if we need to have a set of rules, it helps
> OUR understanding of the rules to base it on something we are familiar with.
> Physics is a good basis.

I understand what you are talking about, but ... in this case, the spell does
one thing. Slow you down. If there is no more spell, it shouldn't slow you down.
It's all that it is rigged to do. Nothing else.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

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

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> >
> > The thing you're forgetting is that when the fly spell is
> > inactive, the person hovers in place.
>
> Only if they choose (good maneuverability).

Here's a cite, from Rules of the Game: Movement, Part Four:
( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a )
"A creature with good maneuverability... can hover as free action."

It being an action (albeit a free action), means it *requires intent*.

From another section in the same article, Part Seven:
( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040720a )
"Spells such as fly... actually grant the subject a fly speed for a
time, and creatures using the spells are subject to all the rules on
flight discussed in Parts Three and Four."

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
> Does the wizard require giving his consent to having him hover
> when he's not moving? If so, you might have a point, but he
> DOESN'T have to give his consent to keep himself in the air,
> he simply has to "DO NOTHING".

Liar. Hovering requires an action.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
> Like MSB, I'm pretty much done with YOU on this thread as well.
> You have nothing worthwhile to contribute any longer.

(This, of course, is Goslin-speak for "You're beating me, so I'm going
to run away with my tail between my legs and pretend you don't
exist.")

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

"~consul" <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
news:d7qom9$8a6$1@gist.usc.edu...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > We know that "the real world" doesn't apply, but there must be some
> > semblance of order in the universe. In OUR universe, the laws of
physics
> > provide MOST of that order, so if we need to have a set of rules, it
helps
> > OUR understanding of the rules to base it on something we are familiar
with.
> > Physics is a good basis.
>
> I understand what you are talking about, but ... in this case, the spell
does
> one thing. Slow you down. If there is no more spell, it shouldn't slow you
down.
> It's all that it is rigged to do. Nothing else.

*IF* there is no more spell. Ultimately, that's the entire point of this
thread. Are spells cancelled, are they suppressed, are the gradiantly less
effective, what's the deal? Nobody can seem to tell me 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?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1117846117.3a05a319949e22eb853556f2ea9ae053@teranews...
> > You guys seem to think that there is will involved in
> > keeping yourself in the air, and there isn't,
>
> Since, of course, there's no will involved in keeping anything with
> good maneuverability (like bees, wasps, and bats) in the air, either.

Only as much "will" as it takes to stand. Sure you, have to decide to do
it, but once you've decided to stand, the amount of "will" it takes to
continue standing is negligeble at best. The only SENSIBLE thing to do is
to assume that a person not explicitly moving will float in place, and not
PLUMMET OUT OF THE SKY!!!

> I've read a post of MSB's where he admits that the "end of spell"
> outcome was a bit harsh, and not necessarily the case...

I must have missed that one. One would have think it would have been
bronzed and mounted on a plaque, because I've *NEVER* heard MSB admit to
being wrong, pretty much *EVER*. I think I would have noticed. Maybe I was
just not paying close enough attention(I haven't really read his posts on
this subject lately, mainly because he has nothing of value to offer on the
subject).

But *no one*
> has agreed that your stupid "proportional effect" outcome has any
> bearing on or support within the rules or common sense whatsoever, and
> all your arguments are doing is making you look, if this is at all
> possible, stupider.

Hey, Nick, have you heard me make mention of it for about a week? I
suggested it as a possible alternative, but honestly, I'm not going to force
it down anyone's throat. If it works for me fine, I'll use it, you guys use
whatever YOU want, and we'll all be happy. So, give it a rest on the
proportional effects thing, clearly you guys aren't interested, so I haven't
really been pushing my agenda here, or anything.

--
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?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1117846814.6984869a9b05d6c3afee7fa3a674c8a5@teranews...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> >
> > Like MSB, I'm pretty much done with YOU on this thread as well.
> > You have nothing worthwhile to contribute any longer.
>
> (This, of course, is Goslin-speak for "You're beating me, so I'm going
> to run away with my tail between my legs and pretend you don't
> exist.")

No, that's Goslin speak for "these guys have noggins like STONES, and
hammering away with sledgehammers only makes my arms tired." They are by no
means "beating" anyone, they are simply stubbornly refusing to admit they
are interpreting the rules. I've given up pointing out that no rule
supports them. What am I, Sisyphus or something?

--
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 3 Jun 2005 09:50:24 -0700, "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> scribed
into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On 2 Jun 2005 14:49:50 -0700, "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> scribed
>> into the ether:
>
>> >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.
>
>Umm, the previusly cast PERMANENT spell, like say arcane sight or
>enlarge person is only castable on persons not objects. Does it
>come back when the person is raised?

Ok, sorry, I misread. I believe there's an official rule somewhere that
spells of this type are canceled on the death of the receipient, and
raising them does not bring the spell back with it.

>> >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.
>
>That is a ruling that it is only supression, it is nowhere in the rules
>and EXACTLY the sort of thing you are claiming doesn't happen.

If you polymorphed the person into themselves, they would benefit from the
enlargement again.

>The target is temporarily ineligable.

Not in the case of the enlarge. You can enlarge a pixie, even a polymorphed
one. The enlarge is not being suppressed, it is being superceded.

>Both of the above match fully with the problem you are saying doesn't
>exist.

Since "the problem" is one where the rules don't seem to cover it, and the
rules DO cover both of these occurences, I'm staying with: The Problem Does
Not Exist.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:18:05 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:O2Yne.96$HM.21@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > Now, continuing on, you're furthermore saying that no character can be
>> > forced to carry weight in mid air, and by extension, they can't be
>forced
>> to
>> > carry weight on the GROUND either
>>
>> It's not as if the critical distinction hasn't already been explained
>> to Jeffie. People standing on the ground most certainly do not experience
>> unbalanced forces when weight is added.
>
>When not in use, the recipient of a fly spell hovers.

When not in use, the recipient of a fly spell FALLS.

Hovering is using the spell.

>> > It probably won't WORK very well, heck, it probably won't work
>> > for very long at all, especially in mid air, but hey, all you need is to
>> > increase someone's total weight for a fraction of a second, long enough
>> for
>> > the magic to realize that it's overweight, and the spell will fail,
>> according to the rules you've laid out.
>>
>> ... except that for fliers, this never happens, due to UNBALANCED
>> FORCES.
>
>Except for that little caveat that when the balanced forces get overwhelmed,
>they become UNBALANCED forces.

By all means, cite a relevant physics site which demonstrates this little
caveat.

>You're trying to tell me that it's impossible for a person to get forced
>into the ground, ala Wile E Coyote and a boulder. Ok then, fine by me,
>nobody gets squished in your world. Whatever, dude.

Note the addition of the GROUND into that equation. Gee, do you suppose
that adding a new force might alter the results?

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>Umm, the previusly cast PERMANENT spell, like say arcane sight or
>>enlarge person is only castable on persons not objects. Does it
>>come back when the person is raised?
>
>Ok, sorry, I misread. I believe there's an official rule somewhere that
>spells of this type are canceled on the death of the receipient, and
>raising them does not bring the spell back with it.

This kind of "I believe there's" isn't good enough for this discussion
(the discussion centers on whether it's actually "cancelled", or just
"suppressed"); can you find a cite, please?


Donald (in other words, "Post Proof or Retract!")

 

[Guest]

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

rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
news:429f6cbc.10893945@news.telusplanet.net:

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

Yes, er, I think. If, by "it" you mean the spell.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:H5Wdnb8kTL_UXQLfRVn-vA@comcast.com:

> Again, for the anal retentives in the bunch, I use the word "fail"
> to indicate "the spell exceeds listed paramaters and will fail in
> some manner,
>

Ah! The "Tweedle Dee defence." Michael, have at him.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in news:zJydnVj1lbg1gD3fRVn-
gQ@comcast.com:

> Imagine a world where you're not a cock. What a world it would be!
>
>

Ad hominen debate isn't.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

"Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns966AC09916F80mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.134...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in news:zJydnVj1lbg1gD3fRVn-
> gQ@comcast.com:
>
> > Imagine a world where you're not a cock. What a world it would be!
> >
> >
>
> Ad hominen debate isn't.

True, but I enjoy calling people cocks, ya cock master... Think of me as
the ad cockinem debater... cock.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in
news:42A0B777.6795A6F5@comcast.net:

> I didn't mean "target" as in the term-of-art used in
> the context of targeted spells; rather, I meant it as
> in "a creature that is susceptible to a particular
> spell's effect." My apologies for the sloppy
> terminology.
>
>

In either meaning Abdul cannot be a target. The spell's effect
is movment, the spells only target is the air in the area.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

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

"Marc L." wrote:
>
> Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:42A0B777.6795A6F5@comcast.net:
>
> > I didn't mean "target" as in the term-of-art used in
> > the context of targeted spells; rather, I meant it as
> > in "a creature that is susceptible to a particular
> > spell's effect." My apologies for the sloppy
> > terminology.
>
> In either meaning Abdul cannot be a target. The spell's effect
> is movment, the spells only target is the air in the area.

Heh. Again I am tripped up by a term of art! Yes, the
term-of-art "effect" is a "line-shaped gust of severe
wind emanating out from you to the extreme of the
range." What I was referring to, though (of course),
is the effect *that* "effect" has on creatures in its
area: being unable to move, if they are Medium (and
fail their save).

Frankly, I think you're just being pedantic on this
one, but I'll be a man and own up to it. Sorry
(AGAIN).

-Bluto