PDA

View Full Version : Spell DC trick



quick_comment
2009-07-30, 07:31 PM
Just a neat trick Ive been using.

Take snowcasting from frostburn. Get eschew materials from whatever source you want. Take Draconic Aura: Energy(Cold). Bam, +1-4 to all your spell's DCs (depends on character level).

Curmudgeon
2009-07-30, 07:35 PM
If you add a handful of snow or ice as an additional material component to a spell when you cast it, the spell gains the cold descriptor. So if you use Eschew Materials, you're failing to meet the requirements of Snowcasting, and get no benefit.

Trick doesn't work.

NEO|Phyte
2009-07-30, 07:40 PM
So if you use Eschew Materials, you're failing to meet the requirements of Snowcasting, and get no benefit.

Trick doesn't work.

Isn't that like saying if you use Eschew Materials, you're failing to meet the requirements of the spell itself? Snowcasting specifically adds the snow as a material component. Does snow have value of 1 GP or more? No, so Eschew Materials lets you cast without having it.

Typewriter
2009-07-30, 08:15 PM
I'm inclined to agree that it would work, but only if the spell normally doesn't have a material component, or if the user has the base material component already. The reason for that is the term in Eschew Materials - " that has a material component"

a is the key word there.

'Snowcasting' makes the spell include snow as a material component. Casting the spell with the feat 'eschew materials' will remove the need for 1 material component.

holywhippet
2009-07-30, 08:16 PM
You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. (The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.) If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component at hand to cast the spell, just as normal.

I'd interpret that to mean you don't need the material component(s) listed for the spell by itself. Since the snow isn't part of the normal spell it wouldn't be covered.

Typewriter
2009-07-30, 08:24 PM
The original spell doesn't have it as a component but the feat adds it(which eschew doesn't cover). If the feat said "If you are holding a handful of ice or snow when you cast then X and X occur I would agree, but it specifically says that it's made into a somatic component, which makes the spell cold, meaning the spell you cast has the cold descriptor and a (additional?) somatic component(snow/ice) which is covered by eschew.

imperialspectre
2009-07-30, 08:27 PM
It's not (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prestidigitation.htm) exactly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#bagofHolding) hard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWeather.htm) to access a supply of snow and/or ice if you're a caster. I would probably allow a character to "research" a spell that created a given amount of ice as a 1st-level spell, although I wouldn't allow material from It's Cold Outside unless it was in the campaign already or the player had a good IC reason for their character knowing about it.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-30, 08:32 PM
You may interpret snowcasting to work with eschew materials but I wouldn't allow it. It's just cheesy...Frostburn has plenty of things like that...

Lamech
2009-07-30, 08:36 PM
I have a question. In a world with out fridges what exactly makes you think ice and snow is cheap? I mean sure if your in an area with ice and snow, but in say a desert? Yeah, no.

BenTheJester
2009-07-30, 08:36 PM
This was taken from billiant gameologist. It's a way to increase your DC to ridiculous number



dragon touched(needed for draconic aura) Dragon Magic
snowcasting Frostburn+[cold] descriptor to spells
draconic aura (cold) Dragon Magic scaling max +4 dc to [cold] spells
spellfocus (cold) Frostburn +1dc to all [cold] spells
greaterspell focus (cold) Frostburn +2dc to all [cold] spells
spellfocus(whatever necromancy or something) PHB +1dc to spells
greater spellfocus(whatever necromancy or something)PHB+2dc to spells
Violate Spell Makes all your spells evil for +1 Level
Malign Spell Focus +2 DC for Evil Spells
Spell Focus (Evil)+1 DC for Evil Spells
Levels 6 and 10 of the Planar Wizard Substitution Levels +1 DC for Evil Spells, +2 if target is Good
Greater Planar Binding a Succubus with max levels in Fiend of Corruption and Fiend of Possession.
Mindrape said succubus, making it your loyal follower who will stay with you forever, and have it possess you and give you a +7 bonus to your spellcasting stat (+4 Profane and +3 Unnamed).
Be Venerable age, and use Steal Life to make your body young.
Buy a bunch of Souls in Larval Form +2 DC when you use it as an optional spell component
Take a hit of Mushroom Powder, your new favorite Drug for a +2 Alchemical Bonus to Int

+14(+15 if your opponent is good) to your save DC's for your chosen school.

Int is 46 (18[starting stats]+3[venerable]+5[levels]+5[tome]+6[item]+7[succubus]+2[mushroom])

So go ahead and cast a Corrupt Finger of Death (Level 8 Slot), for DC 51 Save or Die.

Kill Great Wrym Gold Dragons (CR27) with one spell 90% of the time.



Icemail armor +2dc to all [cold] spells; also no arcane spell faliure for [cold] spells
found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20030323a

Burley
2009-07-31, 07:06 AM
I have a question. In a world with out fridges what exactly makes you think ice and snow is cheap? I mean sure if your in an area with ice and snow, but in say a desert? Yeah, no.

Probably the fact that there is magic everywhere? Maybe.
What is bat poop and sulfer so cheap? Why can you eshew the materials for Fireball? A single bat could take out a commoner, a swarm of bats could take out a village. Do you really think that any non-adventurer gathered those spell components?
Seriously, 0-level spells (ray of frost) could conceivably freeze a pitcher of water into solid ice. This shouldn't really be a big deal. You're expending feats to increase a statistic. Not all that cheesy. It takes what... 5 levels to pull this off?

Melamoto
2009-07-31, 07:18 AM
Mindrape said succubus, making it your loyal follower who will stay with you forever, and have it possess you and give you a +7 bonus to your spellcasting stat (+4 Profane and +3 Unnamed).
Most people would have a Succubus slave do something different with their body, but that's Arcane Casters for you I guess.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-31, 08:22 AM
Isn't that like saying if you use Eschew Materials, you're failing to meet the requirements of the spell itself? No, it's really not.
Snowcasting specifically adds the snow as a material component. That's where you're wrong. Snowcasting says if you add a new material component; it doesn't make adding that material component a requirement for casting the spell. With Snowcasting you can still cast the spell as usual by not adding the snow/ice. With Eschew Materials you're meeting all the (cheap) material component requirements of spells without having those components. But Snowcasting only makes snow/ice an option, not a requirement, so Eschew Materials doesn't help you.

NEO|Phyte
2009-07-31, 08:31 AM
No, it's really not. That's where you're wrong. Snowcasting says if you add a new material component; it doesn't make adding that material component a requirement for casting the spell. With Snowcasting you can still cast the spell as usual by not adding the snow/ice. With Eschew Materials you're meeting all the (cheap) material component requirements of spells without having those components. But Snowcasting only makes snow/ice an option, not a requirement, so Eschew Materials doesn't help you.
Just because you don't HAVE to add the snow/ice as a component doesn't make that component any less required when you DO.


Components
A spell’s components are what you must do or possess to cast it. The Components entry in a spell description includes abbreviations that tell you what type of components it has. Specifics for material, focus, and XP components are given at the end of the descriptive text. Usually you don’t worry about components, but when you can’t use a component for some reason or when a material or focus component is expensive, then the components are important.
You add a handful of snow/ice as a material component? It's now REQUIRED to cast the spell, as there's no mention of it being an Optional Component, like those you can find in the BoVD. That said, making it Optional would be a good houserule.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-31, 10:18 AM
Just because you don't HAVE to add the snow/ice as a component doesn't make that component any less required when you DO.
I can't make sense of this statement.

Just because you don't HAVE to add bleach to a cake recipe doesn't make bleach any less required when you DO.

Bleach still isn't required for a cake.

Telonius
2009-07-31, 10:43 AM
I'd rule that the interpretation ought to be something like this.

- If a spell has M in the description, you need particular material component(s) in order to cast a spell.
- If you have Eschew Materials, you don't need to use <1gp cost material components in order to cast a spell.
- If you use Snowcasting, you can add a material component (snow) in order to make the spell gain the cold descriptor.
- "Snow" is not listed as a material component in the spell descriptions normally.
- Failure to have snow does not mean you cannot cast the spell in question, just that the spell in question will not have the Cold descriptor.
- Eschew Materials therefore has no effect on additional material components added, since they are not required for the casting of the spell.
- The more specific requirement of Snowcasting trumps the more general rule of Eschew Materials (which in turn trumps the more general rule of needing material components).

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 11:02 AM
It's not (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prestidigitation.htm) exactly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#bagofHolding) hard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWeather.htm) to access a supply of snow and/or ice if you're a caster. I would probably allow a character to "research" a spell that created a given amount of ice as a 1st-level spell, although I wouldn't allow material from It's Cold Outside unless it was in the campaign already or the player had a good IC reason for their character knowing about it.
not (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prestidigitation.htm) Prestidigitation specifically can not create spell components. And while "chill" could be stretched to "freeze", it is a stretch.
exactly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#bagofHolding) A Bag of Holding is not a stasis field. Breathing creatures suffocate after 10 minutes, and no mention is made of the Bag maintaining a freezing temperature. Your snow or ice would melt, possibly before you had a need for it.
hard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWeather.htm) While Control Weather can certainly create snow or ice even in summer, I question the usefulness of a 20 minute lead time to create a material component which may have a very ephemeral duration.

Other spells or effects may give better success.

The OPs "trick" seems perfectly valid by RAW. And yet another combination of feats, etc in 3.5 which was not edited with interaction with other feats in mind.

HamHam
2009-07-31, 11:05 AM
A Bag of Holding is not a stasis field. Breathing creatures suffocate after 10 minutes, and no mention is made of the Bag maintaining a freezing temperature. Your snow or ice would melt, possibly before you had a need for it.

Where is the heat coming from? If the bag is closed, nothing can get in from the outside. Meanwhile, the entire bag is filled with snow. Thus, there is nothing there from which energy could conduct into the snow.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 11:08 AM
Where is the heat coming from? If the bag is closed, nothing can get in from the outside. Meanwhile, the entire bag is filled with snow. Thus, there is nothing there from which energy could conduct into the snow.This interpretation reads far too much into the Bag of Holding. Again, it is not a stasis field. But given the lack of detail on exactly how the Bag works, this could be argued endlessly from either side with no conclusion.

Edit: Re-reading the Bag, this tactic would have some interesting implications. If the bag is completely filled with snow, this is a single object "a pile of snow", which is larger than a backpack. Removing the entire amount of snow would then take a full-round action, but removing only a handful of snow is not possible, by RAW. I would love to see the OPS caster casting Control Weather each morning and then rolling a thousand snowballs so that he could remove a single one with a move action.

And, they would still melt. :)

AstralFire
2009-07-31, 11:15 AM
This interpretation reads far too much into the Bag of Holding. Again, it is not a stasis field. But given the lack of detail on exactly how the Bag works, this could be argued endlessly from either side with no conclusion.

Goody - we needed another one of those.

ONLY MUNCHKINS TAKE BAGS OF SNOWLDING

WHAT? WE'RE IN A DAMN ARCTIC CAMPAIGN. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE A MUNCHKIN!

GAMEWRECKER

FUN POLICE

NO U

-verbal fistfight-

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 11:22 AM
If you're in a damn arctic campaign (what's that? Demons descend on penguins and polar bears? Oh, noes!) then there's no need for a Bag of Holding to port your snow around.

AstralFire
2009-07-31, 11:25 AM
...That response was not intended to be taken seriously at all and in fact, I purposely made what little statements there were to be illogical. :smallsigh:


If you're in a damn arctic campaign (what's that? Demons descend on penguins and polar bears? Oh, snoes!) then there's no need for a Bag of Holding to port your snow around.

Fixed that for you in bolded text. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

NEO|Phyte
2009-07-31, 11:28 AM
I can't make sense of this statement.

Just because you don't HAVE to add bleach to a cake recipe doesn't make bleach any less required when you DO.

Bleach still isn't required for a cake.

The feat does not let you use snow as an Optional Component to add to the spell DC, it lets you add a material component to a spell to add to the spell DC. The ability to add said component is optional, but once added, the component itself is not, unless you can find me a rule saying that you can cast a spell without supplying all required components.

Alex Star
2009-07-31, 11:47 AM
The feat does not let you use snow as an Optional Component to add to the spell DC, it lets you add a material component to a spell to add to the spell DC. The ability to add said component is optional, but once added, the component itself is not, unless you can find me a rule saying that you can cast a spell without supplying all required components.

NEO... the most simple reason why I would say this is not allowed is because of the amount of explaination required to explain why it can happen.

If it seems like you need to warp the rules to accomplish something then guess what... you're not following the intended spirit of the game.

However, if you must have a more detailed explaination of why it doesn't work here..

Lets just say you are casting Magic Missile... Snow is not a material component for it.

If you have the feat in question it does not make a SECOND Magic Missile spell where Snow is a material component.

As such casting Magic Missile does not require Snow. If you Choose to add Snow as a material component it adds Cold to the spell.

Understand?

AstralFire
2009-07-31, 11:49 AM
Make no bones - the thread is not arguing Rules As Intended. They almost never are. This is about a silly trick with Rules As Written.

Burley
2009-07-31, 11:55 AM
The feat does not let you use snow as an Optional Component to add to the spell DC, it lets you add a material component to a spell to add to the spell DC. The ability to add said component is optional, but once added, the component itself is not, unless you can find me a rule saying that you can cast a spell without supplying all required components.

I'm pretty sure there's a feat in the PHB that lets you cast a spell without required material components, as long as they aren't over one gold.

Can't remember the name, though.
:smallamused:

Curmudgeon
2009-07-31, 12:04 PM
The feat does not let you use snow as an Optional Component to add to the spell DC, it lets you add a material component to a spell to add to the spell DC.
The snow/ice is indeed optional. It's in the definition of the first word of the feat's benefit:
if –conjunction
a : in the event that b : allowing that c : on the assumption that d : on condition that
If you add a handful of snow or ice as an additional material component to a spell when you cast it, the spell gains the cold descriptor. The snow/ice is additional and conditional -- the very definition of optional.

Catch
2009-07-31, 12:10 PM
A Bag of Holding is not a stasis field. Breathing creatures suffocate after 10 minutes, and no mention is made of the Bag maintaining a freezing temperature. Your snow or ice would melt, possibly before you had a need for it.


Where is the heat coming from? If the bag is closed, nothing can get in from the outside. Meanwhile, the entire bag is filled with snow. Thus, there is nothing there from which energy could conduct into the snow.


This interpretation reads far too much into the Bag of Holding. Again, it is not a stasis field. But given the lack of detail on exactly how the Bag works, this could be argued endlessly from either side with no conclusion.

I'm going to press this issue, only because the answer dodged the question.

The Bag of Holding is "not a stasis field," so it's airtight and living creatures suffocate. But if air cannot permeate or enter the bag, how does sufficient heat enter the bag in order to melt the snow?

Either the bag is sealed or it's not.

Now if the Bag of Holding behaves as, say, a jar, then it'd be airtight but permeable to heat, which is a plausible interpretation, but not explicitly supported by RAW. Then again, neither is a "thermos bag."

NEO|Phyte
2009-07-31, 12:11 PM
NEO... the most simple reason why I would say this is not allowed is because of the amount of explaination required to explain why it can happen.

If it seems like you need to warp the rules to accomplish something then guess what... you're not following the intended spirit of the game.

What rule warping? One feat lets you add a material component to a spell. You normally must provide all components of a spell to cast it, but this other feat lets you ignore nonexpensive material components while still being able to cast the spell.


However, if you must have a more detailed explaination of why it doesn't work here..

Lets just say you are casting Magic Missile... Snow is not a material component for it.

If you have the feat in question it does not make a SECOND Magic Missile spell where Snow is a material component.

As such casting Magic Missile does not require Snow. If you Choose to add Snow as a material component it adds Cold to the spell.

Understand? We understand. We don't comprehend.

1) Know/prepare spell
2a) Decide to cast spell
2b) Decide you'd like to use Snowcasting
2c) "If you add a handful of snow or ice as an additional material component to a spell when you cast it"
2d) "You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component."
3) ???
4) MAGIC!

Actually, with 2c's "additional", wouldn't that mean Snowcasting only works with spells that already have material components? If we're gonna argue over whether 'runtime' material components count as eschewable, may as well throw in grammatical/whatever readings.

HamHam
2009-07-31, 12:13 PM
This interpretation reads far too much into the Bag of Holding. Again, it is not a stasis field. But given the lack of detail on exactly how the Bag works, this could be argued endlessly from either side with no conclusion.

It doesn't need to be a "stasis field". It's a closed off plane. While closed, it has no contact with the Material Plane. Time continues to pass within it. It does not regulate it's own internal temperature however. Thus, a Bag filled completely or even just mostly with snow will make the ambient temperature of the space within the bag equal to that of the snow, and thus below the melting point.

Therefore, the snow will not melt.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-31, 12:19 PM
The Bag of Holding is "not a stasis field," so it's airtight and living creatures suffocate. But if air cannot permeate or enter the bag, how does sufficient heat enter the bag in order to melt the snow?

Either the bag is sealed or it's not.
Jeez, this is why you don't mix real world physics with D&D magic.

Put a tub of cold ice cream in the bag of holding. Does it melt? Does it matter if the the bag is sealed from the outside world?

Now put a pan of hot caramel in the bag of holding. Does it cool down? Does it heat up the ice cream? Does it spill and stick to everything as you carry the bag? Does the bag have gravity?

Now put a banana in the bag of holding. Does it spoil after two weeks? Does the bag prevent entropy?

Now put a halfling into the bag of holding. Can he make and eat a caramel banana split Sunday before he dies in 10 minutes?

Catch
2009-07-31, 12:20 PM
Jeez, this is why you don't mix real world physics with D&D magic.

Put a tub of cold ice cream in the bag of holding. Does it melt? Does it matter if the the bag is sealed from the outside world?

Now put a pan of hot caramel in the bag of holding. Does it cool down? Does it heat up the ice cream? Does it spill and stick to everything as you carry the bag? Does the bag have gravity?

Now put a banana in the bag of holding. Does it spoil after two weeks? Does the bag prevent entropy?

Now put a halfling into the bag of holding. Can he make and eat a caramel banana split Sunday before he dies in 10 minutes?

Belkar would just slice open the bag, kill the wizard and then use his head for an sundae cup. :smallbiggrin:

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 12:23 PM
...That response was not intended to be taken seriously at all and in fact, I purposely made what little statements there were to be illogical. :smallsigh:I was very amused by your not-so-much-a-parody of -verbal fistfight- :smallbiggrin:

My reply was intended to be a dry and pedantic pointing out of a logical error in a post intended to be humerous. :smallcool:

NEO|Phyte
2009-07-31, 12:23 PM
The snow/ice is indeed optional. It's in the definition of the first word of the feat's benefit: The snow/ice is additional and conditional -- the very definition of optional.

I'll give you that grammatically, and probably RAI, the snow is optional, but as the RAW has Optional Components for spells, and the Snowcasting feat doesn't SAY that the snow is such an Optional Component, we get nice nice arguments like this one. I wouldn't try this in an actual game, and if I ever DM 3.5, I probably wouldn't allow it, but from how I read it at least, it IS rules-legal, if a bit of an edge case.

HamHam
2009-07-31, 12:29 PM
Jeez, this is why you don't mix real world physics with D&D magic.

Put a tub of cold ice cream in the bag of holding. Does it melt?

Depends on the size of the interior of the bag and the resulting equilibrium temperature between the tub and air around it. Not simple to figure out, but fully determinable.


Does it matter if the the bag is sealed from the outside world?

Obviously, otherwise there would be an air current and the temperature inside would equalize with the temperature outside.


Now put a pan of hot caramel in the bag of holding. Does it cool down?

Again, it would heat up the air until equilibrium.


Does it heat up the ice cream?

If they are in the same bag of holding, yes.


Does it spill and stick to everything as you carry the bag? Does the bag have gravity?

Probably not, although the text does not specify.


Now put a banana in the bag of holding. Does it spoil after two weeks?

Yes.


Does the bag prevent entropy?

No.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 12:33 PM
-verbal fistfight-, I choose you!


It doesn't need to be a "stasis field". It's a closed off plane. While closed, it has no contact with the Material Plane. Time continues to pass within it. It does not regulate it's own internal temperature however. Thus, a Bag filled completely or even just mostly with snow will make the ambient temperature of the space within the bag equal to that of the snow, and thus below the melting point.

Therefore, the snow will not melt.

Very logically laid out. Ok, I can work with this. So the Bag does not regulate its internal temperature. Gotcha. Then any human employing some means to obviate the need to breath will die of heat exposure in the Bag, as the heat given off by the body will eventually cook them since it can't go anywhere. If you want the laws of Bag physics to work a specific way to your advantage in a specific situation, you must also accept that they might work against you in other situations you haven't foreseen.

And you're still pulling out the entire pile of snow using a full round action. Or, depending on your GM, a single snowflake using a move action, which melts before you can use it to add the cold descriptor to your spell. Thus, eschew components. :smallamused:

See why I originally said that the Bag was not sufficiently defined enough to prevent endless arguments?

Lewin Eagle
2009-07-31, 12:38 PM
This interpretation reads far too much into the Bag of Holding. Again, it is not a stasis field. But given the lack of detail on exactly how the Bag works, this could be argued endlessly from either side with no conclusion.

Edit: Re-reading the Bag, this tactic would have some interesting implications. If the bag is completely filled with snow, this is a single object "a pile of snow", which is larger than a backpack. Removing the entire amount of snow would then take a full-round action, but removing only a handful of snow is not possible, by RAW. I would love to see the OPS caster casting Control Weather each morning and then rolling a thousand snowballs so that he could remove a single one with a move action.

And, they would still melt. :)
I doesn't prevent melting but it slows it a bit.
To melt it has to touch something warmer than it or absorb heat via radiation(contact is much faster), otherwise it would actually get colder and colder. The text mentions piercing from the inside so the snow probably touches the bag from the inside -> it gets heat from the outside transmitter through the bag. But if nothing is inside the bag beside the snow and you have the biggest bag you have 250 cu. ft. snow, which takes some time in normal conditions. And conduction is proportional to the surface a 6,3feet*6,3feet*6,3feet icq quader would have an surface of 238 feet. But in this case the heat has to be transfered through the bag and if we say the bag has the form of a cube than 2feet and 4 feet means 2*4*6=48.
->Only 1/6 of the normal conduction so roughly the snow will take 6 time as long to melt.
Not really impressive but interesting hmm a few isolation materials would probably help.

Regarding making the snow into seperate items. Maybe you could wrap each ball into something thin, meh I don't know.

HamHam
2009-07-31, 12:44 PM
Then any human employing some means to obviate the need to breath will die of heat exposure in the Bag, as the heat given off by the body will eventually cook them since it can't go anywhere.

Maybe? First of all you would heat up any remaining air in the bag up to body temperature. This would probably take a while though. Then... something. I don't think you would actually continue heating it up.

1) Once your skin and the air are the same temperature, body heat will stop going into the air.

2) Your body will attempt to remain homeostatic (is that the right term?) and may stop the processes that were heating you up when the air around you was below body temp.

But I'm actually not sure.

Endure Elements fixes the problem regardless.


And you're still pulling out the entire pile of snow using a full round action. Or, depending on your GM, a single snowflake using a move action, which melts before you can use it to add the cold descriptor to your spell.

This is a silly interpretation.

1) The RAI here is obviously that if the contents are more than that of a back-pack, you need to rummage through it to find what you want. Thus, a full round action is required.

2) You aren't looking for a specific item at all. You are just sticking your hand in, grabbing a fist full of snow, and pulling it out.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 12:58 PM
This is a silly interpretation.Silly? Perhaps. But it is RAW, and you are houseruling.


1) The RAI here is obviously that if the contents are more than that of a back-pack, you need to rummage through it to find what you want. Thus, a full round action is required.

2) You aren't looking for a specific item at all. You are just sticking your hand in, grabbing a fist full of snow, and pulling it out.You want the RAI to be this, but the RAW does not support your house rule. Here is the RAW:

Retrieving a specific item from a bag of holding is a move action—unless the bag contains more than an ordinary backpack would hold, in which case retrieving a specific item is a full-round action. RAW says that you can retrieve a specific item, and you said that you're not looking for a specific item. Looks like you get nothing out of the Bag for your move action. Care to try again?

Catch
2009-07-31, 01:01 PM
RAW says that you can retrieve a specific item, and you said that you're not looking for a specific item. Looks like you get nothing out of the Bag for your move action. Care to try again?

Right, and you have to make a Listen check every time someone speaks to your character in order to catch what they said.

There's a difference between using RAW to make a point and using RAW to be a stick in the mud.

HamHam
2009-07-31, 01:04 PM
RAW says that you can retrieve a specific item, and you said that you're not looking for a specific item. Looks like you get nothing out of the Bag for your move action. Care to try again?

The general rules for manipulating an item, which includes "retrieving a stored item", kick in and you end up with a random item from the bag of holding. Since the possible choices are "snow", "snow", and "snow", you are now holding snow.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-31, 01:04 PM
<snip>
You missed the point. It's better to analyze the bag of holding with the physics of Mary Poppins than with thermordynamics.

Mary Poppins takes a kid on a picnic. She puts into her Bag of Holding an open jug of ice cold lemonade and a cake with a lit candle into the Bag of Holding. At the picnic, she takes out the jug of lemonade which is just as cold and has not one dropped spilled. She removes the cake with the candle that is still lit.

"Now where did I put the rest of the food?" Mary Poppins asks as she looks in the bag. Suddenly, a penguin jumps out of the bag and waddles away. Mary Poppins quips, "Well I guess we won't be having the fish and chips."

The kid leans over the bag and accidently falls in. He finds himself in a dark, scary place with nothing around him and no way to get out. Mary Poppins reaches in and pulls him out.

She asks, "Be careful. What were you doing in there?"

"I wanted to get my bag of marbles," explains the frightened little kid.

"Oh this?" Mary Poppins says as she pulls out an empty bag. "You didn't close the bag. Now the marbles are all over the floor."

"Sorry," says the kid with a sad face.

"It's OK. We'll pick them up later," says Mary Poppins, "Now let's have some cake and tea."

See? It's much more logical that way.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 01:22 PM
The general rules for manipulating an item, which includes "retrieving a stored item", kick in and you end up with a random item from the bag of holding. Since the possible choices are "snow", "snow", and "snow", you are now holding snow.Specific rules trump general, you know. If you want an item out of a Bag of Holding you must use the rules for retrieving an item from a Bag of Holding.

Right, and you have to make a Listen check every time someone speaks to your character in order to catch what they said.

There's a difference between using RAW to make a point and using RAW to be a stick in the mud.Your GM could ask you to make a Listen Check every time someone speaks to your character. But it just so happens that the listen check DC for "People talking" is 0, and you can not fail. So there is no need to roll.

There's a difference between using RAW and making stuff up. And there are far better examples of RAW which are ridiculous than a Listen Check.

Look, you can even use fluff to make a lot of sense out of the Bag RAW.

The bag of holding opens into a nondimensional space. What's that? Not quite sure. You can't see into the bag (there is no fluff which even suggests that you can), but you can place items into the bag and the bag does not get any heavier. If you want them back you only have to reach in while visualizing it (this satisfies the "specific item" restriction) and the item will magically move to your hand. If the Bag holds a great many items ("more than an ordinary backpack would hold") the item you want will take longer to move to your hand. If you're not sure what all is in the bag, you can turn it inside out to spill out even the most fragile of items you might not have known were inside without breaking any of them (RAW says they spill out "harmlessly").

This is a perfectly consistent fantasy description of how the Bag of Holding works which follows RAW to the letter and isn't all that silly after all.

Or you can house rule even the most basic of magic items to try to extract unintended advantages.

Catch
2009-07-31, 01:25 PM
Look, you can even use fluff to make a lot of sense out of the Bag RAW.

The bag of holding opens into a nondimensional space. What's that? Not quite sure. You can't see into the bag (there is no fluff which even suggests that you can), but you can place items into the bag and the bag does not get any heavier. If you want them back you only have to reach in while visualizing it (this satisfies the "specific item" restriction) and the item will magically move to your hand. If the Bag holds a great many items ("more than an ordinary backpack would hold") the item you want will take longer to move to your hand. If you're not sure what all is in the bag, you can turn it inside out to spill out even the most fragile of items you might not have known were inside without breaking any of them (RAW says they spill out "harmlessly").

This is a perfectly consistent fantasy description of how the Bag of Holding works which follows RAW to the letter and isn't all that silly after all.

Right. And you imagine a handful of snow, thus extracting it from the bag - which hasn't melted, unless the pocket plane inside the Bag of Holding is exothermic.

Extradimensional space, remember.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 01:31 PM
Right. And you imagine a handful of snow, thus extracting it from the bag - which hasn't melted, unless the pocket plane inside the Bag of Holding is exothermic.

Extradimensional space, remember.You're forgetting that HamHam didn't put the specific item "a handful of snow" in the Bag, so one can not be retrieved.

And I'm not going to get into the physics of the Bag again, I've covered that already. Limit yourself to debating the magic, please, unless you have something new to add.

Typewriter
2009-07-31, 01:32 PM
I can't make sense of this statement.

Just because you don't HAVE to add bleach to a cake recipe doesn't make bleach any less required when you DO.

Bleach still isn't required for a cake.

You kind of contradict yourself there. DO was meant to imply 'when you DO decide to add bleach to a cake'. If you decide to add bleach to a cake then bleach is required to make the cake you decided to make. Just because most of the time you don't use bleach doesn't mean that when you decide to you cant.


Back on the matter at hand:

All I know is what I read and the text of the feat says that it adds a material component to a spell, and then the feat eschew materials gets rid of the need for a material spell component.

It's not the feat that requires use of snow, all the feat does is make snow a requirement for casting the spell which you bypass. If this was worded at all differently I'd be against it, but RAW - I say it stands.


That being said, if a player tried to do this in my campaign I'd let him, but would tell the group that this trick was no longer allowed. I'd allow it one time as a 'congratulations' on catching something nifty, but then it would be houseruled away.

Keld Denar
2009-07-31, 01:37 PM
Now put a halfling into the bag of holding. Can he make and eat a caramel banana split Sunday before he dies in 10 minutes?

He probably can, but the real question remains: Can he see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

Catch
2009-07-31, 01:38 PM
You're forgetting that HamHam didn't put the specific item "a handful of snow" in the Bag, so one can not be retrieved.

I'm making a point. Either you're using the RAW by the letter or you're using sensible fluff.

Apparently that's mercurial based on how convenient either happens to be to your argument.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 01:46 PM
I'm making a point. Either you're using the RAW by the letter or you're using sensible fluff.

Apparently that's mercurial based on how convenient either happens to be to your argument.Please point out anything I've said which applies the RAW inconsistently. I believe that I'm both assigning sensible fluff to the RAW and following RAW to the letter. Best of both worlds and all.

HamHam
2009-07-31, 01:49 PM
You're forgetting that HamHam didn't put the specific item "a handful of snow" in the Bag, so one can not be retrieved.

If you're going to be pedantic, then you can in fact put in each handful one at a time and each one will be a specific item that you put into the bag of holding. How many handful's of snow is it to fill a backpack? Easily 20 or 30, which is more than enough to use for casting every single spell you have during a day.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 01:56 PM
If you're going to be pedantic, then you can in fact put in each handful one at a time and each one will be a specific item that you put into the bag of holding. How many handful's of snow is it to fill a backpack? Easily 20 or 30, which is more than enough to use for casting every single spell you have during a day.You've gone full circle back to my post suggesting that watching the OP pack a thousand snowballs for his BoH would be amusing.

HamHam
2009-07-31, 01:59 PM
You've gone full circle back to my post suggesting that watching the OP pack a thousand snowballs for his BoH would be amusing.

Okay. They don't have to be snowballs. You grab some snow. You put it into the bag of holding. You grab another handful. You put it into the bag of holding. Each one is a specific item.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 02:01 PM
Okay. They don't have to be snowballs. You grab some snow. You put it into the bag of holding. You grab another handful. You put it into the bag of holding. Each one is a specific item.How is that different?

Lewin Eagle
2009-07-31, 02:04 PM
the drawback of snowballs is time investment. it takes less time to take a handful

Catch
2009-07-31, 02:05 PM
Please point out anything I've said which applies the RAW inconsistently. I believe that I'm both assigning sensible fluff to the RAW and following RAW to the letter. Best of both worlds and all.

By fluff, you can retrieve from whatever from the bag that you have placed inside and can imagine, yes?

But wait, it has to be an item. Has to be. Because, by RAW, you're probably going to be placing items in there. Probably.

But what's an item? Does it have to be a discrete object of only one part?

That rules out a suit of armor. Or a bundle of arrows.

If you can't define that "an item" can't be a lump of snow, you are, in fact, using selective judgment to further your point.

Either way, there's no simple answer, but I at least agree that carrying around a bag of snow for Snowcasting is something I'd disallow, not on a RAW-basis, but simply because it violates the spirit of the feat.

Lamech
2009-07-31, 02:26 PM
...
Guys if we really want to be pedantic about RAW I'm making a simulacrum of a deity and calling it a day. Yes it has a negligible cost. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm) (Scroll down to components.) So yes it is in my spell component pouch. Also so is all the snow, no I don't care the ice and snow I need ways more than the spell component pouch.

Guys RAI the cost of "snow" was not meant to be hard. The book was for a freaking arctic campaign. If a wizard wants to cast spider climb and he is in say... an arctic environment do you make him get cages for his spiders find food for them and keep track of the number? Keeping spiders alive should be hard, especially with all the adventuring. If he gets hit by a fireball do they all die? (And if they don't can he hide his familiar the same way?)

This trick works by RAW and you don't need eschew materials either.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 02:31 PM
By fluff, you can retrieve from whatever from the bag that you have placed inside and can imagine, yes?

But wait, it has to be an item. Has to be. Because, by RAW, you're probably going to be placing items in there. Probably.

But what's an item? Does it have to be a discrete object of only one part?

That rules out a suit of armor. Or a bundle of arrows.

If you can't define that "an item" can't be a lump of snow, you are, in fact, using selective judgment to further your point.I allow that "a handful of snow", placed separately into the BoH, is a separate item. Previously HamHam had only stated that he had a BoH full of snow, and the specifics count.

And I'd written a long analysis of the issues surrounding "item" status, including your own "bundle of arrows" (I used a quiver full of arrows) example. But deleted it as unnecessary. There is no RAW to cover it, it's a GM freeby any way they rule.

Read Shrink Item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shrinkitem.htm) for further brain-melting combinations of magic, physics, and what an "item" might or might not be.

Either way, there's no simple answer, but I at least agree that carrying around a bag of snow for Snowcasting is something I'd disallow, not on a RAW-basis, but simply because it violates the spirit of the feat.By RAW it appears completely legal. Also by RAW the Eschew Component + Snowcasting appears completely legal, and also saves you the hassle of using your BoH to hold snow.

Just more examples of how more broken 3.5 becomes when various splat books are added to the already broken Core.

AstralFire
2009-07-31, 02:35 PM
No, You're Wrong - a D&D 3E Forum Original Soundtrack theme, to the tune of A Whole New World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b81HefLuhVE&feature=related)

Singer 1
Singer 2
In Unison

I can show you the RAW
Silly, stripped, and subverted
Tell me sorceress, why would
You not do your best to live?

I can open your eyes,
Show you the wonders of blunders,
Any adventure six feet under
Is where I would like to be!

No, you're wrong!
No one shares your point of view!
The hell is up with you,
You talk bullpoo,
Why isn't your GM screaming?

No, you're wrong!
That rule was never meant like that
Why can't you see
You're not a God-to-be
You're just a jerk and you're wrong
No you're a jerk and just so wrong

You just lost to that duck?!
Indescribable chagrin!
You're a skilled wizard
Where the hell do I begin?!

No, you're wrong!
Don't you dare say a word
A hundred thousand times you're wrong
Shut your trap you munchkin
You took a bard of song,
Armed your splatbook thong,
And bent the rules over your knee...

No, you're wrong!
Every turn I survive
With more XP to use
Every moment pathetic
I'll debate you anywhere
There's time to spare
Let me share just how wrong you are...

No, you're wrong... (No you're wrong...)
Just wait and see... (Just wait and see...)
A terrible game,
More of the same
On page fifty-three...

Toliudar
2009-07-31, 02:43 PM
One thing's for sure - I'm going to make up a Frost Mage who carries Heward's Handy Beer Frig.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-31, 03:01 PM
This trick works by RAW and you don't need eschew materials either.

Agreed. The OP claimed that you could use Snowcasting and Eschew Materials together to get a +1 DC to spells. As BenTheJester pointed out in his post a +1 DC at the cost of 2 feats is nothing worth shoutng about.

I would not allow Snowcasting to work with Eschew Materials because it's against the whole flavor of Snowcasting.

Now keeping snow in a Bag of Holding and using that for Snowcasting is actually cheaper (since it costs relatively little gp and no feat) but I would allow it since it's in keeping with the flavor.

If anything, I would encourage the addition of even more flavor to character using Snowcasting and a Bag of Holding. For ex, when opened the bag might emit cold air and snow flakes, it would freeze anything put inside it, etc. And maybe later, as the owner gains level, it actually starts to do minor cold damage if it's left open...

Curmudgeon
2009-07-31, 04:03 PM
All I know is what I read and the text of the feat says that it adds a material component to a spell, and then the feat eschew materials gets rid of the need for a material spell component.
You're not reading Snowcasting carefully enough. It only says "You add ice or snow to your spell’s components" in the summary statement. The actual text of the feat (Benefit section) includes the detail that this component is optional by using the words if and additional: additional + conditional = optional. The spell itself never has an ice/snow component unless you physically add that. Snowcasting does impose specific requirements to receive the benefit:
Adding this additional material component requires you to spend a move action immediately before the spell is cast to gather fresh snow or ice from the surrounding environment. This snow or ice can be magically created by a conjuration spell, but no other ice manifested by a spell will do. You may take no other action between gathering the snow or ice and casting the spell.
Eschew Materials removes the material components of the spell -- but as Snowcasting is not a metamagic feat, it doesn't change the spell requirements itself. Eschew Materials works only on the components of the spell, and doesn't change the requirements listed in the Benefit section of Snowcasting. The ice/snow component remains optional.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-31, 04:19 PM
You're not reading Snowcasting carefully enough.
Snowcasting
Adding this additional material component requires you to spend a move action immediately before the spell is cast to gather fresh snow or ice from the surrounding environment.Oh, hell. Then the BoH trick won't work in any event. Because snow from the BoH can't possibly be considered fresh snow from the surrounding environment.

Umael
2009-07-31, 06:03 PM
1) Trick works as advertised. Two feats, +1 DC. Not exactly a winner, but not horrible either.

2) Trick doesn't work as advertised. Either you use the additional component or you don't. You don't need to use material components to cast the spell, but if you do use the material components (including the snow), you get the benefits.

*shrug*

Just be consistent in your ruling.


RE: Bag of Holding & Thermodynamics

1) D&D is a fantasy RPG. Magic violates the Laws of Thermodynamics all the time. You don't use it. Hence, we can assume that the bag of holding resembles, to the outside world, a bag. The bag is sealed against the transmittal of air, but no mention is made of whether the that's all that is seals off. You can damage the bag from the inside, as well as reach in and pull something (or someone) out, so there is so kind of interaction between the Space Within and the Space Outside the Bag. With a lack of mention of a difference in heat between the two, then it is reasonable to assume that the difference is neglible. The snow melts.

2) Apply Thermodynamics. Assume that the same amount of energy that hits the bag from outside enters the bag. Pulling some numbers, 10 joules of heat from the campfire hits the side of the bag, a 1 ft by 1 ft area. Inside the bag, that "side" is now 3 ft by 3 ft, but it is only radiating 10 joules of heat. Same heat, larger area/volume = lower temperature in the bag than out. If you have a heat source radiating from within the bag, 10 joules hit the 3 ft by 3 ft area, so the bag feels warmer to the outside world. Either way, colder inside than outside. The snow doesn't melt.

3) Apply Thermodynamics. Assume that there is perfect insulation. The temperature of the bag remains the same unless heat is added. Heat is only added when something is added or taken from the bag. A heat source (like a human) will heat up the bag until the human dies or otherwise stops producing heat. If the bag starts out cold enough, the snow won't melt.

Typewriter
2009-07-31, 06:39 PM
You're not reading Snowcasting carefully enough. It only says "You add ice or snow to your spell’s components" in the summary statement. The actual text of the feat (Benefit section) includes the detail that this component is optional by using the words if and additional: additional + conditional = optional. The spell itself never has an ice/snow component unless you physically add that. Snowcasting does impose specific requirements to receive the benefit:
Eschew Materials removes the material components of the spell -- but as Snowcasting is not a metamagic feat, it doesn't change the spell requirements itself. Eschew Materials works only on the components of the spell, and doesn't change the requirements listed in the Benefit section of Snowcasting. The ice/snow component remains optional.

Sounds to me like you're implying that the 'feat' itself cannot be activated without a handful of snow, which isn't what the feat says. All the feat says is that you've added snow as a material component to the spell, meaning that in order to complete the casting you need snow. Without snow, but with
eschew materials' you'd be all good. To my knowledge nothing in D&D uses the term 'material components' other than spells, therefore making snow a 'material component' and eschew materials eliminates the need for a 'metamagic component' I dont really see how it could be interpreted any other way.


Now, that other part you posted about having to 'spend a move action to gather fresh snow' and all that - yes, I suppose that by RAW you could never perform this action without spending your move action gathering snow. I hadn't really thought about it, but the way that last paragraph is worded you could have a snowstorm throwing snow into your hand and you would still have to spend a move action to gather it.

I don't think it makes any sense because with the wording above it really does seem obvious to me that you don't need snow if you have eschew, but having that last paragraph forces you to gather something you don't need.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-31, 06:54 PM
that last paragraph forces you to gather something you don't need.

Oh that's just too good. My next wizard/sorcerer will have eschew materials but will have to mime (free action) the material components...

Fireball: pinches empty fingers, brings to nose, makes face as if fingers smell bad, points finger, fireball streaks

Tongues: circles with one hand as if building of a tiny tower on the palm of
the other hand, then claps empty hands together and starts to speak

Wind Wall: makes opening gestures and waves hand as if holding tiny imaginary fan creating wall of wind

Signmaker
2009-07-31, 06:57 PM
Wouldn't Snowcasting be the equivalent of making snow an 'optional spell component'?

Cause there's, y'know, rules for stuff like that.

NEO|Phyte
2009-07-31, 07:36 PM
Wouldn't Snowcasting be the equivalent of making snow an 'optional spell component'?

Cause there's, y'know, rules for stuff like that.
This here is exactly what I suggested in one of my earlier posts. If having the snow be an optional component was the intention, saying "you can use snow as an optional component, here's what it does" would have made things so much simpler than how it is currently.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-31, 07:42 PM
All the feat says is that you've added snow as a material component to the spell, meaning that in order to complete the casting you need snow. Nope. It doesn't say that. It says you can add snow/ice as a material component, and if you do so, things happen to the spell. It doesn't stipulate that the feat always applies. (Contrast this with a feat like Toughness, which has no options; Toughness always applies, and you can't choose not to have those hit points.) All your spells still work as usual even with Snowcasting. You can add snow/ice as you cast once you've taken the feat, but merely having the feat doesn't change the components of any of your spells. Only physically adding the freshly-gathered snow/ice changes the spell components. So Eschew Materials will remove all the actual components required to cast the spell. But the snow/ice, not being required because Snowcasting only gives you the option for an additional component, doesn't get included by Eschew Materials.

Typewriter
2009-08-01, 03:38 AM
Nope. It doesn't say that. It says you can add snow/ice as a material component, and if you do so, things happen to the spell. It doesn't stipulate that the feat always applies. (Contrast this with a feat like Toughness, which has no options; Toughness always applies, and you can't choose not to have those hit points.) All your spells still work as usual even with Snowcasting. You can add snow/ice as you cast once you've taken the feat, but merely having the feat doesn't change the components of any of your spells. Only physically adding the freshly-gathered snow/ice changes the spell components. So Eschew Materials will remove all the actual components required to cast the spell. But the snow/ice, not being required because Snowcasting only gives you the option for an additional component, doesn't get included by Eschew Materials.

Well as I had already said that last paragraph kind of negates my argument because no matter what, even if every ally were to use full round actions gathering snow and putting it into your hands - you still have to take a move action to gather.

But for the semantics of the first part I still disagree. A material component is part of a spell not a feat. You dont need a material component to activate usage of the feat.

Player: "I cast fireball and I choose to augment it with 'Snowcasting'."

DM: "Fireball now requires snow and bat guano to cast it."

Player: "I have eschew so I dont need the snow, and I have bat guano."

As near as I can tell your argument is one of two things:
You cant use the feat without snow, which is not stated anywhere. It doesn't say 'in order to augment a spell with this feat you must yada yada yada'. It says you choose to make it a material component, which only exists in spells.
or
DM says so.

Either way it doesn't sound like you're reading the feat, it sounds like you're trying to apply the 'material component' required to use a spell into a 'materal component' required to use a feat.


Just out of curiosity if a player tried to cast fireball augmented by snowcasting didn't have snow or eschew or anything, would you consider the casting to fail or pass? I'd say fail because he doesn't have all the necessary components required to cast the way he had intended. I'm guessing you would say regular fireball goes off without a hitch, but am curious :)

And like I said, the last paragraph proves your point. If the most powerful deity in the universe teleported snow from the coldest mountain in all the planes(probably directly from the plane of ice) into your hand as an immediate action at the start of your turn you would still have to spend a move action gathering snow.

Myrmex
2009-08-01, 04:09 AM
I doesn't prevent melting but it slows it a bit.
To melt it has to touch something warmer than it or absorb heat via radiation(contact is much faster), otherwise it would actually get colder and colder. The text mentions piercing from the inside so the snow probably touches the bag from the inside -> it gets heat from the outside transmitter through the bag. But if nothing is inside the bag beside the snow and you have the biggest bag you have 250 cu. ft. snow, which takes some time in normal conditions. And conduction is proportional to the surface a 6,3feet*6,3feet*6,3feet icq quader would have an surface of 238 feet. But in this case the heat has to be transfered through the bag and if we say the bag has the form of a cube than 2feet and 4 feet means 2*4*6=48.
->Only 1/6 of the normal conduction so roughly the snow will take 6 time as long to melt.
Not really impressive but interesting hmm a few isolation materials would probably help.

Regarding making the snow into seperate items. Maybe you could wrap each ball into something thin, meh I don't know.

The bag opens into a non-dimensional space.

lord_khaine
2009-08-01, 05:22 AM
you do know that there are a very cheap magic item from frostburn, that gives a permanent supply of fresh snow?

Lewin Eagle
2009-08-01, 07:47 AM
The bag opens into a non-dimensional space.
A nondimensional space yes (whatever that is) but things in this space can interact with the bag since it can be pierced from the inside(and they keep their form in it else they couldn't be pointy ). So where do you see the problem with my interpretation, I think it's as valid as all the other possible interpretations. Your single line doesn't tell me anything.

MickJay
2009-08-01, 08:16 AM
Given the very detailed and specific wording of snowcasting, I'd say you can't eschew snow here: it specifically says you need to spend time gathering the snow (if you don't perform the act of gathering the snow, the feat won't work - by eschewing the snow, you deny yourself the possibility of gathering it, making the whole thing fail). Specific (detailed description of the feat) trumps the general, after all.

On a different note, what does exactly "fresh" mean? Freshly fallen? Not starting to melt? How long does a snow stay fresh in a natural environment? If you were on a snow-covered field, and it didn't snow for a month, would the snow there still work? Now: if you have doubts about snow melting in the BoH, why not first encase the snow in a small container that would preserve it fresh? While an ordinary thermos might not be sufficient, a custom-made item preventing, or slowing down, entropy should do the trick.


you do know that there are a very cheap magic item from frostburn, that gives a permanent supply of fresh snow?

Bah, using stuff like that would just be cheesy (and possibly munchkinish). :smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2009-08-01, 09:07 AM
You dont need a material component to activate usage of the feat.

Player: "I cast fireball and I choose to augment it with 'Snowcasting'."

DM: "Fireball now requires snow and bat guano to cast it."
That's wrong. The feat doesn't provide any benefit when you decide you want to add snow/ice before you cast a spell. It provides a benefit if you actually add snow/ice when you cast it. You just need to read:
Benefit: If you add a handful of snow or ice as an additional material component to a spell when you cast it, the spell gains the cold descriptor. There is no mention of any benefit from making a choice before casting, so no benefit accrues.

Xey42
2009-08-01, 10:21 AM
Forgive me for my newb comment and the fact that i didn't feel like reading the past 3 pages.. but it seems like the corner stone of this trick deals with having a handful of snow.

thus the arguement on whether a bag of holding could carry it or not and the need for eschew materials, as i understand

here comes the stupid part..why not just get the snow from the component pouch from which all cheap materials arise, being immune to all laws of physics and reality? from the reading of the feat, itd still take a move action to remove it from the pouch as opposed to the normal free action but itd still be there.

flipping through frostburn i found multiple examples of spells with components of ice and snow (go figure), many of which could be argued could be a handful of snow or ice (1 inch cube of ice could easily be a handful for a small race) and a cursory glance, without any real depth, revealed 'mantle of the icy soul' which has a material component of.. you guessed it.. a handful of snow.

aside from RaW vs RaI and all the stuff with bags of holding.. doesn't that solve the issue of using this trick anywhere, anytime if you have the feat?

AstralFire
2009-08-01, 10:23 AM
...

New boy just owned the thread.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-08-01, 11:12 AM
Forgive me for my newb comment and the fact that i didn't feel like reading the past 3 pages.. but it seems like the corner stone of this trick deals with having a handful of snow.

thus the arguement on whether a bag of holding could carry it or not and the need for eschew materials, as i understand

here comes the stupid part..why not just get the snow from the component pouch from which all cheap materials arise, being immune to all laws of physics and reality? from the reading of the feat, itd still take a move action to remove it from the pouch as opposed to the normal free action but itd still be there.

flipping through frostburn i found multiple examples of spells with components of ice and snow (go figure), many of which could be argued could be a handful of snow or ice (1 inch cube of ice could easily be a handful for a small race) and a cursory glance, without any real depth, revealed 'mantle of the icy soul' which has a material component of.. you guessed it.. a handful of snow.

aside from RaW vs RaI and all the stuff with bags of holding.. doesn't that solve the issue of using this trick anywhere, anytime if you have the feat?

At the risk of disowning, yes and no. It's about all about the flavor of your cold and icy mage.

Snowcasting refers to the "gathering of fresh snow" whatever that means.

And spell components are not meant to be kept track off...unless they are meant to be kept track off.

So the question, if I have not been explicit enough before, is one of flavor.

Assume your Snowcasting caster is casting snow in snow. Does he have Eschew Materials or a Bag of Holding or snow in his pocketses? Irrelevant. Guy is surrounded by snow.

Now assume your Snowcasting caster is casting snow in someplace where there isn't snow. Does it matter now whether he has Eschew Materials or a Bag of Holding or snow in his spell component pouch? Maybe. Does it matter if he is in his frozen land but deep in a dungeon where snow does not fall or whether he is on the surface of a baking desert?

Mechanically, we are talking about whether he can cast certain spells and whether he can get a +1 DC to those. We're not talking about a huge mechanical advantage here.

So we're just talking about what cost (in terms of feats, gp, etc.) cold specialist should pay to be outside of his default environment. And that, despite the fact that it deals with game resources, is really a question of flavor.

Suppose, your Snowcaster visits Miami. He dresses in sunglasses, t-shirt and shorts just like the locals. So are you comfortable with him:

1) Creating a +1 DC cold spell from Frostburn with no components whatsoever just as if he was back home because he has Eschew Materials (cost: 1 feat)

2) He can cast the +1 DC cold spell because he has a normal fanny pack full of snow that never melts despite the heat (cost: nothing)

3) He can cast the +1 DC cold spell because he has a magical fanny pack full of snow that never melts because its magic (cost: 2000 gp)

4) He first has to cast a minor spell like Frost Fingers to make snow and then he can cast the +1 DC cold spell using the freshly made snow (cost: 1 action)

Lamech
2009-08-01, 11:14 AM
...

New boy just owned the thread.
I already pointed that out...

...


Guys RAI the cost of "snow" was not meant to be hard. The book was for a freaking arctic campaign. If a wizard wants to cast spider climb and he is in say... an arctic environment do you make him get cages for his spiders find food for them and keep track of the number? Keeping spiders alive should be hard, especially with all the adventuring. If he gets hit by a fireball do they all die? (And if they don't can he hide his familiar the same way?)

AstralFire
2009-08-01, 11:32 AM
Oooh. I was too busy writing my song when you posted that, so I didn't see it. Sorry.

Typewriter
2009-08-01, 12:39 PM
That's wrong. The feat doesn't provide any benefit when you decide you want to add snow/ice before you cast a spell. It provides a benefit if you actually add snow/ice when you cast it. You just need to read: There is no mention of any benefit from making a choice before casting, so no benefit accrues.

Yeah, but like I've already said a couple times whenever anything refers to 'material components' (as far as I know) they are only ever referring to a component of a spell. It doesn't say 'you must be holding snow', or 'as you cast you hold snow'. It says 'you add it as a 'material component'. And what benefit did I say was gained? As near as I can tell a 'component pouch' holds spell components, and they are only ever referred to as 'material components' when they are requirements for a spell. The feat only ever referes to it as a 'material component', and never anything else. The way you're trying to decipher the feat you're intrepreting things the way you feel you should instead of just by what it says. The feat is very clear on what it's doing - adding a material component. Can you explain to me what a 'material component' is with any sources as anything other that required components for a spell?

Curmudgeon
2009-08-01, 01:05 PM
The feat only ever referes to it as a 'material component', and never anything else.
Nonsense; it makes plenty of references to the required properties of this material component if you want to use it in a spell and thus receive the feat's benefit..
Adding this additional material component requires you to spend a move action immediately before the spell is cast to gather fresh snow or ice from the surrounding environment. This snow or ice can be magically created by a conjuration spell, but no other ice manifested by a spell will do. You may take no other action between gathering the snow or ice and casting the spell. So it's not just a material component, but a material component freshly gathered using a move action or created by a conjuration spell immediately before casting the spell.

Typewriter
2009-08-01, 04:04 PM
I guess you didn't read 2 of my last three posts. I had already said that based upon that last paragraph that the trick didn't work. I actually went into great detail about how it wouldn't work no matter the circumstances because of that last paragraph. Don't really know how you missed either of my two large posts. In fact my exact wording three posts ago(since you missed it the first time) was:

"Now, that other part you posted about having to 'spend a move action to gather fresh snow' and all that - yes, I suppose that by RAW you could never perform this action without spending your move action gathering snow. I hadn't really thought about it, but the way that last paragraph is worded you could have a snowstorm throwing snow into your hand and you would still have to spend a move action to gather it.

I don't think it makes any sense because with the wording above it really does seem obvious to me that you don't need snow if you have eschew, but having that last paragraph forces you to gather something you don't need."


That was several posts ago and I reiterated the point a few times. Based off of the last paragraph the trick doesn't work(as I said), however you continued to argue the semantics of the first part which I said - going by just that first part - eschew would work. I admitted LONG AGO that the last paragraph negated the trick.

I even stated two posts ago:

Well as I had already said that last paragraph kind of negates my argument because no matter what, even if every ally were to use full round actions gathering snow and putting it into your hands - you still have to take a move action to gather.

But for the semantics of the first part I still disagree. A material component is part of a spell not a feat. You dont need a material component to activate usage of the feat.


The point I'm trying to make is that I conceded the argument three posts ago, but you continued arguing the semantics of the first part. Which I pointed out we were doing two posts ago, but was more than fine with, because I thought we were debating the exact interpretaion of the wording(of the first part). The trick does not work, but only because of the fact that the last paragraph dictates the exact way in which you must gather snow(even if it doesn't dictate how it's used).

only1doug
2009-08-01, 04:44 PM
If I were GMing for someone trying this trick I'd have a shopkeeper set up a stall selling handfulls of "fresh snow" for 2gp a time.... (then offer the optomiser a free rebuild).

RAW wise I'd say it doesn't work because the snow has to be freshly gathered for each casting to be a component. I'd suggest that a move action in combat "costs" more than 1gp (especially by the time you can afford 2 feats for the combo).

Clearly Bag of Holding cheese can be ignored on the same basis, how can snow gathered that morning count as "freshly gathered from the enviroment"?

If a player wanted a spellcasting DC increase by feat I'd be happy to houserule one in, Most players I know are smarter than that... (anything a player can have so can a BBEG).

Myrmex
2009-08-03, 02:38 AM
A nondimensional space yes (whatever that is) but things in this space can interact with the bag since it can be pierced from the inside(and they keep their form in it else they couldn't be pointy ). So where do you see the problem with my interpretation, I think it's as valid as all the other possible interpretations. Your single line doesn't tell me anything.

Calculating the dimensions of something that lacks dimensions strikes me as a misleading endeavor.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-08-03, 03:52 AM
Going back to the OP:

He's blowing THREE feats to be able to give a scaled (+4 max) bonus to DC. In the process, he's making it Cold based, which means anything with immunity to cold completely ignores it. So don't bother trying this on, say, a White dragon...

If he wants to blow almost half his total number of feats to give himself a +4 to the DC's on his resists... fine. Much rather that than some of the other tricks available. Heck, you get better returns off of CORE feats...

Lewin Eagle
2009-08-03, 07:33 AM
Calculating the dimensions of something that lacks dimensions strikes me as a misleading endeavor.
Actually I calculated the dimension of the outside of the bag and the dimension of the 3 dimensional things in the bag. I assume that the things you put in stay three dimensional, since a 0 dimensional human who still breaths is weird. (On the other hand it doesn't make much sense for something 3 dimensional to exist in a 0 dimensional space. But in my opinion : actual properties of the bag > buzzwords like 0 dimensional)
Though it's questionable if they touch the bag from the inside. It seems to have something like inside walls since it can be destroyed from the inside. Ah whatever I will stop here since it doesn't really matter.

Curmudgeon
2009-08-03, 07:46 AM
But in this case the heat has to be transfered through the bag and if we say the bag has the form of a cube than 2feet and 4 feet means 2*4*6=48.
->Only 1/6 of the normal conduction so roughly the snow will take 6 time as long to melt.
Well, this isn't really relevant because if snow is melting in the bag it cannot possibly be considered "freshly gathered", but there are some basic problems with your math:
It's not a cube if the sides are of unequal dimensions.
The Bag of Holding is described as
This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. If it's only given 2 dimensions you should assume it has no appreciable thickness, like an empty pillowcase. Thus there are merely 2 sides, for a total contact area of 2'x4'x2 = 16 square feet.