Shenanigans!!!!! #627!

[mikker0]

I have read Order Of the Stick faithfully since comic 1... and since then everything has been AMAZING! ... HOWEVER... I am also a rule mongrel, and according to page 200 near the end of the description for anti magic field... it clearly states force cage isn't suppressed or dispelled by it.

*edit* I also bought the Order of the Stick game to... hella fun

If you care about continuity ... please find another way to pwn Varsuvius.

[The Giant]

If you care about continuity ...

I don't. ...........

[SolkaTruesilver]

I don't. ...........

Storytelling > Rule Lawyering

+1 for the Giant!!!

[mikker0]

=/ you talk crap about people not retracting their mistakes (the charity), yet your SCRUBBED and do the exact same thing... w/e ...


Storytelling > Rule Lawyering

+1 for the Giant!!!


A good DM/Storyteller can do both

Forum Staff: Flaming is against the rules of this message board. Directly flaming an admin is a one-way ticket to a ban.

[Estelindis]

Well, I guess that answers that. :smallwink:

Still, I enjoy finding creative ways to work *within* the rules, personally... I mean, if any given spell doesn't work the way we know it to work, then what else might not work? It just makes the ground shakier, overall. Of course, perhaps that is the point: we're not meant to know what's happening...

[mikker0]

Well, I guess that answers that. :smallwink:

Still, I enjoy finding creative ways to work *within* the rules, personally... I mean, if any given spell doesn't work the way we know it to work, then what else might not work? It just makes the ground shakier, overall. Of course, perhaps that is the point: we're not meant to know what's happening...

Theres plenty of D&D books, he doesnt need to change core rules to keep us out of the loop.

[jolus]

I don't. ...........

Heheh... another way to pwn mikker0 :smallbiggrin:

[SolkaTruesilver]

Still, I enjoy finding creative ways to work *within* the rules, personally... I mean, if any given spell doesn't work the way we know it to work, then what else might not work? It just makes the ground shakier, overall. Of course, perhaps that is the point: we're not meant to know what's happening...

Mr. Berlew has often stated (and storytelled) that he will never let the rules put themselves between him and a good story.

I think we all can find areas where he already violated 3.5 rules (Thor and Control Weather, to begin with), and the comic is not less enjoyable for it. :smallbiggrin:

[TheBST]

=/ you talk crap about people not retracting their mistakes (the charity), yet your a SCRUBBED

Let's just all, sit down and think about that one for a minute...

[mikker0]

Let's just all, sit down and think about that one for a minute...

Oh dont give me crap just because i dont agree with the DM.

[Estelindis]

Mr. Berlew has often stated (and storytelled) that he will never let the rules put themselves between him and a good story.

I think we all can find areas where he already violated 3.5 rules (Thor and Control Weather, to begin with), and the comic is not less enjoyable for it. :smallbiggrin:
True, but in the Thor and Control Weather situation, the fact that it didn't follow the rules was part of the joke. :smallsmile: It's not the same here.


Oh dont give me crap just because i dont agree with the DM.
You can make your point without being aggressive, you know. It would probably strengthen your position rather than (as is currently the case, IMHO) weakening it.

[Forum Staff]

While we encourage people who disagree with aspects of the comic to voice their opinions, insulting Rich in the process is not acceptable on these message boards. User mikker0 has found this out the hard way.

[PePe QuiCoSE]

I didn't know Antimagic field didn't canceled Forcecage (it's not on the SRD), but if he wanted to destroy it, he could have the dragon do disintegrate on the cage, same spell-level. It's not an abuse of the rules to fool the readers, that fight could have gone any other way (heck, we didn't even know V had Forcecage before this strip) so... i fail to see the importance. Still i think that a different spell other than disintegrate to deal with the forcecage (within the same power level) is better story wise.

And your way to conduct your complaint is really... not the best.

[Trixie]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm

Where exactly it says that? Not a single mention of Forcecage. In fact, it says that spells in the area of effect are suppressed.

Also, Forcecage description doesn't say anything about AMF, it only says that it resists dispelling - nothing about it being immune to suppressing.

[Glome]

Meh, nobody plays D&D exactly as written in core, everyone uses house rules to some extent. And here we aren't even dealing with a D&D game, but a comic strip based on D&D. I don't understand why OOTS should follow every exact rule in the books, especially when some of those rules (such as forcecage) aren't balanced.

So far OOTS is logically self-consistent and the characters portrayed follow a loose interpretation of the rules. If the Giant restricted himself to being a rules lawyer, a lot of potential of the comic would be lost.

And honestly, I can't figure out where all this internet rage from people like mikker0 towards people who are providing free entertainment (yes, he does also have a business as well based on OOTS, but the strip is still free).

[SolkaTruesilver]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm

Where exactly it says that? Not a single mention of Forcecage. In fact, it says that spells in the area of effect are suppressed.

Also, Forcecage description doesn't say anything about AMF, it only says that it resists dispelling - nothing about it being immune to suppressing.

I don't think there is a single spell effect that resist suppressing.

The only derogations would be undeads and constructs, and other magically-existing creatures. These still live. And I think other essentials, like the Beholder's levitating effect, aren't.

[Estelindis]

Well, what do you know? Forcecage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm) isn't affected by Dispel Magic, but it says nothing about AMF. I guess the OP's indignation was misplaced...

[SPoD]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm

Where exactly it says that? Not a single mention of Forcecage. In fact, it says that spells in the area of effect are suppressed.

Also, Forcecage description doesn't say anything about AMF, it only says that it resists dispelling - nothing about it being immune to suppressing.

Well, it says Wall of Force isn't suppressed, and the Forcecage description says that it is similar to a Wall of Force. Some people could interpret "similar" to meaning "exactly the same in all ways, even though this facet isn't mentioned at all."

Still, it is only one possible interpretation, and certainly not enough to get worked up over. An equally valid read of the text would be that it is similar--but not exactly the same--as a Wall of Force, and one of those differences includes whether or not it is suppressed by Antimagic Field.

[orange]

Well, it says Wall of Force isn't suppressed, and the Forcecage description says that it is similar to a Wall of Force. Some people could interpret "similar" to meaning "exactly the same in all ways, even though this facet isn't mentioned at all."

I don't support the OP's POV, but I think it's quite clear from the SRD that a Forcecage is meant to behave in the same way as a Wall of Force (which isn't suppressed by Antimagic Field). The word "similar" is used in conjunction to the description of a barred cage as opposed to a walled cage. It's obvious to me that it's meant to say that it shares the Wall of Force properties except for the obvious gaping holes (which affect attacks and cover).

[SlightlyEvil]

And so a moron did learn that directly insulting the creator of the website was not a good plan for long-term success on that website.

[Trixie]

I don't support the OP's POV, but I think it's quite clear from the SRD that a Forcecage is meant to behave in the same way as a Wall of Force (which isn't suppressed by Antimagic Field). The word "similar" is used in conjunction to the description of a barred cage as opposed to a walled cage. It's obvious to me that it's meant to say that it shares the Wall of Force properties except for the obvious gaping holes (which affect attacks and cover).

Hmmm... I don't know. You know, if that was the argument in the game I DM, I would probably rule that a 'solid' version of Forcecage is similar in that regard, while the 'cage' version is weaker and thusly not immune to suppression due to less cohesion it has. Nothing in the rules that directly contradicts Giant's interpretation, though.

[Serpentine]

Whoa. I know the rules say
Committing an Infraction Against Rich or an Administrator
Richard Burlew, who posts as The Giant, is the owner and operator of this website and forum. Committing an Infraction against him will result in a ban. It's his sandbox, after all. Additionally, the Administrators are the people chosen by Rich to run the forum, and committing Infractions against them is just as bad., but I never thought I'd ever actually see it :smalleek:

Well, I, at least, certainly had no problem with this comic... In fact, I believe my first thoughts upon completing it was something along the lines of "DAMN this is awesome!"

[orange]

Hmmm... I don't know. You know, if that was the argument in the game I DM, I would probably rule that a 'solid' version of Forcecage is similar in that regard, while the 'cage' version is weaker and thusly not immune to suppression due to less cohesion it has. Nothing in the rules that directly contradicts Giant's interpretation, though.

In my games I homebrewed that AMF suppresses all magic, including Wall of Force. So I'd use it the same way the Giant did. AMF is a very badly written spell imo. Homebrew is necessary for that spell.

But when it comes to the language of the Forcecage spell, I don't think there's room for interpretation. Even for the bared cage. It states that it's made from bars of force. The intent is quite clear : same as the Wall of Force, but different shape. You can homebrew it into a weaker version if you want, but it doesn't fit the original description.

For all the wrongs the OP had, he was right on the official rules. I don't think any DM should use the official rules on AMF though.

[Saph]

But when it comes to the language of the Forcecage spell, I don't think there's room for interpretation. Even for the bared cage. It states that it's made from bars of force. The intent is quite clear : same as the Wall of Force, but different shape. You can homebrew it into a weaker version if you want, but it doesn't fit the original description.

For all the wrongs the OP had, he was right on the official rules.

No, he wasn't. The SRD says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#antimagic):


Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic spells do not dispel antimagic. Mage’s disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

The spell description of antimagic field says the same thing - and note that it says nothing about antimagic not working on 'bars of force'. It says it suppresses all spells, with three exceptions. Forcecage isn't one of them.

Saying that forcecage is immune to antimagic field in the same way that wall of force is would be a very reasonable houserule, but it's a houserule, not official. The Giant's right, and the OP's wrong.

- Saph

[Avilan the Grey]

Besides, the dragon is not casting Anti-Magic Field. She is casting Anti-magic Shell. (Which I believe is a 2nd ed. spell? (also, apparently, a spell in WoW...))

Maybe it's because the dragon is so old that she remembers "magic long lost?" :smallbiggrin:

And no, this is not a slam against the Almighty Giant, it's just an observation, and I almost suspect the difference is intentional, at that.

[Vargtass]

Besides, the dragon is not casting Anti-Magic Field. She is casting Anti-magic Shell.

You were right until The Giant edited it!

[Avilan the Grey]

So much for hitting the reload button too often.

[Mando Knight]

If Forcecage does indeed ignore AMF, then the dragon may have researched a more powerful version of AMF for the express purpose of dispelling any effects so that she can go dragon on the now re-squishied mages.

[Avilan the Grey]

Personally I think it's more a "finding loopholes" situation. The dragon gets away with it because Force Cage is not specifically mentioned with name according to a lot of posts here. It's the old AS$-U-ME: Never assume, because it makes @$$es of both U and Me. Just because it might be assumed in the rule books that Force Cage is immune to this spell, but the spell is not mentioned explicitly by name, it might be the same thing in the OOTS world. Most mages assumes that it is the case, due to the nature of the spell, but the gods that made the rules of magic forgot to mention the spell...

[Sholos]

No, he wasn't. The SRD says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#antimagic):



The spell description of antimagic field says the same thing - and note that it says nothing about antimagic not working on 'bars of force'. It says it suppresses all spells, with three exceptions. Forcecage isn't one of them.

Saying that forcecage is immune to antimagic field in the same way that wall of force is would be a very reasonable houserule, but it's a houserule, not official. The Giant's right, and the OP's wrong.

- Saph

You forgot a few words in your quote. Specifically, the words before the spells listed as not being affected by antimagic field. Those words are fairly important. They are, "spells such as". Kind of changes the meaning of the sentence. You know, from "these are the only spells not affected" to "these are some of the spells not affected and other, similar spells are similarly unaffected". I'm of the opinion that we're running with a houserule here, and as long as antimagic field continues to get rid of Force effects, I'll be happy.

[Gilmiril]

I find the SRD inconclusive, and even if the PHB is more clear, this does not excuse the method by which the OP presented it. If I were running a D&D campaign and one of my players pulled this sort of rules lawyering, I'd be very tempted to invoke "Rocks Fall, You Die". Ironically, that's kind of what happened here in a metaphorical way.

[Optimystik]

Giant is right by RAW, however narrowly. That's all there is to it.

In before lock!

[Douglas]

Both Rich's and the (now banned) OP's interpretations of AMF vs Forcecage are reasonable, but I think strict RAW favors Rich's a bit. Even if the RAW were completely unambiguous about it and said AMF fails against Forcecage, I would not be surprised to see something similar to the reveal of "Xykon's Moderately Escapable Forcecage" show up in the next few comics. Just because normal AMF doesn't work doesn't necessarily mean that a custom researched version of it would fail too.

[bluewind95]

I think the OP would have been a bit more "justified" in calling shenanigans if it were not that things like that are simply house rules. That said, I prefer the house rule in this instance. Anti-magic field shouldn't really be anti-some-magic field. :smalltongue:

Mr. Burlew, I think you do care about continuity. Just a little bit, at least. You've told us a nice and very consistent story thus far, even if rules consistency has never been a straitjacket for you. :smallwink:

[Saph]

You forgot a few words in your quote. Specifically, the words before the spells listed as not being affected by antimagic field. Those words are fairly important. They are, "spells such as". Kind of changes the meaning of the sentence. You know, from "these are the only spells not affected" to "these are some of the spells not affected and other, similar spells are similarly unaffected".

The text of Antimagic Field says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm):


Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions).

Since none of the individual spell descriptions list Forcecage as one of those 'certain spells', it's not an exception. Again, it's a perfectly reasonable houserule, but the rules as written back up the Giant on this one.

- Saph

[MCerberus]

Regarding the "such as" wording for AMF, I believe that was just a catch-all for spells that would appear in different books or were overlooked. If it doesn't go away with AMF, it'll say in the individual spell description.

[shakes019]

If I had to make a 'rules-judge' response to the rules-lawyer, I would say that Forcecage and AMF were both in the rules at the time of release, so if AMF was intended to work agains Forcecage, it should have been noted, in either of the spells' descriptions.

[KevLar]

Actually, the "such as" in the SRD doesn't necessarily mean "similar", it may simply mean "for example". In fact, since it defines which spells are not affected by an Antimagic Field later, or at least defines a way to determine that ("see individual spell descriptions"), I'd say that's exactly what it means.

[Not that this has anything to do with #627 of course, I'm just saying.] :)

[Witrana]

With the Giant having already dished out this forum's greatest burn and shut-down, I think the show is over. Dead thread, people!

[hamishspence]

Rules Compendium specifically states Wall of Force, Prismatic Sphere, and Prismatic Wall, are not affected by antimagic, but makes no mention of Forcecage.

Wall of Force does not have it explicitly stated in description in PHB, but does in Rules Compendium.

Conclusion- if Forcecage was meant to be immune to antimagic, Rules Compendium would have mentioned it.

[Eraniverse]

I agree with Witrana; thread over.

But for those of you who may still need convincing: AMF is necessary for character development and plot progression. Helplessness and such for the already traumatized elf yea? Sure the dragon could have disintegrated out of the cage and then cast AMF, but why go through the extra step especially when the rules are ambiguous? Plus the sphere suppressing the cage is a really neat looking effect and I bet Rich is proud of it.

[hamishspence]

I liked the style of the cage, seemed an improvement on Xykons Moderately Escapable forcecage.

[King of Nowhere]

I think the OP would have been a bit more "justified" in calling shenanigans
So shenanigans is a used term? I tought it was an exclamation. What does it mean?

From what I have read so far, I think that the forcecage was intended to resist AMF, because someone reported that it works like a force wall with a different form, but I would never use it in my campaign. If my players make it to the high levels, I'd say anti magic negates every magic and that's it. Maybe I could houserule a spell like anti-antimagic field that suppress the AMF, but that's it.

[hamishspence]

in South Park, its an excuse for the entire town to come after you if you're caught scamming anyone "I call shenanigans!"

[Zherog]

So shenanigans is a used term? I tought it was an exclamation. What does it mean?

From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shenanigans%20)



–noun Informal.
1. Usually, shenanigans.
a. mischief; prankishness: Halloween shenanigans.
b. deceit; trickery.
2. a mischievous or deceitful trick, practice, etc.
Origin:
1850–55, Americanism; of obscure orig.

[hamishspence]

There are lots of Force spells which form a barrier, Otiluke's Resiliant Sphere, Otiluke's Telekinetic Sphere, the Crushing Sphere spell in Lost Empires. None of these are specifically immune to antimagic.

I'd say the correlation between caging spells and immunity to antimagic isn't all that strong. maybe Wall of Force and the two defensive Prismatic spells are just unique.

Remember that antimagic doesn't destroy spells, just suppresses them. If duration was shorter than the forcecage's, the cage would reappear when the antimagic ends.

EDIT: just checked- the dragon is the target of the spell, so cage will reappear as soon as dragon leaves space.

[Animefunkmaster]

First of all, everyone in a dnd game makes mistakes with the rules. It happens. During a gaming session the dm (or narrator as the case may be) decides what is dramatically appropriate and moves on.

In this situation, while the rules of antimagic field do not explicitly state that they do not negate a force cage, there is more than enough rai to believe that it does. If you look at wall of force you find the following info:


The wall cannot move, it is immune to damage of all kinds, and it is unaffected by most spells, including dispel magic.

Emphasis mine. How does "most spells" work with antimagic field. Lets take a look.


Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field

So we can determine that antimagic field falls under the category of "most spells".


Like a wall of force spell, a forcecage resists dispel magic

I think the problem we have is with this line and whether it is interpreted to cover being unaffected by "most spells" and dispel magic or just dispel magic.

The other argument: claiming that antimagic field affects one version of the spell (making the cage rather than the solid walls) has little ground, except that by raw the solid version (which is surely made up of walls of force) should be safe. There is no raw stating that the cage version should be affected (again, it doesn't specifically say the latter either). The problem with the argument is that antimagic field doesn't affect certain spells, not certain versions of spells.

In the end all the argument are moot, as the situation is very much dramatically appropriate (and very exciting to have so many strips in such a short amount of time). One thing I do find interesting is the quickness of the rule layers to defend V's suffering. For a while I was assuming that many people thought V to becoming a villain, or not worthy of pity and here we find ourselves so emotionally attached we are trying to throw RAW at the Giant to save V.

I for one, hope V lives... not sure how. Possibly dimensional anchor wears off and Quar helps out with some form of quick get away/teleport/planeshift.

Edit: I, FOR ONE, AM UPSET I DON'T SEE PEOPLE USING MATERIAL COMPONENTS!!! FORC CAGE WAS CASTE I BETTER D*** WELL SEE MY 1,500GP WORTH OF RUBY DUST

[Jaysyn]

Is 20'x 20'x 20' even big enough to Forcecage an ancient Black Dragon?

[Jaysyn]

Is 20'x 20'x 20' even big enough to Forcecage an ancient Black Dragon?

[Simanos]

The Prismatic Sphere spell description doesn't mention Antimagic Field. It simply says it works similar to the Prismatic Wall spell. Likewise the Forcecage one mentions it is similar to the Wall of Force spell. Also the Wall of Force spell description doesn't mention Antimagic Field even though it mentions Dispel Magic, Disintegrate, etc. This means the following sentence cannot be used to prove any points at all (that many posters tried above):
Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions).
RAW sucks at this instance. There is no consistency.

I would rule (as DM) that Forcecage isn't affected by AMF, like Wall of Force (as the OP said).
Is there any OFFICIAL response on this from WotC or the Sage or in the FAQ anywhere on the net? There probably is so find it if you want to support your case!

Personally, I'd rather ban the spell Antimagic Field. It's a ridiculous spell (especially the duration, maybe if it was instant or 1 round). I would probably allow Greater Dispelling to work on more stuff too though (like Wall of Force). Also in my view Dragons are magical creatures and their flying is partly magic based (wings not enough) not to mention their skeleton stress or their fast movement and muscles (it's like why Giant Insects in "usual" fantasy are engineeringly wrong). All the more reason to ban Antimagic Field.

EDIT: Another idea I got to avoid banning Antimagic Field is to make it immobile and not centered on the caster. How does that sound? Like a dead-magic zone. Then it can be allowed to stop almost anything.

[hamishspence]

Rules Compendium is pretty official, and explicitly calls out those three, and only those three, spells.

If you want an in-game explanation, maybe the person who researched the spell long long ago, left the exemptions in to protect himself, in case the spell was used against him.

on dragons- flight is only magical if the rules say it is. Any oversized flying creature like a roc, would be helpless before antimagic otherwise.

Some monsters you would expect to have Magical flight, don't. Beholders, despite weighing thousands of pounds, are "naturally bouyant" and have it as an extraordinary ability.

[Gilthans]

Conclusion: The Giant COULD have had the dragon teleport out/disintegrate the cage and THEN cast the AMF, resulting in a whole new Panel-With-Absolutely No-Purpose-Created-To-Follow-The-Rules-He-Explicitly-Stated-Aren't-Always-Observed (Thus on referred to as a PWANPCTFTRHESAAO). However, seeing as one such PWANPCTFTRHESAAO would mean one less Purposeful Panel (now labeled PuPa), I wholeheartedly support his discontinuity. Comics with PWANPCTFTRHESAAOs are comics engaged more in rule lawyering than in plot. Comics with PuPas are interesting.

I should have invented one more word for this post.

[tyckspoon]

Is 20'x 20'x 20' even big enough to Forcecage an ancient Black Dragon?

It'd have to be a Wyrm to cast Anti-Magic Field normally, since it's a 6th level spell which Sorcerers gain access to at level 13. Ancient Black Dragons only have caster level 11. That bumps it up to Gargantuan size, which uses a 20 foot space. So the answer is: Just barely, assuming you go with the approximation that a creature's three-dimensional space is cubic unless otherwise specified. And there's probably a debate going on in the main discussion thread for this strip over whether Qarr's description means 'Ancient Black Dragon' as a reference to the dragon age categories or just 'ancient Black Dragon' as in 'it's really really old.'

[Oslecamo]

There is no raw stating that the cage version should be affected (again, it doesn't specifically say the latter either).


See, this kind of reasoning is the base of 99% of the so called "inbalance" in D&D certain people complain about.

Nowhere does it say that a forcecage is immune to anti magic field, but hey, certain people will pick small pieces of text here and there, add up their own "logic", and claim whatever they want. So of course the game breacks, because people are basically picking up a chainsaw and cuting the rules left and right untill it's to their liking, and then claim it's RAW. Of course it's RAW.

(sarcasm)Don't be scared, wizard players, anti magic field doesn't stop anything at all, since all spells are, well, spells, they're clearly similar to wall of force, wich is also a spell, and thus unafected by AMF. (sarcasm)

One wonders what AMF actually does since wizard players are always coming up with excuses to why spell X isn't affected by it.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that forcecage laughs at anti magic field. Just as nowhere in the rules it says that writing down ashhsgfisui three times won't give you 100000 exp.



I for one, hope V lives... not sure how. Possibly dimensional anchor wears off and Quar helps out with some form of quick get away/teleport/planeshift.


Smart creaturs like to torture their prey before delivering the killing blow. And well, someone has to carry stubborn V back to the party, bleeding and screaming if needed.

[Simanos]

Rules Compendium is pretty official, and explicitly calls out those three, and only those three, spells.

If you want an in-game explanation, maybe the person who researched the spell long long ago, left the exemptions in to protect himself, in case the spell was used against him.

on dragons- flight is only magical if the rules say it is. Any oversized flying creature like a roc, would be helpless before antimagic otherwise.

Some monsters you would expect to have Magical flight, don't. Beholders, despite weighing thousands of pounds, are "naturally bouyant" and have it as an extraordinary ability.
What is the exact wording of the Rules Compendium please?
Is this issue not discussed at WotC forums or by the Sage or something?

I don't like that explanation. It's not bad, I just don't like it (it lacks epic feeling maybe). Maybe it's just me.

You could argue that the "magic" that allows Dragons to fly (and Rocs to exist) and Beholders to be buoyant while having mass of many pounds (technically they "weigh" nothing :smallcool: ) is similar to the magic that powers Golems and Undead and those are allowed inside an Antimagic Field (unless summoned, though the elemental spirit that powers Golems is summoned at creation...) .
All this confusion is all the more reason to ban the spell AMF.

PS: btw, I really liked this comic (#627). I don't like V. Not the boring, overdone gender joke, nor the practical=evil streak that developed. I would have like him more if he stayed a Dr House-like character who is usually right, but occasionally says "oops"!

EDIT: Wow! Oslecamo. Why all the Wizard-hate dude? There, there... /Colonel from Blackadder

[Berserk Monk]

I don't. ...........

:smallbiggrin: I love you Rich. If you ever need a kidney, I have two slightly-used ones ready for you.

[KIDS]

I agree that Antimagic Field is a ridiculous spell and serves only as a hastily implemented counter to overpowered wizards but hey, it's still part of the game. I support Rich in doing whatever he wants with the rules, pesky continuity should never bother him for the sake of advancing the story.* :)

* = V must live!!!

Also, what Gilthans said. You enrich the dictionary...

[Taldra]

You are looking at this too hard through the eyes of V; so step back and look at it from the eyes of Elan.

The AMS frees the Dragon and more importantly discourages further magical assault by V setting up the dramatic chase and capture.

There was never much of a doubt how such a confrontation would end and this resolution foretells the absolute dominance the Dragon will hold over V in the following strips.

[hamishspence]

Page 11, last paragraph:

"A wall of force, prismatic wall, or prismatic sphere isn't affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic don't dispel antimagic. Mordenkainen's disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined."

[Simanos]

I agree that Antimagic Field is a ridiculous spell and serves only as a hastily implemented counter to overpowered wizards but hey, it's still part of the game.
Prismatic Sphere would also be weird to adjudicate, but at least it's immobile.
Though how would you rule if faced with an Earth Elemental. Let's say the Sphere stops at ground level, a hemisphere like it says in the spell description. Then the Elemental can easily go down and pass through the earth to get at you from below. The other way to rule is that the Sphere is only visible above ground (for blindness and stuff), but the force effect exists below ground too. Air is mass like stone too so if it needed to displace mass...
Anyway I usually imagine such effects as 2-dimensional. A "wall" is a plane with zero thickness, etc. Just my imagination.


Page 11, last paragraph:

"A wall of force, prismatic wall, or prismatic sphere isn't affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic don't dispel antimagic. Mordenkainen's disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined."
That's the same as SRD:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#antimagic
That's the Antimagic special ability entry. What is the Rules Compendium entry on the Antimagic Field Spell. Does it still say "such as"?

[Forrester]

Just wanted to say I'm with those in the "This is kinda weak sauce" circle -- from my point of view, I don't think sacrificing the rules (and I think what the spirit of the rules here is is obvious, all the tap-dancing aside) is worth the gag in question. (That's not to justify any long-since-deleted-and-horribly-rude posts on the OP's part, of course.)

However, it could well be that Rich saw this coming, and may already have planned something like the "Escapable Forcecage" bit, which was good stuff.

(Also, always thought Forcecage was a *huge* piece of cheese, almost as much as AMF, so can't say I'm *too* bugged by it.)

To those who are all "Story >>>>> Rules", though, I'll say that while that may be true, story is not helped if the reader's main thought during the last panel is not "Wow, V is screwed" but is instead "But . . . but . . . that shouldn't have worked!" I have to say it pulled me out of the moment.

[hamishspence]

if you take "only the upper half exists" literally, the spell stops at ground level.

Not all spherical spells stop at ground level. the Mythal epic seed covers whole sphere, so, extending underground. It can be modified to a hemisphere, halving the cost.

Depends on how generous DM is.

Lets say you were in a very narrow passage, with thin walls on either side, and rooms below and above. You cast the spell/ Should the effect only occur front and back, should it not function at all, or should it be a sphere, with some of the edges being out of sight behind walls?

[Irreverent Fool]

You know, force cage is also supposed to be invisible.

This whole strip is awesome, and the last lines of the dragon echo clearly in my mind. I may just have to borrow them. It's so classic!

obnoxious
sig

[Simanos]

As a joke I call...
GEOMETRICAL SHENANIGANS!
If Forcecage is a 20 foot cube and Antimagic Field is a 10 foot radius sphere (or 20 foot diameter) then the sphere would fit inside the cube with barely touching the center of its sides. As we can see in the art, it extinguishes the top horizontal wall and doesn't touch the bottom wall, which is OK. But it also extinguishes (simultaneously) major parts of all 4 vertical walls, which it shouldn't be able to! (since it can't touch/reach opposite walls at the same time):smallcool:

PS: Remember. I said as a joke.

[hamishspence]

No mention of the spell itself- the book isn't for restatting every spell, but for rules clarifications.

The "such as" bit is, I think, for when later books bring out spells it doesn't suppress.

Antimagic-like effects, such as the Null Psionics Field, exist besides the spell. If both are in the game, one might rule that everything that's not stopped by Antimagic, isn't stopped by Null Psionics, and vice versa.

[Simanos]

You know, force cage is also supposed to be invisible.
BTW, I also noticed a small art error in panel 5. The red eye of the dragon gets a small black triangle inserted in it by the transparent parts of the non-invisible cage. It's because the dragon is black. It looks like an iris, but it isn't. (the art is pretty great in this strip, I like geometrical shapes and shading, interlocking, etc).
Anyway, V has detect invisible and the Dragon has true seeing or something no? So they can see the invisible cage LOL in a way :smalltongue:


No mention of the spell itself- the book isn't for restatting every spell, but for rules clarifications.

The "such as" bit is, I think, for when later books bring out spells it doesn't suppress.

Antimagic-like effects, such as the Null Psionics Field, exist besides the spell. If both are in the game, one might rule that everything that's not stopped by Antimagic, isn't stopped by Null Psionics, and vice versa.
I see. Still, can't anyone find it anywhere (elsewhere) being discussed online? Looks like prime material for the Sage or FAQ.

[Fcannon]

While I agree that it was against the rules, it doesn't really bother me. The dragon could have, say, cast Gaseous Form to pass through the bars, then dispelled it, THEN cast antimagic field. The action (and dialogue) just flows better to have the field take out the cage.

[Simanos]

if you take "only the upper half exists" literally, the spell stops at ground level.

Not all spherical spells stop at ground level. the Mythal epic seed covers whole sphere, so, extending underground. It can be modified to a hemisphere, halving the cost.

Depends on how generous DM is.

Lets say you were in a very narrow passage, with thin walls on either side, and rooms below and above. You cast the spell/ Should the effect only occur front and back, should it not function at all, or should it be a sphere, with some of the edges being out of sight behind walls?
Usually I'm pretty generous a DM.
I'd probably allow force effects to penetrate matter be it air or stone, liquid solid or gas. But only force effects, not stuff like rings of fire or stone. Probably...
Would lead to some funny situations too, like in the scenario you mentioned, possibly alerting people in other rooms with a misplaced effect.

BTW, I vaguely remember some spells that had areas of effect of X diameter sphere or at the choice of the caster an X radius hemisphere (so 2*X diameter). Can't recall any names now. Maybe it was AD&D spells. Can anyone help me with my memory here?:smallredface:

[ackmondual]

Wow. I was thinking even higher than that. I was going at the angle of....

Isn't anti-magic a type of magic to begin with? And to clear the air, I've only played RPGs in video game format.



I have read Order Of the Stick faithfully since comic 1... and since then everything has been AMAZING! ... HOWEVER... I am also a rule mongrel, and according to page 200 near the end of the description for anti magic field... it clearly states force cage isn't suppressed or dispelled by it.

*edit* I also bought the Order of the Stick game to... hella fun

If you care about continuity ... please find another way to pwn Varsuvius.

[hamishspence]

The Sage is regarded with suspicion by some players. However, I've just checked my Dragon mags (I have every 3.5 one except 310 and 319, and several 3.0 ones), and found little on antimagic fields.

It does point out that if neither the attacker nor the attacked are within field, magic weapon attacks resolve as normal- arrows which pass through the field benefit fully from enhancement bonus when they hit target on far side.

[Mando Knight]

BTW, I also noticed a small art error in panel 5. The red eye of the dragon gets a small black triangle inserted in it by the transparent parts of the non-invisible cage. It's because the dragon is black. It looks like an iris, but it isn't.

Assuming Rich hasn't fixed the comic again since that post... no, there isn't. The small triangle in the transparent part of the cage is just a darker red, a few shades "redder" than the red used for the eyes within the AMF.

[maxon]

Whoa. I know the rules say, but I never thought I'd ever actually see it :smalleek:

Me neither. Blimey.



As a joke I call...
GEOMETRICAL SHENANIGANS!
If Forcecage is a 20 foot cube and Antimagic Field is a 10 foot radius sphere (or 20 foot diameter) then the sphere would fit inside the cube with barely touching the center of its sides. As we can see in the art, it extinguishes the top horizontal wall and doesn't touch the bottom wall, which is OK. But it also extinguishes (simultaneously) major parts of all 4 vertical walls, which it shouldn't be able to! (since it can't touch/reach opposite walls at the same time):smallcool:

PS: Remember. I said as a joke.

What are these four walls you speak of? I see three but the 4th appears to be missing.

[ingtar33]

I find this whole V arc to be hilarious.


This is just like every campaign setting i've ever been in where 1 pc decided he's going to go off alone because he can pwn the quest on his own; and the rest of the party is lame.

This is like an angry DM throwing some righteous DM wrath on the spoiled selfish brat by throwing a foe the PC can't handle at them (not without serious help anyway).

[Raenir Salazar]

Ill Shenan Your Igan!

[Zaphrasz]

The spell description for Forcecage may not say it is immune to an anti-magic field, but it does say that it is made of Walls of Force, at least in the non barred version. Since Walls of force are immune to an anti-magic field, why wouldn't something made of them be?

If A=B and B=C then A=C.

This is not how it works in Order of the Stick world, however, as evidenced by it not happening.

[BRC]

You also can't use Weather Control to summon a lightning bolt so big that it's thunder destroys some treants, but nothing else, but I don't see anybody complaining about that.
Edit: also, Goblins and sylphs are medium sized. Therefore, it is my conclusion that, if there was a DM in OOTS, he would have forgotten that aspect of the spell/houseruled it out of existence.

[JaxGaret]

I'm surprised no one mentioned this yet:

The Black Dragon cast Anti-magic Field.

The spell in the PHB/SRD is Antimagic Field.

Anti-magic Field. Antimagic Field. Two different spells.

So the rules for Antimagic Field don't even apply here.

Problem solved.

[BRC]

I'm surprised no one mentioned this yet:

The Black Dragon cast Anti-magic Field.

The spell in the PHB/SRD is Antimagic Field.

Anti-magic Field. Antimagic Field. Two different spells.

So the rules for Antimagic Field don't even apply here.

Problem solved.
Once again, the problem is solved with the power of HYPHENS!

[Sholos]

I'm surprised no one mentioned this yet:

The Black Dragon cast Anti-magic Field.

The spell in the PHB/SRD is Antimagic Field.

Anti-magic Field. Antimagic Field. Two different spells.

So the rules for Antimagic Field don't even apply here.

Problem solved.

Actually, it was originally Anti-magic shell. The Giant simply left the hyphen in when he changed it for readability issues.

[BRC]

Actually, it was originally Anti-magic shell. The Giant simply left the hyphen in when he changed it for readability issues.
Do not question the power of the Hyphen!

[David Argall]

Is 20'x 20'x 20' even big enough to Forcecage an ancient Black Dragon?
Easily. An ancient black is merely a huge creature, which is assumed to fit in a 15' cube. The fact it is 50' long is simplified out.



You also can't use Weather Control to summon a lightning bolt so big that it's thunder destroys some treants, but nothing else, but I don't see anybody complaining about that.
Actually we have one of the archeons complaining in the next strip.



Nowhere in the rules does it say that forcecage laughs at anti magic field. Just as nowhere in the rules it says that writing down ashhsgfisui three times won't give you 100000 exp.
But we are saying the rules do say Force Cage laughs at anti-magic field. They merely do not say so in black and white. The argument is no different from saying that since the rules say 1+2=3 and 5+3=8, they say 1+4+3=8.



Rules Compendium is pretty official, and explicitly calls out those three, and only those three, spells.
Rules Compendium is of inferior officialness to the printed works, except where these are known to be in error. In particular it simplifies the text, making it even less reliable on fine points of the rules, such as we are debating.
PH says "Certain spells, such as...", which implies rather strongly that there are non-listed spells that are not affected. And since we had several years of additional spells, this is clearly the superior wording. We would be stunned not to find additional spells somewhere in the mess of splat books.
Those of us saying forcecage is one of those additional spells have the burden of proof, but only the burden of proof. RC does not shut the courthouse door.

We can note that Anti-magic Field is only a 6th level spell, which can cancel/suppress 9th level spells. That suggests a distinct amount of overpoweredness, and a duty to read against the spell in cases of doubt.

[Simanos]

Assuming Rich hasn't fixed the comic again since that post... no, there isn't. The small triangle in the transparent part of the cage is just a darker red, a few shades "redder" than the red used for the eyes within the AMF.
Shouldn't it be the other way around then? The part of the eye covered by the pink bar should be the darker part, no? But I see what you mean, though I had to magnify the page to max to see it.


What are these four walls you speak of? I see three but the 4th appears to be missing.
Look again. A cube has 6 walls/sides.

[xv bones]

I don't see where 'continuity' and 'rules lawyering' share any definition. ...........

fixed that up for you, mr. burlew

[xv bones]

No amount of rules lawyering can override the final word of the GM.

Mr. Burlew is very clearly said GM, the long, nerdy debate raging on whether or not an Anti-Magic Field could dissolve a Forcecage is, in fact, said rules lawyering.

The exact written rules of Dungeons and Dragons, the specific wording of either of these spells, all of this is academic.

All that matters is that the field dissolved the force cage.
Therefore, it was clearly capable of dissolving the cage.

Because the GM said so.

The players' only recourse to the final word of the GM is "take your dice and go home."

Sadly, this is not an option for Vaarsuvius.

That is all.

[Simanos]

The Sage is regarded with suspicion by some players. However, I've just checked my Dragon mags (I have every 3.5 one except 310 and 319, and several 3.0 ones), and found little on antimagic fields.

It does point out that if neither the attacker nor the attacked are within field, magic weapon attacks resolve as normal- arrows which pass through the field benefit fully from enhancement bonus when they hit target on far side.
I can't find any proper discussion on it so far, so I will search more tomorrow. I hope someone else has better luck.


Actually we have one of the archeons complaining in the next strip.
Didn't the southern God's complain about it too a bit later? I recall a confrontation between Thor and an angry Tiger. Catnip (or something) was mentioned. Or was that about another matter?

[Vemynal]

I don't. ...........

I love you

[David Argall]

The fact we can't overrule the DM does not mean we can't say he is entirely in the wrong.

[xv bones]

The fact we can't overrule the DM does not mean we can't say he is entirely in the wrong.

Not as such. Accepting an individual as your GM implies acceptance that his version of the world you are about to adventure in is true.

House rules, railroad plots, personal touches, custom spells, monsters or situations, you are accepting all of these when you sit down at the table.

You can call him wrong as often as you like, this does not change the fact that he is the GM and as such the all-powerful god of the world you agree to take part in.

What you can do is:
1) accept this
2) sit there and grumble as the Dragon strips your forcecage away but accept this
3) call the GM a poopface dumbhead moron, take your dice and the case of Dr. Pepper you paid for, and go home.

Creative license overrules all sourcebooks.

[Vemynal]

his story- he can write what he wants (and for those of us who barely pay attention to D&D rules, it doesnt matter)

edit- sides it can be more fun sometimes if the GM lets ya pull stuff like this a little here and there. My avy? technically impossible because a 10th level dragon disciple gains the half dragon template while a Lich has to be an undead template and you arnt supposed to be able to mix them.

[sikyon]

Not as such. Accepting an individual as your GM implies acceptance that his version of the world you are about to adventure in is true.


It most certainlly does not. It implies acceptance that the GM will create a story/adventure based on the ruels set forth for the game.

If I go to a court of law, to have the precedings presided over by a judge, am I implying acceptance that the judge will be able to decide what the law is? Obviously not, judges don't make the laws, they merely enforce them. GM's don't make the rules, GM's make the adventure. If they need creative license in bending the rules this should be arranged with the group of players, all of whom are playing the game. If and only if the GM aranged explicitly for a carte blanche regarding rules with each member of the game would he be justified in making up rules.

Edit: Technically judges do make law but... we won't get into that as it's not a perfect analogy

[Dausuul]

Not as such. Accepting an individual as your GM implies acceptance that his version of the world you are about to adventure in is true.

House rules, railroad plots, personal touches, custom spells, monsters or situations, you are accepting all of these when you sit down at the table.

You can call him wrong as often as you like, this does not change the fact that he is the GM and as such the all-powerful god of the world you agree to take part in.

What you can do is:
1) accept this
2) sit there and grumble as the Dragon strips your forcecage away but accept this
3) call the GM a poopface dumbhead moron, take your dice and the case of Dr. Pepper you paid for, and go home.

Creative license overrules all sourcebooks.

Or:

4) make your case, in a calm and civilized fashion, for why forcecage should trump anti-magic field. GMs are not infallible; as a GM, I certainly don't mind having a player point out a rule I'd forgotten. After I've heard the player's concerns and made a final ruling, I expect the player to accept that ruling with good grace, but I think it's part of a GM's job to give the player a fair hearing first, especially in a case like this where the PC's life may depend on the outcome.

5) lead a player revolt, wherein the players refuse en masse to continue the game if the GM persists in a particular folly. (I'd never stage a player revolt over AMF versus forcecage, but I have been in games where the GM's actions were so egregiously bad as to warrant such things.)

[xv bones]

It most certainlly does not. It implies acceptance that the GM will create a story/adventure based on the ruels set forth for the game.

Which game, exactly, are the members of OOTS playing?
It's obviously BASED on DND, but as it's not material licensed specifically by the WotC....


If I go to a court of law, to have the precedings presided over by a judge, am I implying acceptance that the judge will be able to decide what the law is? Obviously not, judges don't make the laws, they merely enforce them.

Straw arguement, and a little misguided. The GM isn't a judge hearing complaints and passing judgement on them, the GM is a god creating a world around your characters and keeping it running.

A better analogy here would be, "If I approached my guiding Deity..."
To which the response would be "And then he smote you for questioning His Divine Will".



GM's don't make the rules, GM's make the adventure. If they need creative license in bending the rules this should be arranged with the group of players, all of whom are playing the game. If and only if the GM aranged explicitly for a carte blanche regarding rules with each member of the game would he be justified in making up rules.

How do you know this is not the case?

It's been explicitly stated, this is not a campaign, it is a story that takes place in a DND-like universe.

As such is the case, the GM-as-God analogy holds, and Mr. Burlew is still completely in the right.

[xv bones]

EDIT: just to be clear, my above post assumed that logic recourse and mild rules-lawyering/questioning/pointingoutining/whatevering had already been attempted and failed, and that the GM had given his final word on the matter, prohibiting further appeals.


Or:

4) make your case, in a calm and civilized fashion, for why forcecage should trump anti-magic field. GMs are not infallible; as a GM, I certainly don't mind having a player point out a rule I'd forgotten. After I've heard the player's concerns and made a final ruling, I expect the player to accept that ruling with good grace, but I think it's part of a GM's job to give the player a fair hearing first, especially in a case like this where the PC's life may depend on the outcome.

And if it was completely required, in order for your story to continue, that AMF dissolve Force Cage?


5) lead a player revolt, wherein the players refuse en masse to continue the game if the GM persists in a particular folly. (I'd never stage a player revolt over AMF versus forcecage, but I have been in games where the GM's rulings were so egregiously bad as to warrant such things.)

Player revolts generally climax with the taking of the dice and the going home.

[Twilight Jack]

It most certainlly does not. It implies acceptance that the GM will create a story/adventure based on the ruels set forth for the game.

If I go to a court of law, to have the precedings presided over by a judge, am I implying acceptance that the judge will be able to decide what the law is? Obviously not, judges don't make the laws, they merely enforce them. GM's don't make the rules, GM's make the adventure. If they need creative license in bending the rules this should be arranged with the group of players, all of whom are playing the game. If and only if the GM aranged explicitly for a carte blanche regarding rules with each member of the game would he be justified in making up rules.

Edit: Technically judges do make law but... we won't get into that as it's not a perfect analogy

And while both you and David Argall are largely correct in the case of explicitly spelled out rules, I would take exception with the notion that a DM making a judgement call based upon an ambiguous section of RAW is taking that sort of creative license. A DM who comes across a situation in which the rules are either silent or insufficient has little choice but to make a judgement call. It's a shame that the designers weren't more explicit, but there is room in the RAW for both interpretations regarding the effects of an AMF on forcecage. Giant chose one and went with it. So long as we don't ever see a standard forcecage remain immune to AMF in the future, then his call is a valid one by both the RAW of D&D and good storytelling.

[sikyon]

Which game, exactly, are the members of OOTS playing?
It's obviously BASED on DND, but as it's not material licensed specifically by the WotC....


It doesn't matter, every game has rules.


Straw arguement, and a little misguided. The GM isn't a judge hearing complaints and passing judgement on them, the GM is a god creating a world around your characters and keeping it running.

A better analogy here would be, "If I approached my guiding Deity..."
To which the response would be "And then he smote you for questioning His Divine Will".



The GM is a god creating a world, but he is not creating the underlying meta-laws (hitpoints, damage, combat mechanics). These are between all the "gods" of the world.

No the GM is the person who is using the campaign editor to place units and make terrain. He doesn't have access to modifiying unit abilities without permission explicitly granted. Which leads us to...



How do you know this is not the case?

It's been explicitly stated, this is not a campaign, it is a story that takes place in a DND-like universe.

As such is the case, the GM-as-God analogy holds, and Mr. Burlew is still completely in the right.

I never said he couldn't do it, I was simply saying that


Not as such. Accepting an individual as your GM implies acceptance that his version of the world you are about to adventure in is true.

Is completly wrong and out of a GM's default scope of power (note: default)

[xv bones]

It doesn't matter, every game has rules.

But it's been stated, OOTS' storyline isn't a game, it's a story taking place in a game-like universe.



The GM is a god creating a world, but he is not creating the underlying meta-laws (hitpoints, damage, combat mechanics). These are between all the "gods" of the world.

No the GM is the person who is using the campaign editor to place units and make terrain. He doesn't have access to modifiying unit abilities without permission explicitly granted. Which leads us to...


All of this entirely depends on the GM, the players and the game. I cannot remember the last time I played any game that wasn't altered to suit the GM's needs in one way or another.


Is completly wrong and out of a GM's default scope of power (note: default)

I'll agree to disagree, the point is still Mr. Burlew was absolutely within his rights as a writer and storyteller to define the capacities of AMF and the weaknesses of a forcecage as he saw fit, to advance the plot of his story.

[Dausuul]

And if it was completely required, in order for your story to continue, that AMF dissolve Force Cage?

I don't generally design my plots in such a way. If I had done so, I'd hastily redesign it. In this particular instance, if the dragon didn't have any teleportation magic ready, I'd let V escape - for a day, and assuming the dragon didn't come up with some other method of freeing itself in the interim *cough*imp*cough*.

But then, I don't regard running a D&D campaign as writing a story. D&D requires that the players and I have a shared understanding of how the game world works. That means interpreting the rules fairly. To be sure, I reserve the right to add elements not covered in the rules; the dragon could have a custom spell that shuts down forcecage.

But if the dragon is going to use anti-magic field, then it should work the way a reasonable player reading the rules would expect it to work. If that messes up my plans - so be it! Let V's player have his/her moment of satisfaction at putting one over on me. I'd be a lousy DM if I couldn't figure out a way to get things back on track.

When I write a story, it's a very different matter; the rules of magic in my story can be whatever I need them to be. And Rich, as a storyteller, has much more leeway to play with the rules than I would allow myself as a DM.

[galdon]

Clearly the dragon is using a superior version of the spell, just look at the size of the thing.

According to the spell discription, AMF has a 10 food radius, which would mean from edge to edge that'd be 20 feet. if we assumed Vaarsuvious to be 5 feet tall, it would be four vaarsuviouses wide. Clearly it is much larger than that.

The spell is clearly the comic strip's version of the spell, just like how if you click the gaming section you can find home brewed prestige classes, enemies, and feats.

[Assassin89]

I don't. ...........

Big thumbs up to The Giant for defending his comic. Remember that in the world of Order of the Stick, the Giant defines the rules for the realm. If one is not satisfied with the rules, no amount of complaining will change those rules.



Actually we have one of the archeons complaining in the next strip.

Odd, I thought that was a plantar.

[ss49]

Emerson!

(Isaac Asimov used this reference to (IIRC) R W Emerson, who he quoted as saying, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Eventually, to refute an editor's unwanted input, he would write 'Emerson!' in the margin and move on.)

[JaxGaret]

Actually, it was originally Anti-magic shell. The Giant simply left the hyphen in when he changed it for readability issues.

Antilife shell doesn't have a hyphen either.

[The Blackbird]

While we encourage people who disagree with aspects of the comic to voice their opinions, insulting Rich in the process is not acceptable on these message boards. User mikker0 has found this out the hard way.

Ooh burn, mikker

[The Extinguisher]

Rule of Cool people.

And what does it matter. Rich has shown time and time again he doesn't care about the rules if it makes a better story.

[umbralspace]

Rule of Cool people.

And what does it matter. Rich has shown time and time again he doesn't care about the rules if it makes a better story.

I think the simple issue here is that while we normally dont care about the rules because its a great comic, an epic battle scene (epic as in cool) should always be done with extreme care. No PC likes to see their character die when a rule lookup could've saved their life.

*EDIT* And I <3 V.... im so mad shes getting pwned :smallfrown:

[Edea]

Heck, it could be a version of antimagic field the dragon gained through research that punches through force barriers. Sorcerers can do that, too, especially NPC sorcerers (see: 'Xykon's Moderately Escapable Forcecage'), and IMO the RAW doesn't support forcecage's immunity to the effect (as has been stated ad nauseum).

What made me dislike that part of the comic was that a spell which was so much more appropriate to the task at hand, that would have killed threads like this before they started, and that was already being focused on as part of the punchline for these last few strips, was not used instead: disintegrate.

Then again, I guess the thread in its place would be 'does disintegrate destroy one 10-foot cube's worth of forcecage, or does it destroy the entire object?'. I'd say the former, but then, we could have seen this dragon spam the daylights out of the spell in ways V can't possibly duplicate (would love to see the look on V's face after seeing that).

[Spoomeister]

For pity's sake, y'all are missing the obvious...

V's sleep-deprived, and this is another dream. Hence, all bets are off. V's worst fear would be that a) her magic didn't work anymore and b) her magic would be cancelled / removed in the most illogical way possible.

[umbralspace]

For pity's sake, y'all are missing the obvious...

V's sleep-deprived, and this is another dream. Hence, all bets are off. V's worst fear would be that a) her magic didn't work anymore and b) her magic would be cancelled / removed in the most illogical way possible.


... I like it

[OldFart]

I think this entire debate stems from people missing one of the subtler jokes in this strip.

Of course Forcecage would not be affected by AMF. It's clearly meant to work like Wall of Force.

Only the most semantics-obsessed rules lawyer would ever try to make an argument otherwise. You know, like the kind of person who would say their elven wizard doesn't actually need to trance. Because all they have to do to regain spells is rest for eight hours. The rules lawyer, after trying to find a loophole that goes against common sense, just because it wasn't specifically spelled out in the rules, it thus hoist on hir own petard.

Now that's comedy!

[Prak]

Well, I guess that answers that. :smallwink:

Still, I enjoy finding creative ways to work *within* the rules, personally... I mean, if any given spell doesn't work the way we know it to work, then what else might not work? It just makes the ground shakier, overall. Of course, perhaps that is the point: we're not meant to know what's happening...

I enjoy knowing what the rules are. I don't care too much if the DM house rules something, so long as players are told ahead of time and it's not just "well I want the story to go this way, so CHOO CHOO!! ALL ABOARD THE STORY TRAIN!!"

to put it more... nicely... I'm very glad I'm not V's player. Actually, I'm very glad I'm not Durkon or Elan's player either... I'd have gone to dinner by now, with a note to the dm to call me when I'm going to actually do something...

[Optimystik]

I think this entire debate stems from people missing one of the subtler jokes in this strip.

Of course Forcecage would not be affected by AMF. It's clearly meant to work like Wall of Force.

Only the most semantics-obsessed rules lawyer would ever try to make an argument otherwise. You know, like the kind of person who would say their elven wizard doesn't actually need to trance. Because all they have to do to regain spells is rest for eight hours. The rules lawyer, after trying to find a loophole that goes against common sense, just because it wasn't specifically spelled out in the rules, it thus hoist on hir own petard.

Now that's comedy!

Win, win, and more win.

It strikes me that this isn't the first time semantics has gone against V. ("Technically it was the owlbear that ate you, asshat")

[pendell]

Wait a minute -- doesn't forcecage have some $$$$$ expensive spell component that we don't see in-frame?

If so, V doesn't have any cause to complain about rule-fudging, does he? If we were playing strictly by core, ze couldn't have cast forcecage in the first place.

If *I* were V's player, given that my life had been saved twice already by favorable rulings ('control weather') or GM fiat (Dragon head destroying death knight), I have *no* cause to complain about the GM's rulings. The GM has favored my character far more often than not.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zevox]

Meh.

From a strict rules point-of-view, Antimagic Field can indeed affect Force Cage. Force Cage is not listed as one it cannot affect in AMF's description, and that description says to look at the descriptions of other spells to see if they are immune if they are not on the list. Fore Cage doesn't say it is. Ergo, it isn't.

But that's beside the point. The Giant could quite easily have had the dragon escape the Force Cage in a number of other ways - just to name 3 off the top of my head that any dragon with access to Antimagic Field could easily have access to, there's Disintegrate, Teleport, and Dimension Door, at the very least. Net change would be V either fleeing further or getting one spell off - likely to no effect, since she had just exhausted her best spells uselessly - and the Dragon casting Antimagic Field one round later. This way just things over with faster and is a lot cooler/more amusing to watch. No reason to get bent out of shape over it.

Zevox

[Prak]

I think most groups fudge material components...

[Shlik]

I realise that few people read the forums in comparison to those who read the actual comic. I tend to flick through them after I read a particularly exciting comic like the current OotS 627 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html). I was surprised to read about the controversy involving Forcecage and Antimagic Field.

Clearly this is another case of Vaarsuvius purchasing his spells from the Magick Shoppe's discount bin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0088.html).



I'm not a player of D&D and the closest I've gotten is on computer RPGs like Baldur's Gate series/Neverwinter Nights series/Temple of Elemental Evil. I only played some of these games partly because of this comic because it drummed up an interest. The Giant's story telling ability has only been improving over time with each story arc becoming more and more compelling. I am particularly enjoying the ironically character developing "fake" character development from Belkar and this newly revealed reason for Vaarsuvius' behaviour is quite a teaser. The dragon turned off magic, magic spells stop working. It makes sense. I don't particularly care that in D&D 3.5 that some spells are described in whatever way... the background rules are always mere facilitators of the more important plot.

[qube]

besides ... 'suddenly a ancient black dragon appears ... ' ? seriously sounds link DM intervention

[MickJay]

For pity's sake, y'all are missing the obvious...

V's sleep-deprived, and this is another dream. Hence, all bets are off. V's worst fear would be that a) her magic didn't work anymore and b) her magic would be cancelled / removed in the most illogical way possible.


Huh, that would make a lot of sense, even more so if Qarr was involved in shaping the dream (getting V to agree to cooperate with his waking scream). :smallbiggrin:

[Dausuul]

Clearly this is another case of Vaarsuvius purchasing his spells from the Magick Shoppe's discount bin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0088.html).

Heh. That's brilliant.

[Oslecamo]

But we are saying the rules do say Force Cage laughs at anti-magic field. They merely do not say so in black and white. The argument is no different from saying that since the rules say 1+2=3 and 5+3=8, they say 1+4+3=8.


The wording of the spell is similar. Not equal. Similar. Just like humans and chimps have very similar ADN, yet I don't see chimps building scryscrappers and tanks or webcomics for the matter. The rules don't say 1+2+3. The rules say that 2 is similar to 2.1, but they're still diferent, and 2.1+3 isn't 5.



We can note that Anti-magic Field is only a 6th level spell, which can cancel/suppress 9th level spells. That suggests a distinct amount of overpoweredness, and a duty to read against the spell in cases of doubt.

No, because it's a very limited spell on itself, and if you're not a dragon, it's quite hard to abuse it, since the caster can fly away while pepering you with bolts. AMF dragons are one of the few things that can give optimized casters a run for their money.

[okpokalypse]

Guys, this is messed up from top to bottom in terms of following the D&D rules. I can list multiple ways:

1. The Black Dragon cast an anti-magic field, making it at least Wyrm Age, which is a Gargantuan Creature - and too big to be put in a Force Cage to begin with...

2. Anti-Magic Field is a 10' Radius Spell. This isn't 10' from the outer skin of the caster, but 10' Centered on the Caster. This is a common mistake make with many area spells. A PC that becomes gaseous and fills a 50x50 area doesn't then produce a 60x60 AMF. It's still just a 10' Radius. From the spell Description: "Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field." This means that the dragon would be larger on all sides, and the AMF would never reach the bars of the Force Cage to supress it. In fact, the field wouldn't extend past it's body to keep V from casting...

3. While it is mildly questionable whether Force Cage is supressed by an AMF, I believe that it's rather easy to conclude it is NOT affected by such via the following logic:

I. From the AMF Description: "Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions)." Note it doesn't say "the following spells, but "Certain spells, such as..." This is a distinction of openness - such that more spells are inclusive.

II. From the Force Cage Description: "Like a wall of force spell, a forcecage resists dispel magic, but it is vulnerable to a disintegrate spell, and it can be destroyed by a sphere of annihilation or a rod of cancellation." The key here is "like a wall of force spell..." It's noteworthy that AMF is not mentioned, which leads us to Wall of Force itself...

III. From the Wall of Force Description: "...it is unaffected by most spells, including dispel magic. However, disintegrate immediately destroys it, as does a rod of cancellation, a sphere of annihilation, or a Mordenkainen’s disjunction spell." Notice again, no mention of AMF here either.

It can be easily deduced that the Force Cage, being "like a wall of force spell" inherits the same vulnerability and resistances of the lower-level spell. It has all the same characteristics save duration and shape. They're both Evocation [Force] as well.

So...

the Dragon shouldn't have been able to be put in the cage which was questionably dispelled (notice it disappeared, wasn't supressed) by an AMF which wasn't large enough to reach the cage itself.

Doh!

Personally, I don't care as long as the story is good. I noticed that Rich specifically had the Dragon's head outside the AMF bubble, so I suspect it's going to be vulnerable to V's spells after all - and be surprised as hell when something happens.

[AKA_Bait]

Just want to chime in with 2 points as to why OP is wrong and Rich is right:

1. By RAW and RAI, The Giant is correct.

The text of AMF (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicfield.htm)says: Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Emphasis mine.

Nothing in the text of Wall of Force. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htm)even mentions Antimagic field. We know that it is unaffected only because of the spell description of Antimagic field itself.

The spell description of Forcecage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm)says "Like a wall of force spell, a forcecage resists dispel magic, but it is vulnerable to a disintegrate spell, and it can be destroyed by a sphere of annihilation or a rod of cancellation" and that it creates "bands of force (similar to a wall of force spell) for bars" and also makes no mention of Antimagic Field.

i.e.- Nothing in the spell description, nor in the spell referenced in the spell description, does it say anything about immunity to AMF. Hence, by RAW, it's not immune.

RAI the Giant is also right. As, I think it was Hamishpence, already said the Rules Compendium revisited AMF and Forcecage was still not made explicitally immune. With all the changes to RAW (and there were a few, some pretty signifigant), in the RC I think it's pretty safe to assume that the designers final intentions for those specific rules addressed in the RC are what the designers intended. The entire point of the RC was to collect rules changes and make them mesh with the designers intent (as well as to make some final cash for WotC).

2. This strip rocked.

This is not a game. There are no players to "betray" or whatever. It is a stip in an excellet ongoing webcomic which would have been diminshed if there was a housrule in place not allowing the dragon to deal with V's attempts to stop it easily and quickly. That was the bloody point of the title and the last line of the strip. If the dragon needed to go around trading spells with V to get out and be effective it simply wouldn't work well. Accept it, continue liking the comic, thank the creator and move on people. Sheesh.

@^ Size of things is something that the Giant has always had be fluid to the moment and different from the RAW of D&D 3.5. Goblins and Sylphs are medium sized OotS, for example.

[okpokalypse]

No, because it's a very limited spell on itself, and if you're not a dragon, it's quite hard to abuse it, since the caster can fly away while pepering you with bolts. AMF dragons are one of the few things that can give optimized casters a run for their money.

Yes and no. An AMF Dragon loses all it's ranged attacks. Granted it can still fly and a high rate of speed, which makes it not vulnerable to a death from above. AMF Supresses all Spell-Like Abilities and Supernatural Abilities. This includes the Dragon's Breath Weapon and Casting.

So it makes itself a big melee creature and nothing more with an AMF, and a lot of spells can still do significant damage to it. Remember, AMF specifically doesn't stop Conjuration (Summoning) spells that are instantaneous duration either... From AMF:

"The effects of instantaneous conjurations, such as create water, are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result."

A L18 Conjurer Specialist would have his way with an AMF Dragon. Melf's Unicorn Arrows fit the bill of being unaffected by the AMF. It also is unaffected by SR and requires a Ranged Touch Attack to Hit (Easy against Gargantuan+ Creatures). They have very good range, and do 5d8+40 per spell. That becomes 80 Maximized and 120 Max / Empowered. A Specialist Conjurer can quicken 3 of the for free a day. With the right meta-magic feats, I can get a L18 Conjurer casting a pair of Twinned, Maximized, Empowered Melf's Unicorns per turn. That's 480 Damage per Round (oh, and a DC 59 Bull Rush - heh). Dragon's done.

Of course, that's the right type of caster. An Evoker would have problems unless they put themselves behind a wall of force and waited for the duration of the AMF to pass. Heh.

[Zevox]

1. The Black Dragon cast an anti-magic field, making it at least Wyrm Age, which is a Gargantuan Creature - and too big to be put in a Force Cage to begin with...
Or, you know, she could simply be the age Quarr said (Ancient) plus have one or more levels in Sorcerer or a spellcasting PrC. ("I too have a passion for the arcane arts... even moreso than others of my kind.")


2. Anti-Magic Field is a 10' Radius Spell. This isn't 10' from the outer skin of the caster, but 10' Centered on the Caster. This is a common mistake make with many area spells. A PC that becomes gaseous and fills a 50x50 area doesn't then produce a 60x60 AMF. It's still just a 10' Radius. From the spell Description: "Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field." This means that the dragon would be larger on all sides, and the AMF would never reach the bars of the Force Cage to supress it. In fact, the field wouldn't extend past it's body to keep V from casting...
You are mistaking radius for diameter. Radius is the distance from the center of the circle to one of its edges. And since that circle is centered on the center of the Dragon, it doesn't have to be larger than a 15' radius, but rather only half that, about 7.5', which it is. Yes, this means that the field won't extend much past it's body, but unless my eyes deceive me it kinda looks like the Dragon is going to grapple V in those last couple of pannels, which means they occupy the same space, so she is definitely within the field's radius.

Zevox

[Ladorak]

I don't. ...........

You know a great storyteller when he can tell a whole story in two words. Horray for the Giant

[whatchamacallit]

Way too much nitpicking, artistic license aside- spells are modifiable and rules meant to be broken. It's just a comic book and a game, taking it beyond that cries for a desperate need for more activities in one's life.

[AKA_Bait]

Way too much nitpicking, artistic license aside- spells are modifiable and rules meant to be broken. It's just a comic book and a game, taking it beyond that cries for a desperate need for more activities in one's life.

Blasphemy! This is the internet! The internet is to nitpicking as Sparta is to badassery and shirtlessness.

Seriously though, I'll admit that the first thing I did after reading the strip was, call up the SRD and check since I had previously been under the impression that forcecage worked in AMF. So having/reading a discussion about that part of the 3.5 rules was interesting to me. I actually learned a little bit more about D&D because of it. ::Cue The More You Know Rainbow::

You are right of course that only silly, silly people would let the nitpicking diminish their enjoyment of the strip or even worse, cause them to get ticked off.

[David Argall]

The wording of the spell is similar. Not equal. Similar. Just like humans and chimps have very similar ADN, yet I don't see chimps building scryscrappers and tanks or webcomics for the matter. The rules don't say 1+2+3. The rules say that 2 is similar to 2.1, but they're still diferent, and 2.1+3 isn't 5.

As another weisenheimer said to me, 2.1+3 does equal 5, for certain values of 5. [5 defined as a range of points, say 4.51-5.5, rather than as a single point.] And we are dealing here with ranges. As with any law code, the same rule must be applied to many different cases.

[QUOTE=Oslecamo;5711445]No, because it's a very limited spell on itself, and if you're not a dragon, it's quite hard to abuse it, since the caster can fly away while pepering you with bolts. AMF dragons are one of the few things that can give optimized casters a run for their money.
It's a spell more designed for the monster than the player, but any brute monster can benefit greatly from it. Since the spell extends beyond the creature, your attacking melee fighter suffers greatly. His Belt of giant strength, his amulet of health, boots of speed, +major sword, ... are now all mundane, and he is easy meat. [One of the flaws of 3.5 has been that players are more worried about PC goodies than whether the PC actually survives. After maybe 10th level, a PC is so dependent on his magic that he has virtually no chance of surviving XP earning encounters without it.] The mage can fly away, but the idea is for the party to get past the monster, not run away from it.
Now it is a You spell, and so relatively few brutes have the spellcasting ability to use it, but when they do, the melee people are in bad trouble. And spells that are real encounter killers on the rare times they show up are suspect by nature. They just invite abuse.

[B.I.T.T.]

"...just repeat to yourself 'It's just a show, I should really just relax..."

But that's just my opinion.

[The Minx]

Force effects like Wall of Force not going out in an AMF is a pretty silly rule anyway. I mean, surely the force effect cannot sustain itself non-magically, can it? There really is nothing like it in reality, and despite it being magical, it can exist in a zone where no magic functions? Even summoned creatures wink out in an anti-magic field, for goodness sakes. Conjured stuff like a Wall of Stone is different, because that spell is Instantaneous, and brings the (non-magical) stone to the caster. Wall of Force has a duration other than Instantaneous, so it is quite different.

As an aside, I would like to point out that other force effects, like Magic Missile are generally interpreted to not work in an AMF, so why should static force effects do so? It really makes no sense.

So, I support the Giant's house-rule, and would probably use it myself. :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

Spell compendium- lots of spells made up of force, one low level one creates a box with "walls of force" making up its sides. Do they all remain functional in the field, or does it make more sense to say that its just descriptive text, and nothing in the actual spell description makes it immune?

[Rotipher]

FWIW, I like the explanation for the WoF's tolerance for AMF that someone posted quite a while back: that the inventor of the AMF spell had happened to know WoF (and the Prismatics), and had deliberately engineered AMF to ignore just those three effects, so he/she wouldn't be rendered powerless while using AMF. As Forcecage is more of an offensive spell, AMF's inventor would have left it off the "unaffected" list, to ensure he/she couldn't be caught by that effect; only defensive spells that the inventor favored as self-protection were excluded from AMF's scope.

OOC, I know it seems arbitrary. But then, the list of spells that cancel out Prismatic Wall/Sphere layers is pretty haphazard too, suggesting a similar mindset. Perhaps both AMF and the Prismatic spells were invented by the same eccentric abjurer?

[The Minx]

Spell compendium- lots of spells made up of force, one low level one creates a box with "walls of force" making up its sides. Do they all remain functional in the field, or does it make more sense to say that its just descriptive text, and nothing in the actual spell description makes it immune?

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Some force effects seem to work (going by literal interpretation), while others don't. :/

I don't have Spell Compendium on hand, but going by your description, I guess that a box with "walls of force" would not go out (by the rules), since "spells such as Wall of Force" don't go out. Kind of strange, but there you go. :/

I'm more interested in what happens to spells like Bigby's <whatever> Hand, since that is a force effect, but quite unlike WoF. I think they mean that magical barriers, especially immobile magical barriers don't go out (*). So if the box you refer to can be moved around, that raises further questions.


(*) On review, the spells Prismatic Wall and Prismatic Sphere create a barrier of light, not force.


BTW, I wanted to respond to this:


I didn't know Antimagic field didn't canceled Forcecage (it's not on the SRD), but if he wanted to destroy it, he could have the dragon do disintegrate on the cage, same spell-level. It's not an abuse of the rules to fool the readers, that fight could have gone any other way (heck, we didn't even know V had Forcecage before this strip) so... i fail to see the importance. Still i think that a different spell other than disintegrate to deal with the forcecage (within the same power level) is better story wise.

Indeed. The Dragon going "Disintigrate! Now... Antimagic Shell!" instead of just "Antimagic shell" would have made no difference at all, especially since V was probably out of 7th level spells, and couldn't cast another forcecage anyway.


EDIT to respond to ninjas:


FWIW, I like the explanation for the WoF's tolerance for AMF that someone posted quite a while back: that the inventor of the AMF spell had happened to know WoF (and the Prismatics), and had deliberately engineered AMF to ignore just those three effects, so he/she wouldn't be rendered powerless while using AMF. As Forcecage is more of an offensive spell, AMF's inventor would have left it off the "unaffected" list, to ensure he/she couldn't be caught by that effect; only defensive spells that the inventor favored as self-protection were excluded from AMF's scope.

OOC, I know it seems arbitrary. But then, the list of spells that cancel out Prismatic Wall/Sphere layers is pretty haphazard too, suggesting a similar mindset. Perhaps both AMF and the Prismatic spells were invented by the same eccentric abjurer?

Though arbitrary, it certainly can be used as an excuse. :smallsmile: And moreover, you can always use the further arbitrary excuse that the dragon (or whoever) simply researched anther variant to the spell.

[Caractacus]

I read the whole thread before posting, and as okpokalypse also notes:

'Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field. '

I dearly hope that this ends up being relevant - would be most mirthful... :smallcool:

I am V worried. (Pun intended) :smalltongue:

[TheyCallMeTim]

With regards to the whole force wall in antimagic fields mess:

Force effects have, in most games that I have played and all that I have run, been regarded as a somehow "purer" form of magic; for instance, most spells have a 50% miss-chance against incorporeal creatures, but magic missile, if I recall correctly, doesn't. A Wall of Force might then, since it is "pure" magic, have a loophole within an antimagic field similar to that of undead or a beholder's levitation. This reasoning would, of course, lead to allowing all force effects to exist in an antimagic field, although not necessarily for casting the spells while the caster was within the antimagic field.

That said, even ignoring the license that must be given to every storyteller, everyone uses house rules. Perhaps force spells draw upon an additional "energy" plane (most cosmologies have the four elements, positive and negative energy, shadow, and ethereal), or even the ethereal plane, instead of being "raw" magic in this world and is thus still effected. That said, I personally enjoy the kind of in-story rules nitpicking for comic relief that this kind of thing (or the call-weather bit, or any number of other instances) provides an opportunity for.

[Crimson Titan]

I understand the argument about the official rules and what spells work and which ones don't, and I'm interested in that discussion, but the argument against the use of AMF in this specific strip was rendered invalid quite a while ago:



I'm surprised no one mentioned this yet:

The Black Dragon cast Anti-magic Field.

The spell in the PHB/SRD is Antimagic Field.

Anti-magic Field. Antimagic Field. Two different spells.

So the rules for Antimagic Field don't even apply here.

Problem solved.


^ what he said


This Anti-magic Field is completely unique to OOTS and has no connection whatsoever to AMF in D&D.

This isn't the first time something new has been made for the strip. I don't hear anyone complaining about Elan's prestige class.

[Klev]

Geez you guys have to see the facts, until now we have:

1)An imp makes V waste several high level spells
2)An Ancient Dragon appear out of nowhere and attack her/him
3)The Ancient Dragon go against the rules to attack (and kill?) V

The only logic explation is very simple, V's player made something that made the DM angry!!!:smallfurious:

Probably took the last piece of pizza or something...:smallbiggrin:

[Optimystik]

The only logic explation is very simple, V's player made something that made the DM angry!!!:smallfurious:

Like rules-lawyering a way to gain spells without trancing! :smallbiggrin:

[Moff Chumley]

Chumley's reaction to this thread:
WAIT, WHAT!?!

[Optimystik]

Chumley's reaction to this thread:
lolwut

Fixed that for ya :smallwink:

[Toper]

I don't mind the Giant ignoring this pretty weird exception to Anti-Magic Field (force spells? why?), but I do find it pretty hilarious that he managed to muff the rules for this one spell twice (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0373.html). He can't catch a break!

Honestly, it's probably time for him to just run with it -- hopefully in the next few hundred strips we'll see Xykon ghostform through one, Durkon dispel another, and the imp fly between the 1/2-inch-apart bars...

[Zevox]

With regards to the whole force wall in antimagic fields mess:

Force effects have, in most games that I have played and all that I have run, been regarded as a somehow "purer" form of magic; for instance, most spells have a 50% miss-chance against incorporeal creatures, but magic missile, if I recall correctly, doesn't. A Wall of Force might then, since it is "pure" magic, have a loophole within an antimagic field similar to that of undead or a beholder's levitation. This reasoning would, of course, lead to allowing all force effects to exist in an antimagic field, although not necessarily for casting the spells while the caster was within the antimagic field.
The reason force effects are effective vs incorporeal foes is because they extend into the Ethereal Plane. Incorporeal creatures exist partially on that plane, partially on the Prime, which is why most magical effects and weapons have only a 50% chance to affect them. This is why, for instance, the Mage Armor and Shield spells are effective vs an Incorporeal Touch attack. Incorporeal Touch attacks aren't actually touch attacks, they just ignore mundane armor because it does not exist on the Ethereal Plane, while Mage Armor and Shield do.

There is certainly no reason to think that all force effects can ignore an Antimagic Field. The spells singled out as immune to it are not all force effects, after all - two are just powerful abjurations - so there's no reason to believe that Wall of Force is immune because it is a force effect. Certainly if that were the reason it would be easy just to say in the description of Antimagic Field that all force effects are not affected by it, since the [Force] descriptor is clearly listed next to the school name of every force-type spell.

Zevox

[Assassin89]

I don't mind the Giant ignoring this pretty weird exception to Anti-Magic Field (force spells? why?), but I do find it pretty hilarious that he managed to muff the rules for this one spell twice (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0373.html). He can't catch a break!

Honestly, it's probably time for him to just run with it -- hopefully in the next few hundred strips we'll see Xykon ghostform through one, Durkon dispel another, and the imp fly between the 1/2-inch-apart bars...


Technically, that particular forcecage was designed to be breakable as Xykon says it was a moderately escapable forcecage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0376.html).

As for the other conditions, that would unnerve V even further.

[[TS] Shadow]

It's weird how a thread that was answered in it's second post managed to get 5 pages. The Giant has houseruled stuff before (see Zz'tri's fly spell), he can do it again.

[umbralspace]

Shadow;5713672']It's weird how a thread that was answered in it's second post managed to get 5 pages. The Giant has houseruled stuff before (see Zz'tri's fly spell), he can do it again.

I think everyone would be cool with him houseruling it... but as it stands I dont think I know of an instance where he actually stated "Im house ruling this" .. then again im pretty new to the forums I may be wrong.

As it stands he wont admit nor deny it being a house rule, and regardless of the people who would like to say "similar" isnt strong enough to support force cage being immune, any self respecting DM would rule in favor of immunity.

Im a rule lawyer, I believe the rules are absolute in D&D, and changing them should be considered thoroughly. Not only is this a D&D rule, its core rulebook rule, you dont mess with the DMG,MMI,and PHB. I mean heck, theres a epic prestige class that gets an ability to break force walls.... AN EPIC ABILITY....

Storytelling is very important, but remember, the rules are there to make the world more realistic, a way to make anything you want to possible. Without the rules, we have no idea what does what, or who beats who. As much as you may hate slowing down a game to debate rules... they are necessary and shouldnt be taken lightly.

[Da'Shain]

I think everyone would be cool with him houseruling it... but as it stands I dont think I know of an instance where he actually stated "Im house ruling this" .. then again im pretty new to the forums I may be wrong.

As it stands he wont admit nor deny it being a house rule, and regardless of the people who would like to say "similar" isnt strong enough to support force cage being immune, any self respecting DM would rule in favor of immunity.

Im a rule lawyer, I believe the rules are absolute in D&D, and changing them should be considered thoroughly. Not only is this a D&D rule, its core rulebook rule, you dont mess with the DMG,MMI,and PHB. I mean heck, theres a epic prestige class that gets an ability to break force walls.... AN EPIC ABILITY....

Storytelling is very important, but remember, the rules are there to make the world more realistic, a way to make anything you want to possible. Without the rules, we have no idea what does what, or who beats who. As much as you may hate slowing down a game to debate rules... they are necessary and shouldnt be taken lightly.I'm a self-respecting DM.

I would rule in favor of Antimagic Field being an Antimagic Field unless the rules specifically state otherwise.

Which they don't.

[The Minx]

Im a rule lawyer, I believe the rules are absolute in D&D,

The Giant isn't, and doesn't, though. :smallsmile:


and changing them should be considered thoroughly. Not only is this a D&D rule, its core rulebook rule, you dont mess with the DMG,MMI,and PHB. I mean heck, theres a epic prestige class that gets an ability to break force walls.... AN EPIC ABILITY....

Um, so? And why should you not change the core rules, anyway? Many of them are quite silly and unplayable.


Storytelling is very important, but remember, the rules are there to make the world more realistic, a way to make anything you want to possible. Without the rules, we have no idea what does what, or who beats who. As much as you may hate slowing down a game to debate rules... they are necessary and shouldnt be taken lightly.

Realistic? These are the rules where an elephant has a higher reflex save than a cat due to having more "levels" of "animal". Realism and D&D don't touch on any level. :smallsmile:

I think you meant to say "predictable" or something like that, which is all well and good if you are playing a game where the participants have agreed that strategy trumps roleplaying (and not all games are like that). But this is not a game at all, it is a story which just happens to be (loosely?) based on a game. There is no reason why Rich should feel obligated to stick with the official D&D rules.

[Worira]

I find this whole V arc to be hilarious.


This is just like every campaign setting i've ever been in where 1 pc decided he's going to go off alone because he can pwn the quest on his own; and the rest of the party is lame.

This is like an angry DM throwing some righteous DM wrath on the spoiled selfish brat by throwing a foe the PC can't handle at them (not without serious help anyway).

The thing is, this is an ancient dragon (with two levels of sorceror) in an AMF. It has a BAB of +32, and a claw claw bite wing wing tail full attack routine for 3d8+4d6+51, for average damage of 78. With an AC of 38, 414 HP, it's not dying too soon, either. I don't really think having the party together would have made too big a difference.

[Prak]

I understand the argument about the official rules and what spells work and which ones don't, and I'm interested in that discussion, but the argument against the use of AMF in this specific strip was rendered invalid quite a while ago:





^ what he said


This Anti-magic Field is completely unique to OOTS and has no connection whatsoever to AMF in D&D.

This isn't the first time something new has been made for the strip. I don't hear anyone complaining about Elan's prestige class.
wow, what an incredibly lame cop out, thank your for shortening my intellectual lifespan by several decades with that little nugget. I knew this brain bleach had other uses, but, by god, I just couldn't think of what they were...

I guess I should say what I've been thinking for a while, since it hasn't been brought up yet...

The way Forcecage is worded, it's left up to the dm to decide whether it's affected by AMF or not. As the author, and thus dm, Rich has decided that it is, in his world.

that said, V is screwed regardless. An ancient black dragon is CR 19, this one has at least one PC class level, making it CR 21 (creatures with PC levels get additional +1 CR), and being a dragon, it's under cr'd by at least 2, so it's about CR 23. V is, at best, level 17, and that's stretching things. He's screwed unless he can talk his way out of this or the dragon decides it doesn't want to kill him.

[factotum]

that said, V is screwed regardless. An ancient black dragon is CR 19, this one has at least one PC class level, making it CR 21 (creatures with PC levels get additional +1 CR), and being a dragon, it's under cr'd by at least 2, so it's about CR 23. V is, at best, level 17, and that's stretching things. He's screwed unless he can talk his way out of this or the dragon decides it doesn't want to kill him.

Even if V was level 17 (which is a bit high, methinks) he's used pretty much all his high-level spells trying to kill a pathetic imp, thus leaving himself largely helpless against the much more dangerous foe who just turned up.

[Prak]

Even if V was level 17 (which is a bit high, methinks) he's used pretty much all his high-level spells trying to kill a pathetic imp, thus leaving himself largely helpless against the much more dangerous foe who just turned up.

like I said, shi's screwed.

[Milandros]

The Giant isn't, and doesn't, though. :smallsmile:



Um, so? And why should you not change the core rules, anyway? Many of them are quite silly and unplayable.



Realistic? These are the rules where an elephant has a higher reflex save than a cat due to having more "levels" of "animal". Realism and D&D don't touch on any level. :smallsmile:

I think you meant to say "predictable" or something like that, which is all well and good if you are playing a game where the participants have agreed that strategy trumps roleplaying (and not all games are like that). But this is not a game at all, it is a story which just happens to be (loosely?) based on a game. There is no reason why Rich should feel obligated to stick with the official D&D rules.


Another example:

Players encounter an incredibly rare species of insect only found on one tree that was secretly transplanted deep into the Astral plane by accident during a wizard battle four thousand years ago - "Ah, of course, it's a Lesser-Spotted Hershebian Wyvern Dung Beetle, harmless unless you allow it to crawl into your mouth while you sleep" - Knowledge(Nature) DC to identify - DC 11 (10+ 1hp), roll of 6 + 5 skill points, success.

An maximum sized great red dragon charges towards the players - "I got nothing, no idea what it is or what it can do - the wings imply it might be able to fly, perhaps?" - Knowledge(Arcana) to identify DC 50 (10 + 40HD), roll of 19 + 23 skill points, fail.

Or, while we're playing silly buggers, there are no rules in the PHB or DMG defining the actions that can or can not be taken if you are dead. By the RAW, being unconscious produces penalties, but there's nothing that says that just because you have -137 hit points you can't move or take actions on your next turn.

Or, from the Book of 9 Swords, there's an ability (Mountain Hammer) that allows a low level player to ignore all hardness and damage reduction, effectively allowing a third level PC to spend a couple of minutes cutting through a castle wall, or an hour or so to cut his way out the dungeon. Steel gates, no problem. Heck, adamantium prison bars, no problem.

There's also an ability that allows the character to shake off any "spell, effect or condition" that effects you. Technically, death is a "condition"...

The rules, being complex and not written in logic or pseudo-code but in colloquial english, require some interpretation and common sense. Arguing about this interpretation is relatively futile, I think.

There are many ways to play D&D and none of them are necessarily "wrong". Absolute rules strictness is important in one variant of D&D, that's the "D&D is a tactical combat board game with a vague explanation of why these fights are occuring" varient. When the game really is about how "my 7th level fighter character is played against an opponent or string of opponents defined from within this book by another player called the DM, following certain guidelines on challenge rating; in this particular combat there is an additional gameplay objective in guiding a number of additional tokens out of the map" then absolute adherence to the rules, regardless of silliness, is just as important as it is when you play Monopoly. If, on the other hand, you're playing "Chandor the Bold is going to attempt to rescue the hostages from within the orc encampent" it's very different. And in this case it's fairly noticeable the the Giant runs a story-heavy game...

[Simanos]

EDIT: just to be clear, my above post assumed that logic recourse and mild rules-lawyering/questioning/pointingoutining/whatevering had already been attempted and failed, and that the GM had given his final word on the matter, prohibiting further appeals.



And if it was completely required, in order for your story to continue, that AMF dissolve Force Cage?



Player revolts generally climax with the taking of the dice and the going home.
You Really need to read the AGC comic dude:
http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=1
Lighten up.

[Simanos]

It's a spell more designed for the monster than the player, but any brute monster can benefit greatly from it. Since the spell extends beyond the creature, your attacking melee fighter suffers greatly. His Belt of giant strength, his amulet of health, boots of speed, +major sword, ... are now all mundane, and he is easy meat. [One of the flaws of 3.5 has been that players are more worried about PC goodies than whether the PC actually survives. After maybe 10th level, a PC is so dependent on his magic that he has virtually no chance of surviving XP earning encounters without it.] The mage can fly away, but the idea is for the party to get past the monster, not run away from it.
Now it is a You spell, and so relatively few brutes have the spellcasting ability to use it, but when they do, the melee people are in bad trouble. And spells that are real encounter killers on the rare times they show up are suspect by nature. They just invite abuse.
I think it's a problem because the AMF sphere is not immobile and/or it has a duration of 10 minutes/level. If you change it to immobile and/or duration 1 round (maybe 2 tops) it becomes less problematic that it is a 6th level spell that trumps 9th level spells. I would also add a casting time of 10 rounds LOL

EDIT: Though I have to add Forcecage is similarly handicapped. No SR, no save, not even ranged touch attack needed? One could argue for a reflex save to get out of it while it's forming or make the caster miss. Or a ranged touch (like a ray) for the caster needed or he misses.

[Worira]

It also costs 1500 gp a pop.

[hamishspence]

Shapechange is similar and its available to some monsters as an SLA costing no gold.

[Dr.Desastro]

Hello and hi (again at GITP-Forums - my old accound seemed to have ceased after a long time away).

I read the reason for this thread and the way it escalated made me slap my head.

I totally agree with Mr. Burlews oppinion: Storytelling goes before the rule corsett. As a long-term GM in our group I say this is rule #1: Break the rules, if needed to provide fun and a good story.

The game system (we play DSA, the biggest German production) even encourages this - it is even implemented in the rules and GMs are advised by the rules to do so. You know what? Doing this makes a game-world a wondrous place, if nothing is totally predictable. I also do not see a problem with suppress magic. While this kind of cage is immune to dispel, the magical effect can still be negated somehow. Supress magic does not banish the spell itself - it is right there, but negates the effects - so our dragon is not hampered anymore.

And - boo to me- I belive, the OOTS should look for a new caster...this one looks pulpy and crushed. :smallyuk:

[hamishspence]

in Elaine Cunningham's Daughter of the drow, the living drow wizard has a special item in reserve- a Wand of Lichdom. when killed, the wand activates, turning the dead wizard into a powerful lich.

while its unlikely V is a lich now, that would be an interesting way of bringing V back if the attack was lethal.

[Optimystik]

in Elaine Cunningham's Daughter of the drow, the living drow wizard has a special item in reserve- a Wand of Lichdom. when killed, the wand activates, turning the dead wizard into a powerful lich.

while its unlikely V is a lich now, that would be an interesting way of bringing V back if the attack was lethal.

"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine?" :smallamused:

Such a plot device has Chekov's Gun written all over it; and since we've seen no indication of such, would be a blatant Deus Ex if he whipped it out now (even moreso than the death knight's demise was.)

[Sholos]

Yes and no. An AMF Dragon loses all it's ranged attacks. Granted it can still fly and a high rate of speed, which makes it not vulnerable to a death from above. AMF Supresses all Spell-Like Abilities and Supernatural Abilities. This includes the Dragon's Breath Weapon and Casting.

So it makes itself a big melee creature and nothing more with an AMF, and a lot of spells can still do significant damage to it. Remember, AMF specifically doesn't stop Conjuration (Summoning) spells that are instantaneous duration either... From AMF:

"The effects of instantaneous conjurations, such as create water, are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result."

A L18 Conjurer Specialist would have his way with an AMF Dragon. Melf's Unicorn Arrows fit the bill of being unaffected by the AMF. It also is unaffected by SR and requires a Ranged Touch Attack to Hit (Easy against Gargantuan+ Creatures). They have very good range, and do 5d8+40 per spell. That becomes 80 Maximized and 120 Max / Empowered. A Specialist Conjurer can quicken 3 of the for free a day. With the right meta-magic feats, I can get a L18 Conjurer casting a pair of Twinned, Maximized, Empowered Melf's Unicorns per turn. That's 480 Damage per Round (oh, and a DC 59 Bull Rush - heh). Dragon's done.

Of course, that's the right type of caster. An Evoker would have problems unless they put themselves behind a wall of force and waited for the duration of the AMF to pass. Heh.

So, you get to cast one or two of those. Now that you're out of high-level spell slots, what do you do? And how do you get Twinned, Maximize, and Empower onto one single spell in the first place? Doesn't that go over ten? Unless that's a 1st or 2nd level spell (in which case it's horribly broken) or you're using a cheesy-as-hell wizard (which wouldn't really surprise me), in which case I refuse to consider anything you say on the subject of magic to be important or relevant.

___________________________


Antilife shell doesn't have a hyphen either.

Umm, congratulations? You noticed something that had absolutely nothing to do with my post.

[maxon]

Look again. A cube has 6 walls/sides.

Read the post again and the quote of the post I was responding to.

Reading comprehension FTW.

[Draz74]

(Apologies in advance, I didn't read the whole thread.)


I don't. ...........

While I applaud this terse attempt at diffusing a situation before it became a flame war, I also want to point out that Rich is selling himself short here.

There are dozens of popular TV shows, and a fair number of comics or books (let alone book series!) with less continuity integrity than the Order of the Stick. Yes, even with its occasional blatant breaches of D&D rules, of which #627 is not the worst offender -- the rules, when they are ignored, are ignored for the sake of drama and good storytelling, and I applaud the quality of the continuous plot that results.

Delicious irony.

[Prak]

(Apologies in advance, I didn't read the whole thread.)



While I applaud this terse attempt at diffusing a situation before it became a flame war, I also want to point out that Rich is selling himself short here.

There are dozens of popular TV shows, and a fair number of comics or books (let alone book series!) with less continuity integrity than the Order of the Stick. Yes, even with its occasional blatant breaches of D&D rules, of which #627 is not the worst offender -- the rules, when they are ignored, are ignored for the sake of drama and good storytelling, and I applaud the quality of the continuous plot that results.

Delicious irony.

The reason there are dozens of shows, etc with less continuity integrity is because those shows, books, what have you, are episodic, they aren't designed to make continuity matter, for example, The Simpsons and Family Guy, these shows are merely supposed to be fun episodes, each taken individually, rather than as a whole.

[Optimystik]

"The effects of instantaneous conjurations, such as create water, are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result."

A L18 Conjurer Specialist would have his way with an AMF Dragon. Melf's Unicorn Arrows fit the bill of being unaffected by the AMF. It also is unaffected by SR and requires a Ranged Touch Attack to Hit (Easy against Gargantuan+ Creatures). They have very good range, and do 5d8+40 per spell. That becomes 80 Maximized and 120 Max / Empowered. A Specialist Conjurer can quicken 3 of the for free a day. With the right meta-magic feats, I can get a L18 Conjurer casting a pair of Twinned, Maximized, Empowered Melf's Unicorns per turn. That's 480 Damage per Round (oh, and a DC 59 Bull Rush - heh). Dragon's done.

I think you're taking that quote out of context. It seems to be saying that an instantaneous conjuration creates something that lasts forever, and so there's no magic remaining to suppress. In other words, if my bottles are full of Created Water, entering an AMF won't suddenly leave them dry. It doesn't mean I can cast more Create Water spells inside.

The results of durationless (instant) conjurations are real and no longer sustained purely by magic.

[Ozymandias9]

The fact we can't overrule the DM does not mean we can't say he is entirely in the wrong.

That, sir, is an awesome quote. I'm going to use it with my current GM if you don't mind.

[The Minx]

That, sir, is an awesome quote. I'm going to use it with my current GM if you don't mind.

The poster you quoted is mistaken.

The penultimate rule of D&D is that the DM is the final arbitrator of the rules for his gaming group. Therefore, if a DM has arbitrated on the rules, you can not say that the DM is in the wrong.

[MorhgorRB]

Alright, there are lots of arguements here, the best being that the DM rules over all other sources. But for the sake of it I would like to bring up : http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0623.html <- Last panel.

Finito.

[Dacia Brabant]

The poster you quoted is mistaken.

The penultimate rule of D&D is that the DM is the final arbitrator of the rules for his gaming group. Therefore, if a DM has arbitrated on the rules, you can not say that the DM is in the wrong.

But the ultimate rule of D&D is to have fun--players and GM alike--so if the GM is ruling in arbitrary ways that prevent the players from enjoying their gaming experience, you can in fact say that the GM is in the wrong.

[good_lookin_gus]

Or, from the Book of 9 Swords, there's an ability (Mountain Hammer) that allows a low level player to ignore all hardness and damage reduction, effectively allowing a third level PC to spend a couple of minutes cutting through a castle wall, or an hour or so to cut his way out the dungeon. Steel gates, no problem. Heck, adamantium prison bars, no problem.

That once saved my cheeks when I was forced to abandon combat in order to return to my last place of rest and verify that the stove was off.(damn homebrewed fumble charts:smallmad:)

In regards to the topic at hand: If it can spawn 6+ pages of debate, then it can clearly go either way. In my opinion AMF shouldn't suppress Forcecage, but I wouldn't challenge a DM that ruled it like the Giant.(especially if he'd been waiving the costly material component:smallwink:)

[Neek]

But the ultimate rule of D&D is to have fun--players and GM alike--so if the GM is ruling in arbitrary ways that prevent the players from enjoying their gaming experience, you can in fact say that the GM is in the wrong.

I realize the intent of your statement, however, can you prove that the person who is playing V having fun if AMF wouldn't work in the forcecage?

[The Minx]

But the ultimate rule of D&D is to have fun--players and GM alike--so if the GM is ruling in arbitrary ways that prevent the players from enjoying their gaming experience, you can in fact say that the GM is in the wrong.

Although it is described as the "ultimate rule", it is more of an objective. While the "rule" is that the game is played to have fun, that does not mean that everything the DM says has to be fun in the view of any player at all times, or otherwise it becomes incorrect.

In fact, the very point of the "rule" you refer to is precisely that the interpretation of the rules, including the Core rules, should not be literal, but that it should be altered as needed, and that happens to be the DM's job.

To use the "ultimate rule" in the way you are doing, any player can always say "hey, that's no fun for me, so you're wrong" to the DM. Obviously, that doesn't work. What happens if the DM breaks the "have fun" objective from the perspective of the players is that s/he is punished by the players leaving his/her gaming table for greener pastures, not that the DM cannot interpret the rules as s/he deems fit for his/her gaming table. While the point is to have fun, that doesn't mean that everyone's taste is the same, and for any given table, the DM is arbitrator.

[factotum]

Therefore, if a DM has arbitrated on the rules, you can not say that the DM is in the wrong.

Actually, you can SAY it all you like. It won't make it any more correct, or any more likely to make him reverse his decision (unless he decides to reverse it in a "rocks fall, everyone dies" kind of way), but you can say it just fine. :smallwink:

[The Minx]

Actually, you can SAY it all you like. It won't make it any more correct, or any more likely to make him reverse his decision (unless he decides to reverse it in a "rocks fall, everyone dies" kind of way), but you can say it just fine. :smallwink:

I meant legitimately. :smalltongue:

Sheesh. :smallsmile:

[Dacia Brabant]

Although it is described as the "ultimate rule", it is more of an objective. While the "rule" is that the game is played to have fun, that does not mean that everything the DM says has to be fun in the view of any player at all times, or otherwise it becomes incorrect.

In fact, the very point of the "rule" you refer to is precisely that the interpretation of the rules, including the Core rules, should not be literal, but that it should be altered as needed, and that happens to be the DM's job.

To use the "ultimate rule" in the way you are doing, any player can always say "hey, that's no fun for me, so you're wrong" to the DM. Obviously, that doesn't work. What happens if the DM breaks the "have fun" objective from the perspective of the players is that s/he is punished by the players leaving his/her gaming table for greener pastures, not that the DM cannot interpret the rules as s/he deems fit for his/her gaming table. While the point is to have fun, that doesn't mean that everyone's taste is the same, and for any given table, the DM is arbitrator.

That's why I used the qualifier "arbitrarily", conveying a sense of randomness, unpredictability or otherwise perceivably unfair rulings by the GM that he or she may or may not be making up or using as a form of power tripping. I realize that a player could say "Waaaah I'm not uberpowerful enough! Gimme my Sword of 1000 Truths or I'm quitting!" or something equally childish, in which case if that's not something the GM and/or other players find fun that player should find another group.

My point is that the GM is not God and not everything he or she says or does is going to be to everyone's liking, so if a player is consistently finding this to be the case for whatever reason, and they're not able to persuade the GM and/or group to reach a compromise that's fun for everyone, maybe that's not the right game. That's all I'm saying.


I realize the intent of your statement, however, can you prove that the person who is playing V having fun if AMF wouldn't work in the forcecage?

V doesn't have a player, he's a character in a webcomic written by Rich Burlew, so obviously the answer is no. (That is to say, my previous statement had nothing to do with the situation in the comic and everything to do with the general gaming discussion.)

[The Minx]

That's why I used the qualifier "arbitrarily", conveying a sense of randomness, unpredictability or otherwise perceivably unfair rulings by the GM that he or she may or may not be making up or using as a form of power tripping. I realize that a player could say "Waaaah I'm not uberpowerful enough! Gimme my Sword of 1000 Truths or I'm quitting!" or something equally childish, in which case if that's not something the GM and/or other players find fun that player should find another group.

I'm afraid that issues of arbitrary, random or unpredictable rulings is pretty much irrelevant. Why can the DM not rule differently in different situations? Of course he can. What constitutes "unfair", anyway? But if he is deliberately being unreasonable, he is a poor DM, and people will rightly abandon his game. That does NOT mean that he is "wrong", since that implies that there is a "correct" way of interpreting the rules. There isn't. He is "right" as far as his gaming table is concerned, if that's not for you, then so be it, and too bad for the player-less DM.


My point is that the GM is not God and not everything he or she says or does is going to be to everyone's liking, so if a player is consistently finding this to be the case for whatever reason, and they're not able to persuade the GM and/or group to reach a compromise that's fun for everyone, maybe that's not the right game. That's all I'm saying.

Indeed. But all I'm saying is that using the phrase "the DM is wrong" is not the same as saying "this DM is not for me". :smallsmile:

[umbralspace]

As much as you guys would like to boil down to each and every possible scenario... its really only two things.

A. The Giant is right
B. The OP is right

Depending on the awnser ... V's life could be snuffed out, or he/she has another turn to flee. I mean with another turn... you can do alot. Especially if your a wizard.

No DM likes to have their rulings questioned so blatantly, we can all agree on that. However sometimes its better to just yield... since this isnt the only thread to talk about this. The main thread for 627 is practically on fire with 100's of other ways the dragon could have more effectively escaped within the rules.

Will The Giant fold in to the pressure of the forums, not likely. Do I think he should? Well, considering this is the first time in 627 strips that there has been such an outcry for it. Mabye.

**EDIT** Although truth be told, he still wouldnt have the backing of the entire forum, since this is an obvious Rule Lawyer Vs. Roleplay Lawyer debate, and both sides have plenty of support

[Zevox]

Depending on the awnser ... V's life could be snuffed out, or he/she has another turn to flee. I mean with another turn... you can do alot. Especially if your a wizard.
Not in this case. The best way for a Wizard to survive this situation with an extra round would be to Teleport away - but V can't, because she barred the Conjuration school (and obviously doesn't have a Limited Wish handy to duplicate it, since she used up her 3 level 7 spells already). The Dragon herself has mammoth hp, so killing her directly in one round is out of the question, even if V had another Disintegrate ready and the Dragon failed her save. The Dragon also has very high spell resistance and saves, which pretty much kills V's ability to do anything else to it at her level unless she gets ridiculously lucky. There really is nothing V could do here. She can't outrun the Dragon, she can't kill or otherwise halt it, she can't teleport to escape it... she was screwed, period.

Zevox

[factotum]

Will The Giant fold in to the pressure of the forums, not likely.

WHAT pressure of the forums? There are at least as many people arguing that Forcecage *can* be broken by an Antimagic Field as those who are arguing the opposite--it's not like every single forum member has risen up en masse to agree with the OP here!

[Dr.Desastro]

I think I will quote from the DSA Core rulebook - since those guys are producing a very popular RPG for the last 25 years, I think, they have some XP with that.

"Hint for the DM: Rules are only a supplemental tool to provide a nice and fluent game. They are - however - not carved in stone, and when they prevent you from telling a good story, you have the right to change or omit rules. This is a grave step and should only be made out of dramaturgical reasons."

"Hint for players: The DM is always right. He is the judge and can break the rules, if it helps the game and the atmosphere. If you feel treated unfair, talk with him AFTER the game."

"Hint for players: RPGs are a game - NEVER take them too serious"

I fact, I too, am disgruntled by rule-lawyers and usually I tend to just not invite them. Let us face it: Mr. B. is providing us with entertainment for FREE. And what do some of us do? Instead of producing a good story for themselves and run a page like this one they keep pointing to the author and keep whining "But the rulebook says..."

Hello!? Never heard of the artist's freedom???

It takes talent to be an artist. Contrary, to be a critic it does not even take a brain.

[Assassin89]

It takes talent to be an artist. Contrary, to be a critic it does not even take a brain.

Not true, because a critic is meant to analyize the patterns in a form of media and then make a logical judgment based on those patterns. A reviewer is a more correct term because a reviewer is more subject to bias. (I took media analysis in High School)

[umbralspace]

I think I will quote from the DSA Core rulebook - since those guys are producing a very popular RPG for the last 25 years, I think, they have some XP with that.

"Hint for the DM: Rules are only a supplemental tool to provide a nice and fluent game. They are - however - not carved in stone, and when they prevent you from telling a good story, you have the right to change or omit rules. This is a grave step and should only be made out of dramaturgical reasons."

"Hint for players: The DM is always right. He is the judge and can break the rules, if it helps the game and the atmosphere. If you feel treated unfair, talk with him AFTER the game."

"Hint for players: RPGs are a game - NEVER take them too serious"

I fact, I too, am disgruntled by rule-lawyers and usually I tend to just not invite them. Let us face it: Mr. B. is providing us with entertainment for FREE. And what do some of us do? Instead of producing a good story for themselves and run a page like this one they keep pointing to the author and keep whining "But the rulebook says..."

Hello!? Never heard of the artist's freedom???

It takes talent to be an artist. Contrary, to be a critic it does not even take a brain.

"Hint for players: This isn't DSA - its Dungeons and Dragons"

Seriously, where did you think you were going with that 1? Ive been DMing for multiple grps for 3 years running on 3.5, and we've repeatedly weeded out people like you. The rules in D&D ARE absolute, how many times do I have to state this. They are so absolute that wizards.com takes special care to errata the broken ones for rule perfection. If you dont like slowing down the game because you dont want to look up a rule in a game you have two options -

A. Play a more basic character that the rules are easy to find....
B. MEMORIZE THE RULES THAT PERTAIN TO YOU!

There is no option C

C. Have DM rewrite rules on a scene to scene basis

However a DM is more then in his right to before the campaign say, "Guys, I know this is what the rules say, but for this game we are going to..." Hence a house rule. Apparently some people seem to think house ruling should happen DURING a game. Do you realise how much trouble that can cause for DM - Player relations? It causes bad blood, the feeling of unreliability because the rules can change in favor of anyone at any moment, and for some the feeling of being cheated (Varsuvius)

[Optimystik]

However a DM is more then in his right to before the campaign say, "Guys, I know this is what the rules say, but for this game we are going to..." Hence a house rule. Apparently some people seem to think house ruling should happen DURING a game. Do you realise how much trouble that can cause for DM - Player relations? It causes bad blood, the feeling of unreliability because the rules can change in favor of anyone at any moment, and for some the feeling of being cheated (Varsuvius)

You realize that any houserule in this case would be AGAINST the Giant, because he is correct by RAW, right?

[hamishspence]

true- even if you could make a case that the 10/10/10 version, being made of "walls of force" (as opposed to Walls Of Force) would qualify, the cage version doesn't.

Using this principle would require one to rule that Force Chest also is immune.

I presonally would be wary of ruling that way, but have no qualms whatsover about saying that by RAW the 20/20/20 cage is not immune to AMF.

[Optimystik]

true- even if you could make a case that the 10/10/10 version, being made of "walls of force" (as opposed to Walls Of Force) would qualify, the cage version doesn't.

Using this principle would require one to rule that Force Chest also is immune.

I presonally would be wary of ruling that way, but have no qualms whatsover about saying that by RAW the 20/20/20 cage is not immune to AMF.

Not necessarily. Remember that Force Chest is two spell effects in one: The first creates the box, and the second maintains the password. It could very well be that the force box could have persisted in the AMF as long as both effects are intact, but the AMF is able to suppress the latter, causing the entire box to fail.

[hamishspence]

thing is though, spell suppresses other spells, not dispels them. Walk into the field- be puzzled as to where box has gone, keep walking out the other side, and box is there in your hands.

(you'd know box was suppressed if you had something in it fall out, as well as ceasing to feel the sensation of a plane of force on your hands, but, suppressed though it is, the spell itself still exists)

[Optimystik]

thing is though, spell suppresses other spells, not dispels them. Walk into the field- be puzzled as to where box has gone, keep walking out the other side, and box is there in your hands.

Replace "fail" with "be suppressed" in my explanation then, and it still applies. The box's presence could theoretically depend on both effects being intact.

[The Minx]

As much as you guys would like to boil down to each and every possible scenario... its really only two things.

A. The Giant is right
B. The OP is right

Depending on the awnser ... V's life could be snuffed out, or he/she has another turn to flee. I mean with another turn... you can do alot. Especially if your a wizard.

No DM likes to have their rulings questioned so blatantly, we can all agree on that. However sometimes its better to just yield... since this isnt the only thread to talk about this. The main thread for 627 is practically on fire with 100's of other ways the dragon could have more effectively escaped within the rules.

Will The Giant fold in to the pressure of the forums, not likely. Do I think he should? Well, considering this is the first time in 627 strips that there has been such an outcry for it. Mabye.

**EDIT** Although truth be told, he still wouldnt have the backing of the entire forum, since this is an obvious Rule Lawyer Vs. Roleplay Lawyer debate, and both sides have plenty of support

Well, as has been said, going by RAW he is right, it all boils down to whether "similar spells" covers Forcecage. Obviously it can cover that, but there is no reason to suggest that it must do so.

More importantly, as I pointed out above, OOTS is not a game, but a story (loosely) based on a game; it is written as a parody of a game. IMHO, the Giant absolutely should NOT fold to pressure from the forum. If people don't like it, well, that's too bad.



"Hint for players: This isn't DSA - its Dungeons and Dragons"

Seriously, where did you think you were going with that 1? Ive been DMing for multiple grps for 3 years running on 3.5, and we've repeatedly weeded out people like you.

Wow, that's pretty hostile. :/



The rules in D&D ARE absolute, how many times do I have to state this. They are so absolute that wizards.com takes special care to errata the broken ones for rule perfection.

Saying something over and over does not make it so. :smallsmile:



If you dont like slowing down the game because you dont want to look up a rule in a game you have two options -

A. Play a more basic character that the rules are easy to find....
B. MEMORIZE THE RULES THAT PERTAIN TO YOU!

There is no option C

C. Have DM rewrite rules on a scene to scene basis

However a DM is more then in his right to before the campaign say, "Guys, I know this is what the rules say, but for this game we are going to..." Hence a house rule. Apparently some people seem to think house ruling should happen DURING a game. Do you realise how much trouble that can cause for DM - Player relations? It causes bad blood, the feeling of unreliability because the rules can change in favor of anyone at any moment, and for some the feeling of being cheated (Varsuvius)

OK, a few points here:
The rules were not changed, by RAW.
There is nothing to suggest that the dragon didn't simply research a new and more powerful version of the spell, she has had centuries to do just that.
The DM does not have to tell the players about every interpretation he is likely to perform in advance, because there are simply too many permutations of the rules for that to be possible.
Whether liberal rulings affects DM-player relations is wholly dependent on the principles that are in effect for that gaming table. A DM is perfectly within his rights to say "I shall be interpreting the rules liberally". If the players still stay for more, they have no complaint coming. The Giant HAS said that story > rules lawyering in the past.

[Harr]

Will The Giant fold in to the pressure of the forums, not likely. Do I think he should? Well, considering this is the first time in 627 strips that there has been such an outcry for it. Mabye.

Going by anything and everything I've read and witnessed here and in other places about Rich Burlew, there is no way in H - E - double-chop-sticks that he would ever cave in to something like that. There is no outcry big enough I don't think.

Still, doesn't mean people can't discuss the rule for its own sake I guess. If it were my own game I would say AMF nulls all magic period, for the sake of simplicity. I'm big on 'keeping it simple' in the game.

[ABB]

Just a note from a non D&D player who still thinks that OOTS is great: As a wargamer and tactician I can see physically powerful creatures wanting to create things that defeated magic as magic gives weaker creatures, like humans and elves, huge advantages in dealing with them.

So, having an effect that negates magic over an area, even if that area is mostly the caster's body, gives a physically powerful creature some edge, and since it does give an edge in possible battles for survival, it would likely be researched and developed by some creature, especially a long lived one.

So, rules or not, I think it makes absolutely perfect sense for this anti-magic spell to exist in the D&D world. Of course human and elf mages would make eradicating knowledge of same a super priority for obvious reasons...

As to the so-called irony of using magic to defeat magic, there's no contradiction or illogic there. When people began using metal swords, other people began using metal plates to defend against them. So refined and forged metal defended against refined and forged metal. Likewise when missiles become popular weapons, people began working on interceptor missiles to defeat them, developing anti-missile missiles.

So where's the contradiction in using magic in an anti-magic role?

[Optimystik]

ABB, the controversy here isn't that anti-magic exists at all, but the rules as written allow certain spells to be exempt from its effects :smallsmile: One of those spells is Wall of Force, which has enough similarities with Forcecage that a ruling could go either way.

Clearly the Giant has gone with the purely literal interpretation, that the spells listed are the only ones granted immunity to antimagic and the rest get suppressed (or at least, that Forcecage is in the latter category.)

[The Minx]

Or that the dragon has simply researched a custom version of the Anti-magic Field spell. She has had long lifetime in which to do so, after all. :smallwink:

[ABB]

ABB, the controversy here isn't that anti-magic exists at all, but the rules as written allow certain spells to be exempt from its effects :smallsmile: One of those spells is Wall of Force, which has enough similarities with Forcecage that a ruling could go either way.

Clearly the Giant has gone with the purely literal interpretation, that the spells listed are the only ones granted immunity to antimagic and the rest get suppressed (or at least, that Forcecage is in the latter category.)

OK, I admit to knowing next to nothing about D&D rules. (Do they still have what I used to call "Thacko"? when I saw it printed? THAC0?)

That said I know there are teleport spells, I suppose the dragon could have teleported herself out of the cage, then used the AM field to pursue vaarsavius when she tried to flee. But the AM field did both jobs with one spell.

Now, another dragon issue: I wonder if the dragon attacking V would be able to fight xykon. Why, you wonder, do I bring this us? Well, remember the big X was riding a zombie dragon when he attacked AC, and what if that dragon was related to the current one? Wouldn't it be funny if she wants revenge on Xykon for turning a relative into a zombie dragon in addition to going after V for killing her son?

If the AM field kills magic, and xykon is animated by magic, and the dragon got his boney ass in it...Nah, too easy.

[Gao]

The Giant HAS said that story > rules lawyering in the past.[/LIST]


This is a case of roleplaying vs. rules lawyering

Now, now, hold on. I'm all for DM decision here, even though I'd bet money that antimagic field does not suppress forcecage, but quite frankly I'm disappointed in this outlook in particular - the outlook that roleplaying and being familiar with the rules, or even arguing your views on the rules, or powergaming, or whatever people like to straw-man optimizers as nowadays, is mutually exclusive. It is NOT rules lawyering or being a jerk to come to a table, knowledge of the rules in hand, and then suddenly having it switched on you due to a different interpretation by the DM, and getting the shaft for it. If I threw a forcecage at a dragon, I threw it at him because I knew that forcecage is one of the nastiest spells in the book, and it should stop the tart dead in his tracks no matter what he throws at me, and if the DM throws that out like a land mine to the face what the hell is that?

If a DM wants to change the rules around, this is something that needs to be specifically stated, and not wanked around as soon as the issue becomes pressing. Assuming the rules do work this way, and I were playing V, I'd be raging myself.

That said, the topic. While I'm a fan of OOTS, and I believe that the author has done something many other webcomic artists constantly fail to do - namely, evolve, develop, and stop writing characters with the same faces three faces over and over and over again, I am also a fan of owning up, and mentioning "Ohay, I interpreted this wrong, sorry!" While I'm not suggesting something as unreasonable as retconning the thing, or scrapping the page, if someone writes something incorrect, then finds that he is wrong, it is better that he at least admit he's wrong, or that he believes his interpretation is correct in a mature, dignified manner, than deny it and allow fanboys to go "YOU TOLD HIM" when more or less what was said was "No u."

To be blatantly ignorant of any sort of criticism is to be blind to your own possible faults; no man is perfect and everyone needs room for growth. To decry a critic is to decry possible chance for growth, and to deny yourself growth is to become stagnant, to weaken, to become formulaic and lackluster.

What was my point? I tend to meander, so it might not be clear.

To summarize:

1. Optimization=/=Unable to Roleplay. While one always hears the story of the guy who makes ridiculous interpretations and acts like a jerk, one can find just as many stories about optimizers who take their crazy concept, make it serviceable to gameplay, and somehow managed to pay attention to the plot, the encounters dialogue, and roleplay their way through The Game. Storytelling should not HAVE to overrule the rules; there is no reason either has to take priority.

1a. (Not listed in paragraph and not relevant to any argument, just a rant) Barring Conjuration was a foolish move at best. When you are 18 intelligence you'd think that these things would occur, and one would realize Save or Dies/Loses/Sucks are far superior to direct damage. It really is, and 18 intelligence would only solidify save-or-die usage in the wizard's mind as the best way to survive; players play a game, where they can afford luxuries like being less effective for the kablooie spells that make big explosions, but a wizard whose life is on the line, save-or-dies and other OHKO spells should be valued as a weapon.

2. AMF does not affect Forcecage.

3. It's better to accept criticism then to ignore it in favor of praise; frankly, it should be the other way around, since criticism helps one develop and grow; praise feels nice but doesn't help you grow. To get flamed for criticizing someone's work like a bunch of groupies praising a rock star is quite frankly a poor example of character from the flamers. Although OP fails for being a jerk about his critique.

[Optimystik]

OK, I admit to knowing next to nothing about D&D rules. (Do they still have what I used to call "Thacko"? when I saw it printed? THAC0?)

I highly recommend you check out the articles at The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org) to refresh yourself on 3.5e rules, it'll help you get the comic's jokes a lot. Alternatively, just play Neverwinter Nights :smallsmile:


Now, another dragon issue: I wonder if the dragon attacking V would be able to fight xykon. Why, you wonder, do I bring this us? Well, remember the big X was riding a zombie dragon when he attacked AC, and what if that dragon was related to the current one? Wouldn't it be funny if she wants revenge on Xykon for turning a relative into a zombie dragon in addition to going after V for killing her son?

No Cure for the Paladin Blues spoiler
The undead dragon Xykon is riding is a Silver dragon that he killed when his tower became infested with good-aligned creatures. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html) This occurred in one of the bonus strips which is why we don't see the fight here on the site.

This of course means that the two dragons are completely unrelated :smallsmile:


If the AM field kills magic, and xykon is animated by magic, and the dragon got his boney ass in it...Nah, too easy.

Well, they only *suppress* magic; but while Xykon is undead, there is no active spell (like animate dead or similar) maintaining his existence; therefore, there is nothing specific to suppress.

[factotum]

2. AMF does not affect Forcecage.


Sorry, but the whole argument in this thread revolves around that one point. The rules do not specifically state that AMF does not affect Forcecage, so you saying that it DOES is as much a personal interpretation as the Giant's interpretation that it does NOT. This is not a case where, to use your analogy, the DM has done something completely opposite to what the rules say.

[Lord Zentei]

I find all this wrangling about Forcecage to be quite hilarious.

I remember way back in the day, in the All Along the Watchtower mini-arc when a whole bunch of newly-minted Pixies emerged from the woodwork only to complain about how the Giant handled the spell there too. "Rah, rah, forcecage doesn't work that way!" Then, there was the added bonus that it was Miko Myazaki who benefited from the ruling, so the hater brigade ALSO emerged from the woodwork to rant and complain about how she didn't suffer some horrible fate then and there (and this was before Shojo got killed).

Now we have the exact same pattern, and with even less justification than before, when it turned out to be a custom forcecage after all. Whatever.

[JVWest]

Aof said: It is NOT rules lawyering or being a jerk to come to a table, knowledge of the rules in hand, and then suddenly having it switched on you due to a different interpretation by the DM, and getting the shaft for it.

I think this is an important point.

One thing to keep in mind also is that there is no single way to roleplay. All gamers come to the table with at least a slightly different idea about what a good gaming session should look like. Because this hobby/artform developed so organically (yet simultaneously so isolated from broader criticism) players just sort of "show up" and a group of very different, possibly antithetical people join in an activity that can meander from pure wargaming into pure shared stortelling without anyone having discussed it beforehand.

So the guy who shows up knowing all the rules and ready to play a game might get blindsided by the GM who shows up knowing the spirit of the rules and ready to make a fun story.

All that aside, I loved this episode of Oots. The look on V's face when he sees the dragon is priceless.

He's not going to end up a lich is he/she? :smallsmile:

[Dr.Desastro]

"Hint for players: This isn't DSA - its Dungeons and Dragons"

Seriously, where did you think you were going with that 1? <snip>

I think we had enough of this. What was I thinking?
Ohh...Jesus Christ! I never realized this is a D&D-parody...well thanks for the enlightenment. Of course I knew this before. I just wanted to present a good point of view from another similar RPG (Do not lecture me on the differences between the two game's settings not the differences in the rules sytem here - they pretty much resemble a good RPG).
Who did YOU think I am? I play different RPGs for about 20 years either as DM or player so do not treat me as a noob.
And I also saw a rules development from DSA ed. 1 to 4. So I have something to compare.
So do not lecture me on such a stuff like: "The rules are absolute".
Rules never are - they are subject to changes or updates. Otherwise they would have been LAWS (and man-made laws still aren't absolute). I think there IS a difference between a rule and a law by its definition. Only because WOTC is striving to make the rules as clear as possible it does not mean they have a godlike mandate and make them laws for all players. The updates are necessary because of players, who are unable to grasp the idea or better: the "spirit" behind the rules and also look for some weak point to exploit them to their advantage.
The rules confine the players into a manner of behaviour where they should not be able to cheat and act in a proper manner for the roles they are playing.
The DM has to know the rules, but he also has to obey a single law: Provide your fellow players with a nice story, hours of fun and keeping it interesting, so that they gladly will sit again at the same table in friendship.
So, in some cases - rules must be interpreted - even bent, if necessary.
But still, it is no problem, because they are rules - not laws.

And: do not forget one thing here: Mr. Burlew is a writer, as storyteller - not a DM. And OotS is NOT a D&D Game-session - although it might look as one. So he can do in HIS story what he thinks is fitting the most. If you have not fun reading it - just let it be. Nobody forces you to do so.

To assassin 89: Yeah, you are right, a reviewer is not quite the same. But many reviewers nevertheless think they are critics. :smallwink:
So I correct myself: It does not necessarily take a brain to be a reviewer, o.k.?

[Gao]

So the guy who shows up knowing all the rules and ready to play a game might get blindsided by the GM who shows up knowing the spirit of the rules and ready to make a fun story.

Hold on a second. The main argument here of the spell is that by "RAW" it doesn't work because it doesn't specifically say so. However, you're emphasizing a DM using "Read As Intended" to make a "fun story" (If railroading a player getting ganked by a dragon for leaving the party for legitimate reasons that while might be annoying is not actually harmful to the rest of the party is your idea of "fun"). Doesn't that seem just a bit contradictory to you?

People are going "dohoho take that rules lawyer" but I honestly don't see anything the character's done WRONG that would deserve a DM beatdown aside from roll bad on the random encounter chart. If anything, it seems like V's player is doing something RIGHT - not being a bore and dragging the party down with his 'research' and instead separating to take care of his boring IC stuff someplace where the party won't have to babysit him.


when it turned out to be a custom forcecage after all. Whatever.

lol copout.

[factotum]

If anything, it seems like V's player is doing something RIGHT - not being a bore and dragging the party down with his 'research' and instead separating to take care of his boring IC stuff someplace where the party won't have to babysit him.


There are no players in OotS. It works by the rules of D&D, but there are no players behind the characters and there is no DM to torment those players. So, what was your point again, exactly?

[Raenir Salazar]

Now, now, hold on. I'm all for DM decision here, even though I'd bet money that antimagic field does not suppress forcecage, but quite frankly I'm disappointed in this outlook in particular - the outlook that roleplaying and being familiar with the rules, or even arguing your views on the rules, or powergaming, or whatever people like to straw-man optimizers as nowadays, is mutually exclusive. It is NOT rules lawyering or being a jerk to come to a table, knowledge of the rules in hand, and then suddenly having it switched on you due to a different interpretation by the DM, and getting the shaft for it. If I threw a forcecage at a dragon, I threw it at him because I knew that forcecage is one of the nastiest spells in the book, and it should stop the tart dead in his tracks no matter what he throws at me, and if the DM throws that out like a land mine to the face what the hell is that?

If a DM wants to change the rules around, this is something that needs to be specifically stated, and not wanked around as soon as the issue becomes pressing. Assuming the rules do work this way, and I were playing V, I'd be raging myself.

That said, the topic. While I'm a fan of OOTS, and I believe that the author has done something many other webcomic artists constantly fail to do - namely, evolve, develop, and stop writing characters with the same faces three faces over and over and over again, I am also a fan of owning up, and mentioning "Ohay, I interpreted this wrong, sorry!" While I'm not suggesting something as unreasonable as retconning the thing, or scrapping the page, if someone writes something incorrect, then finds that he is wrong, it is better that he at least admit he's wrong, or that he believes his interpretation is correct in a mature, dignified manner, than deny it and allow fanboys to go "YOU TOLD HIM" when more or less what was said was "No u."

To be blatantly ignorant of any sort of criticism is to be blind to your own possible faults; no man is perfect and everyone needs room for growth. To decry a critic is to decry possible chance for growth, and to deny yourself growth is to become stagnant, to weaken, to become formulaic and lackluster.

What was my point? I tend to meander, so it might not be clear.

To summarize:

1. Optimization=/=Unable to Roleplay. While one always hears the story of the guy who makes ridiculous interpretations and acts like a jerk, one can find just as many stories about optimizers who take their crazy concept, make it serviceable to gameplay, and somehow managed to pay attention to the plot, the encounters dialogue, and roleplay their way through The Game. Storytelling should not HAVE to overrule the rules; there is no reason either has to take priority.

1a. (Not listed in paragraph and not relevant to any argument, just a rant) Barring Conjuration was a foolish move at best. When you are 18 intelligence you'd think that these things would occur, and one would realize Save or Dies/Loses/Sucks are far superior to direct damage. It really is, and 18 intelligence would only solidify save-or-die usage in the wizard's mind as the best way to survive; players play a game, where they can afford luxuries like being less effective for the kablooie spells that make big explosions, but a wizard whose life is on the line, save-or-dies and other OHKO spells should be valued as a weapon.

2. AMF does not affect Forcecage.

3. It's better to accept criticism then to ignore it in favor of praise; frankly, it should be the other way around, since criticism helps one develop and grow; praise feels nice but doesn't help you grow. To get flamed for criticizing someone's work like a bunch of groupies praising a rock star is quite frankly a poor example of character from the flamers. Although OP fails for being a jerk about his critique.


I believe this was explained, V took Conjuration as a barred school back when Teleport was still transmutation.

[Tredrick]

No Cure for the Paladin Blues spoiler
The undead dragon Xykon is riding is a Silver dragon that he killed when his tower became infested with good-aligned creatures. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html) This occurred in one of the bonus strips which is why we don't see the fight here on the site.

This of course means that the two dragons are completely unrelated :smallsmile:

Just because they are different species of dragons does not mean there is no relation. They could have a life long friendship or have been bitter rivals in love in their youth. While I doubt it is the case here, Rich does like complex characters with deeper backgrounds than you would think.

Of course, they are clearly not blood relations.

[A. Smith]

No Cure for the Paladin Blues spoiler
[SPOILER]The undead dragon Xykon is riding is a Silver dragon that he killed when his tower became infested with good-aligned creatures. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html) This occurred in one of the bonus strips which is why we don't see the fight here on the site.

You can even see the dragon here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0195.html) (first panel, through the door).

[Zeful]

(and obviously doesn't have a Limited Wish handy to duplicate it, since she used up her 3 level 7 spells already).
Limited wish can't give V Teleport, as it only duplicates spells of barred schools up to 4th level. Teleport is 5th

[Simanos]

Nobody has answered my question so far on how to properly balance AMF. I don't care how it is used in a comedic cartoon, but in a proper campaign.
In the next comic (#628) the dragon says she waited until V had wasted his hig0h-level spells. But in truth she didn't have to wait. She could have cast AMF underwater on herself and just appeared and squashed V from surprise round. Forcecage may be bad balance-wise, but AMF is terribad (wizard-haters aside).
So other than banning AMF, how can you balance it?


Read the post again and the quote of the post I was responding to.

Reading comprehension FTW.
Instead of trying to insult me for your own failings how about you make your case (what you meant) clearer so there is no misunderstanding?

[Optimystik]

Nobody has answered my question so far on how to properly balance AMF. I don't care how it is used in a comedic cartoon, but in a proper campaign.
In the next comic (#628) the dragon says she waited until V had wasted his hig0h-level spells. But in truth she didn't have to wait. She could have cast AMF underwater on herself and just appeared and squashed V from surprise round. Forcecage may be bad balance-wise, but AMF is terribad (wizard-haters aside).
So other than banning AMF, how can you balance it?

AMF is balanced. The part of this encounter that is out of balance is that V is facing an ancient black dragon with class levels solo (CR >= 19, and V is 14 at most.) which is much more dangerous than the field itself.

Had he been up against an elf or human sorcerer instead of a dragon, and that sorcerer had cast an AMF and then somehow caught up with V, they'd be reduced to fisticuffs and the situation wouldn't be nearly as dire.

[Kish]

Limited wish can't give V Teleport, as it only duplicates spells of barred schools up to 4th level. Teleport is 5th
This debate keeps coming up. Limited Wish can duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell from a barred school up to and including 5th level. It can duplicate any spell up to 4th level which is both from a barred school and not normally a wizard/sorcerer spell at all. Teleport is a wizard/sorcerer spell, and thus is allowed to be 5th level.

[David Argall]

Will The Giant fold in to the pressure of the forums, not likely. Do I think he should? Well, considering this is the first time in 627 strips that there has been such an outcry for it.
Please try reading the ancient posts around here before talking about first time. Possibly this is the first time in sixty strips there has been an argument like this [but I wouldn't bet on it being even the first time in six]. But we have had disputes like this on a regular basis. I got going in the forum back when we were objecting to Xykon's bouncy ball, which was rapidly followed with pointing out that Belkar could not create Skulksy in just two rounds, which was followed by...
Our writer routinely plays fast and loose with the rules and we regularly take him to task when we think we catch him at it, or defend him when we think he is right. And for the most part our writer ignores the disputes. He is most unlikely to do any folding.



Nobody has answered my question so far on how to properly balance AMF
Well, for the most part, you don't need to. Since it shuts down the magic user, but can only be cast on the magic user who casts it, in the great majority of cases, it hurts both sides equally. But here, we have a very power melee fighter who can cast it, and a purely magic opponent, who can't do much about it. So you have a fairly rare case. For the most part, if the party has some melee specialists, it should be ok. So if the DM is not out there looking for a chance to screw the party, it's easy enough to give the monster a different spell. [And if the DM is trying to screw the party, the game has much more serious problems than one spell being exploitable in a broken manner in certain conditions.]



that the dragon has simply researched a custom version of the Anti-magic Field spell.
This is distinctly suspect. We are already questioning whether the 6th level spell can actually free the dragon. So our 5th level spell is even less likely to free the dragon. As an escape clause, it requires the same sort of explanation to the reader as we got with Xykon-Miko.

[Roderick_BR]

Maybe the giant is using logic, and making antimagic field, a thing that dismisses MAGIC, affect forcecages, a cage made of force, that is PURE MAGIC. I never understood why you can't dispell/supress/spell resist walls and cages, but can do it all against magic missiles and others attack spells. D&D is the thing that doesn't have consistency.


Not necessarily. Remember that Force Chest is two spell effects in one: The first creates the box, and the second maintains the password. It could very well be that the force box could have persisted in the AMF as long as both effects are intact, but the AMF is able to suppress the latter, causing the entire box to fail.

Or make it impossible to open anymore, since the password effect was dismissed, but the box wasen't.

[Sholos]

No Cure for the Paladin Blues spoiler
The undead dragon Xykon is riding is a Silver dragon that he killed when his tower became infested with good-aligned creatures. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html) This occurred in one of the bonus strips which is why we don't see the fight here on the site.

This of course means that the two dragons are completely unrelated :smallsmile:

Actually, both Redcloak and Xykon were getting pwned by the dragon until the lucky hit by the random goblin.

[The Minx]

This is distinctly suspect. We are already questioning whether the 6th level spell can actually free the dragon. So our 5th level spell is even less likely to free the dragon. As an escape clause, it requires the same sort of explanation to the reader as we got with Xykon-Miko.

Who said anything about a 5th level spell? Custom variants do not have to be the same level as the parent spell. I merely threw that out there to show that there is no reason to simply assume that the SRD will be followed to the letter.

And I honestly don't think that you need an in-story exposition every time a custom spell pops up. In fact, do that often enough and it becomes poor writing. Better to assume that either Rich has a custom interpretation or the character has a custom spell when something unexpected happens.

[David Argall]

Who said anything about a 5th level spell? Custom variants do not have to be the same level as the parent spell.
If it were the same level, it would not fix the problem of the spell being too high level for the dragon to cast. And while variants do not have to be of the same level, the power of the spell should be appropriate for its level. So if a 6th level Anti-Magic Field is already deemed rather strong for its level, the 5th level version has to be significantly weaker, meaning its ability to free the dragon is distinctly suspect.


And I honestly don't think that you need an in-story exposition every time a custom spell pops up.
You do not when a completely new spell pops up, but when you use an existing spell, the reader has expectations, and violating those expectations attacks that willingness to disbelieve. So a variation on an existing spell requires following it pretty closely, or explaining why not.

[JVWest]

Hold on a second. The main argument here of the spell is that by "RAW" it doesn't work because it doesn't specifically say so. However, you're emphasizing a DM using "Read As Intended" to make a "fun story" (If railroading a player getting ganked by a dragon for leaving the party for legitimate reasons that while might be annoying is not actually harmful to the rest of the party is your idea of "fun"). Doesn't that seem just a bit contradictory to you?

But we're talking about a comic based on D&D rules, not an actual game. Someone already pointed out that there are no players involved.

As far as rules lawyering goes, concerning Oots, I think the creator needs to be very careful and observant of the rules because his entire premise is built around them.

And I think he does this quite well. There is nothing wrong with creative interpretation as long as it isn't destructive to the premise of the comic.

[Simanos]

Well, for the most part, you don't need to. Since it shuts down the magic user, but can only be cast on the magic user who casts it, in the great majority of cases, it hurts both sides equally. But here, we have a very power melee fighter who can cast it, and a purely magic opponent, who can't do much about it. So you have a fairly rare case. For the most part, if the party has some melee specialists, it should be ok. So if the DM is not out there looking for a chance to screw the party, it's easy enough to give the monster a different spell. [And if the DM is trying to screw the party, the game has much more serious problems than one spell being exploitable in a broken manner in certain conditions.]
I'm mostly worried about PCs abusing it. Like in a Dungeon with Beholders or against a high level Sorcerer or a team of evil Wizards.

[The Minx]

If it were the same level, it would not fix the problem of the spell being too high level for the dragon to cast. And while variants do not have to be of the same level, the power of the spell should be appropriate for its level. So if a 6th level Anti-Magic Field is already deemed rather strong for its level, the 5th level version has to be significantly weaker, meaning its ability to free the dragon is distinctly suspect.

We know that the dragon has taken extra levels in spellcasting class, by its own statement. For all we know, she could be capable of 9th level spells. Not very likely, but we cannot assume that the standard maximum available to non-upgraded Ancient Black Dragons holds.


You do not when a completely new spell pops up, but when you use an existing spell, the reader has expectations, and violating those expectations attacks that willingness to disbelieve. So a variation on an existing spell requires following it pretty closely, or explaining why not.

That is my point. You do not know that this is the same spell you read about in the SRD at all. Nor would you know that Rich intends to use the standard SRD rules in any case, except that he has specifically said that he is NOT doing that. :smallsmile:

EDIT: incidentally, assuming I were to accept your position, why do you insist on an explanation of the Miko-Xykon type now? As opposed to, say, later in the storyline? :smallconfused:

[Logalmier]

=/ you talk crap about people not retracting their mistakes (the charity), yet your SCRUBBED and do the exact same thing... w/e ...




A good DM/Storyteller can do both

Forum Staff: Flaming is against the rules of this message board. Directly flaming an admin is a one-way ticket to a ban.

There's a small difference between having a webcomic follow the rules of a made up fantasy game word for word and donating to save the lives of starving children.:smallannoyed:

Just saying.