PDA

View Full Version : Rope trick



Pages : [1] 2

molten_dragon
2010-06-10, 05:20 AM
I hear people talking a lot about the 'rope trick' trick. I've looked at the spell, and I'm not getting what it is. I can see that it's a safe place to rest and re-prep spells, but is there something more to it than that?

PId6
2010-06-10, 05:22 AM
I hear people talking a lot about the 'rope trick' trick. I've looked at the spell, and I'm not getting what it is. I can see that it's a safe place to rest and re-prep spells, but is there something more to it than that?
It's a pretty much guaranteed safe way to rest and reprepare spells. Contributes highly to the 15-minute adventuring day. Does it need to be more than that?

Hendel
2010-06-10, 05:35 AM
You get all of this for a 2nd level spell.

A place to hide from bad guys.
A place of refuge so you can fill a blank spell slot as PId6 said.
A place to rest and recover spells (if you have a high enough CL to make it last).
A place to rest and heal up, etc

All in all a nice spell that is seldom used, probably because the name makes it over looked by new casters.

Amphetryon
2010-06-10, 05:47 AM
Its utility in the 15 minute work day is somewhat controversial. I may be in the minority among folks who call themselves optimizers, but I don't especially like Rope Trick as a 'safe haven' spell in a dungeoncrawl.

In my opinion, if there's an overlord-type BigBad at the end of your dungeoncrawl who is coordinating minions in any fashion, he should quickly become aware of folks intruding into and then vanishing from his lair. He is likely to send out recon forces to get more information about them, who have reasonably good chances of both remaining unobserved unless the party is hyper-vigilant and of seeing either their disappearance into the Rope Trick, or the residual magic of the spell. In either case, it's my experience as player and DM that resting in a Rope Trick means you'll have to fight the second you come out, often fiercely enough to necessitate resting immediately after. Lather, rinse, repeat. While farming in this fashion might, technically, level you up eventually, it does nothing to progress any storyline and gets deadly dull, if not outright deadly, pretty quickly.

The Random NPC
2010-06-10, 07:05 AM
So what is to prevent this fierce battle from happening during your rest?

Amphetryon
2010-06-10, 07:16 AM
So what is to prevent this fierce battle from happening during your rest?

The fact that you're in a pocket dimension that's generally hard to assail directly during your rest is often sufficient to prevent battles. Once you come out - and unless you want to play 'adventurer tea party', you'll come out eventually - all bets are off.

The Random NPC
2010-06-10, 07:31 AM
I ment if you didn't use Rope Trick. It seems to me that those types of BBEGs make the spell a more and more attractive choice.

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 07:38 AM
I ment if you didn't use Rope Trick. It seems to me that those types of BBEGs make the spell a more and more attractive choice.

Exactly. If you're in the type of dungeon where the BBEG would send out patrols to catch sleepers off guard anyway, your choices are to try the Rope Trick or not sleep at all.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-10, 07:39 AM
Rope Trick is defeatable with Dispel Magic.

Ranos
2010-06-10, 08:11 AM
Rope Trick is defeatable with Dispel Magic.
Nope. Rope trick is cast on a piece of rope. When the trick's closed, that rope is on another plane. You can't dispel it without a transdimensional spell.

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 08:37 AM
Rope Trick is defeatable with Dispel Magic.

They have to see it to dispel it though, or zap every square trying. (And of course, defeat the wizard's CL.)

Babau demons are a useful minion for this though - they can dispel at-will, and therefore comb the dungeon looking for the PCs spraying dispels everywhere.

If you have a Psion handy, they can use the psionic version (Psychoportive Shelter) and Overchannel the gently caress out of it to make it hard to dispel.

EDIT: The above only applies if the rope is hanging outside as well, as Ranos said..

gbprime
2010-06-10, 08:51 AM
The PC's in my last campaign made great use of this spell for resting up between encounters. Until one day later in their careers when they encountered a BBEG with Transdimensional Spell. They woke up to fireballs going off inside their extradimensional space.

Calmar
2010-06-10, 09:01 AM
It's about time the villains start spending their time in rope tricks, too...

Claudius Maximus
2010-06-10, 12:52 PM
Why do they need Transdimensional Spell to dispel Rope Trick? Can't they target the interdimensional interface?

Pink
2010-06-10, 12:58 PM
I was running a campaign once. Party had to sneak into a secret library run by a blackguard and his cabal to find a book. Dead of night, they happen to make their way in unnoticed. Unfortunately, they fail their Intellegence and search checks to find the info they're looking for. They figure that they might not be able to clean up all evidence of their entry, so that the guard might be double or it might become harder to get back in there again. So they rope trick. They spot the blackguard coming in the next day examining for missing books and trying to detect good, and they just snigger and hide. They just kept rope-tricking and stayed in the library till they found the book.

Wolf Warhead
2010-06-10, 01:01 PM
You know what was one of the things that stopped me from using it?


It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.

If I understand correctly, climbing into a Rope Trick with a Bag of Holding or similar item will end badly. Most likely involving rifts to the Astral Plane.

gbprime
2010-06-10, 01:02 PM
Why do they need Transdimensional Spell to dispel Rope Trick? Can't they target the interdimensional interface?

They sure could. But with Transdimensional Spell, they can use area effect spells to blast the people hiding inside the extradimensional space. Dispel it, and everyone drops to the ground and starts fighting. Blast them where they rest, and they have to climb out one by one before they get to fight. :smallamused:

Tyger
2010-06-10, 01:03 PM
You know what was one of the things that stopped me from using it?



If I understand correctly, climbing into a Rope Trick with a Bag of Holding or similar item will end badly. Most likely involving rifts to the Astral Plane.

Except there are no rules for that. Its pure fluff, and has been suggested by the Sage (take it for what its worth) to simply ignore it.

Granted, your DM could be an arsehat about that but why would they bother?

gbprime
2010-06-10, 01:04 PM
If I understand correctly, climbing into a Rope Trick with a Bag of Holding or similar item will end badly. Most likely involving rifts to the Astral Plane.

OPENING a Bag of Holding or a Handy Haversack while inside a Rope Trick is bad, yes. Just having the item on your person, not so much. That almost happened to the PC's a few times, but thankfully someone awake made their wisdom check. :smallwink:

Of course, if they goofed that up, I'd just have the Rope Trick pop, and dump everyone on the floor below. Plus have all the contents of the bag of holding on the floor too. And cue the wandering monster encounter. :smallamused:

Starbuck_II
2010-06-10, 01:06 PM
Why do they need Transdimensional Spell to dispel Rope Trick? Can't they target the interdimensional interface?

Because Rope Trick says this: Spells cannot be cast across the extradimensional interface, nor can area effects cross it

Thus, Dispel magic area or targeted can't affect you in one.

dextercorvia
2010-06-10, 01:06 PM
It is a holdover from 2e, where there were rules for ed space vs ed space. There was a way to cast a rope trick, having the rope travel upward into a bag of holding, and Cabloohey. Not the 20d6 kind, the nothing exists kind.

gallagher
2010-06-10, 01:08 PM
i have played with a rogue who loved rope trick to the point where it was the ultimate infiltration tool.

think of legend of zelda OOT. that part where you go through the castle to meet zelda for the first time? yeah, imagine if that every time you thought a guard would catch you, or if y ou were being chased (which i know doesnt happen in the game) you rope trick away. standard action to cast IIRC, move action to climb up, free action to pull the rope up. there is also a window in there to watch for other people. if the rope trick is about to go out and people are still standing around that area, you have a scroll of teleport or something.

anyway, the best trick to destroy your most hated DMs BBEG that he has been working on for months is with rope trick.
step 1:beginning of the morning, cast a contingency rope trick for the round after you cast plane shift.
step 2:now cast rope trick and go inside right outside the BBEG's lair.
step 3:plane shift to your favorite summer planar vacation spot. rope trick inside a rope trick creates a black hole.
step 4: order a martini at your favorite planar vacation spot
step 5: chuckle to yourself
step 6: dodge DMs books, a projectile weapon that on average is a +5 keen wounding flaming vampiric book that deals before magical modifiers 2d6+STR bludgeoning with a 18-20 crit range.

Hendel
2010-06-10, 01:10 PM
You know what was one of the things that stopped me from using it?



If I understand correctly, climbing into a Rope Trick with a Bag of Holding or similar item will end badly. Most likely involving rifts to the Astral Plane.

You are correct! This makes it tricky at higher levels, "Hey, nobody has a bag of holding on them or a portable hole do they??"

This also was the reason some players stopped doing their #1 choice for looting bodies. This was opening up their portable hole and drop the dead bodies in it. They would then loot armor and gear later at their leisure. It worked until one day one of the bad guys had a bag of holding and well...

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 01:13 PM
Why do they need Transdimensional Spell to dispel Rope Trick? Can't they target the interdimensional interface?

The spell is maintained on the rope itself. If you pull the rope up, it goes into the other dimension with the PCs and therefore cannot be affected by a dispel on the local side.

Wolf Warhead
2010-06-10, 01:17 PM
Except there are no rules for that. Its pure fluff, and has been suggested by the Sage (take it for what its worth) to simply ignore it.

Granted, your DM could be an arsehat about that but why would they bother?


If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in the space: Bag and hole alike are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane: The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process.

I'd guessed the same would apply here. And I, myself, might consider using it to stop players from creating a nigh-impossible-to-beat-or-detect safe spot for the night as a level 2 spell. (Yes, I've read the suggestions in this topic, but there's not always an opportunity to use them.) You sleep in a dangerous area, you best be well prepared for it. I wouldn't toss them into the Astral realm, of course, but one of the two spaces is going to give in.

Stompy
2010-06-10, 01:19 PM
Its utility in the 15 minute work day is somewhat controversial. I may be in the minority among folks who call themselves optimizers, but I don't especially like Rope Trick as a 'safe haven' spell in a dungeoncrawl.

Just have minions wait until the duration expires. Make sure you have tanglefoot bags ready, and the silence spell up. Heck, set up a trap underneath the rope trick.

Of course this assumes you know where the rope trick is. :smallconfused:

Claudius Maximus
2010-06-10, 01:22 PM
So I guess the magical interdimensional portal that the spell creates as a continuous magical spell effect can't be dispelled? Sounds about right for WotC.

Amphetryon
2010-06-10, 01:29 PM
So I guess the magical interdimensional portal that the spell creates as a continuous magical spell effect can't be dispelled? Sounds about right for WotC.

Or, as an alternative, they wrote the crunch for Rope Trick before they wrote the crunch for Transdimensional Spell and never retconned how the two interact to make the Feat consistently able to affect things through dimensional boundaries...

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 01:35 PM
I'd guessed the same would apply here. And I, myself, might consider using it to stop players from creating a nigh-impossible-to-beat-or-detect safe spot for the night as a level 2 spell. (Yes, I've read the suggestions in this topic, but there's not always an opportunity to use them.) You sleep in a dangerous area, you best be well prepared for it. I wouldn't toss them into the Astral realm, of course, but one of the two spaces is going to give in.

I just wanted to point out that WotC doesnt want you to do that. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a)

"I recommend that you ignore this reference. Your campaign won't be improved if rope trick effects implode when someone carries a bag of holding or portable hole inside. A Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion should likewise prove benign if someone carries a bag of holding or portable hole inside."

gbprime
2010-06-10, 01:49 PM
I just wanted to point out that WotC doesnt want you to do that. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a)

"I recommend that you ignore this reference. Your campaign won't be improved if rope trick effects implode when someone carries a bag of holding or portable hole inside. A Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion should likewise prove benign if someone carries a bag of holding or portable hole inside."

And that's the difference between the 2nd level Rope Trick and the 7th level Magnificent Mansion. Open a bag of holding inside and the Rope Trick pops, while the Mansion just adapts accordingly. My 2 coppers, anyway.

Wolf Warhead
2010-06-10, 01:59 PM
I just wanted to point out that WotC doesnt want you to do that. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a)

"I recommend that you ignore this reference. Your campaign won't be improved if rope trick effects implode when someone carries a bag of holding or portable hole inside. A Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion should likewise prove benign if someone carries a bag of holding or portable hole inside."

Okay, here's the alternatives I can see:

A. The party can always be safe anywhere they want. There is no more threat left, save for a few very specific areas with a powerful spellcaster who would logically have Trans-dimensional Spell. Say goodbye to any tension or even challenge of extended dungeons. (I, myself, don't design every encounter to almost kill the party; it should be possible to run a dungeon in one go if resting inside is dangerous.)

B. Have monsters patrol suspicious areas where others died, causing fights as soon as the PCs exit and most likely leading to option C if the dungeon is run by an intelligent entity.

C. Bad guys send out scouts or use Divination to find the party using Rope Trick. In the morning, on exiting, they are greeted by traps, Dimensional Anchors and about ten times more monsters they can handle. Everyone dies. At best, pray they survive so they'll never do it again.

The extra-dimensional space stuff seemed like a balancing factor to me; it means you can use this to stay safe, but will likely have to cut down on the loot you assemble. Great for, for example, infiltration (like has been mentioned here) and lower level dungeoneering, but not so much for higher levels.

Plus, I think it'd make sense that you need to be careful with something like EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL SPACES. You know, object that essentially BEND THE RULES OF TIME AND SPACE. I think it's already messed up you can buy one for 2,000 gold.

(Note: I've lost the ability to figure out if I sound overly cranky or rude when I post after a month of illness and messed up sleep patterns. If I sound like I'm attacking you, I didn't mean to.)

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 01:59 PM
And that's the difference between the 2nd level Rope Trick and the 7th level Magnificent Mansion. Open a bag of holding inside and the Rope Trick pops, while the Mansion just adapts accordingly. My 2 coppers, anyway.

That's fine if your players agree to it, but it's a houserule. RAW, nothing happens with a Bag of Holding in either a Rope Trick or a MMM.


A. The party can always be safe anywhere they want.

This is clearly a straw man.
And no, I understand that you're upset with the rules and not with me personally. But I also see it from Skip's perspective - very few campaigns are improved by adding that kind of bookkeeping.

gallagher
2010-06-10, 02:07 PM
I just wanted to point out that WotC doesnt want you to do that. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a)

"I recommend that you ignore this reference. Your campaign won't be improved if rope trick effects implode when someone carries a bag of holding or portable hole inside. A Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion should likewise prove benign if someone carries a bag of holding or portable hole inside."i just rule that portable holes and bags of holding and the suchlike become inert inside of a rope trick or MMM. that is, the potable hole cant be openned, and the bag of holding is a regular bag of that size, holding nothing of what it had in it prior until you leave that space

Wolf Warhead
2010-06-10, 02:10 PM
This is clearly a straw man.

You'll have to excuse me (English is not my native language), but I'm not familiar with the term. Well, I know it has something to do with arguments, but I don't know the exacts...

Tyger
2010-06-10, 02:21 PM
You'll have to excuse me (English is not my native language), but I'm not familiar with the term. Well, I know it has something to do with arguments, but I don't know the exacts...

Google is your friend. :) Straw Man Arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

Yes though, just because your party can hide in a RT or MMM does not diminish the challenges or threat. Intelligent monsters (a lot challenges over CR 4ish) can know something is up and prepare accordingly. They don't need to be casters, they just need a dog with Scent. :smallwink:

There are a plethora of ways to have high tension in a game that don't hold the threat of night ambush over the party.

At the end of the day, allowing the party to rest relatively safely is a minor issue - so long as its not abused. If the players in my campaigns start with the 15 minute adventuring day, followed up with a brief sojourn into the RT, I start enforcing all the rules that go along with it (how much food do you have with you? Water? Too bad there's no druid here hmmm?) and carefully defining "day". Its a gentleperson's agreement not to play like that in our group.

Not to mention, by level 10ish, if you are playing WBL and in any sort of game that I have ever been in, Bags of Holding and Portable Holes are a small percentage of the actual extradimensional spaces. Efficient Quivers, Belts of Hidden Pouches, the ever popular Handy Haversack, Cloak of Weaponry, Gloves of Storing, etc etc etc... In my group we long ago decided that the extra worrying and bookkeeping was a P.I.T.A. and not adding anything to the game - so we went back to the actual rules. Your group may feel differently, but you are houseruling in added complications, which seems counter-intuitive to me.

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 02:39 PM
i just rule that portable holes and bags of holding and the suchlike become inert inside of a rope trick or MMM. that is, the potable hole cant be openned, and the bag of holding is a regular bag of that size, holding nothing of what it had in it prior until you leave that space

That's usually what I go with, if I go with anything at all.

And Tyger is right - extradimensional spaces are so built into the game that enforcing something like this will cause more headaches than it relieves. If you don't want your PCs in a Rope Trick, just ban it, no need to be passive-aggressive.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-06-10, 02:42 PM
RAW, nothing happens with a Bag of Holding in either a Rope Trick or a MMM.

RAW, something may happen with a Bag of Holding in either a Rope Trick or a MMM. Combining extradimensional spaces has a non-zero chance of going wrong in an unspecified manner. I don't see what Skip's internet commentary has to do with the rules as written.

Wolf Warhead
2010-06-10, 02:44 PM
Google is your friend. :) Straw Man Arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

Okay, I understand it now to an extent. Exaggerating a point to make the counterpoint harder to defend. Worst-case-scenarioing is just in my blood, I guess.

Initiating argument protocol 72: Countering own arguments.


Yes though, just because your party can hide in a RT or MMM does not diminish the challenges or threat. Intelligent monsters (a lot challenges over CR 4ish) can know something is up and prepare accordingly. They don't need to be casters, they just need a dog with Scent. :smallwink:

The challenge of a whole dungeon can go down a fair bit if the players can freely rest between every encounter rather than having them take them on one after another. But, I suppose, that's mostly relevant when, like me, you design a dungeon to be doable in one go.

Counterpoint: If players get unlucky or one battle is unbalanced, it's good for them to have a safe spot to rest in case of emergencies. They just need to be dissuaded from using it at every opportunity.


There are a plethora of ways to have high tension in a game that don't hold the threat of night ambush over the party.

At the end of the day, allowing the party to rest relatively safely is a minor issue - so long as its not abused. If the players in my campaigns start with the 15 minute adventuring day, followed up with a brief sojourn into the RT, I start enforcing all the rules that go along with it (how much food do you have with you? Water? Too bad there's no druid here hmmm?) and carefully defining "day". Its a gentleperson's agreement not to play like that in our group.

Oh, I'm quite decent at creating tension through atmosphere. It's just that going into a warped, twisted temple's chapel is slightly more unnerving when your party is half-dead :smallwink:

Counterpoint: If your party always has a chance to rest before encountering a BBEG or major creature, it means you can pull out all the stops and unleash Hell. Do that a few times and they'll always be anxious when entering an obviously important room.

I like your suggestion of tracking supplies when the spell is overused, though.


Not to mention, by level 10ish, if you are playing WBL and in any sort of game that I have ever been in, Bags of Holding and Portable Holes are a small percentage of the actual extradimensional spaces. Efficient Quivers, Belts of Hidden Pouches, the ever popular Handy Haversack, Cloak of Weaponry, Gloves of Storing, etc etc etc... In my group we long ago decided that the extra worrying and bookkeeping was a P.I.T.A. and not adding anything to the game - so we went back to the actual rules. Your group may feel differently, but you are houseruling in added complications, which seems counter-intuitive to me.

That was partially my points: You can use Rope Trick, but it means ditching all those convenient extra-dimensional spaces. Safety or carrying capabilities.

Counterpoint: I'm suggesting tracking encumbrance, then. Urk.

Conclusion:
...
Hell, I don't know any more.

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 02:47 PM
RAW, something may happen with a Bag of Holding in either a Rope Trick or a MMM. Combining extradimensional spaces has a non-zero chance of going wrong in an unspecified manner. I don't see what Skip's internet commentary has to do with the rules as written.

RAW is from one statement.

"Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one. "

Well, crossing a street without looking is "hazardous" too. That doesn't mean something will happen.

And 0.0000000001% is still "non-zero."

Foryn Gilnith
2010-06-10, 02:49 PM
And 0.0000000001% is still "non-zero."

Indeed it is; but RAW does not speak on the degree of hazardousness entailed by rope trick + bag of holding. RAW says very little about the matter, and I really don't think it should be brought into this discussion when "Extradimensional space shenanigans cause more trouble than they're worth" is a serviceable argument.

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 02:53 PM
Indeed it is; but RAW does not speak on the degree of hazardousness entailed by rope trick + bag of holding. RAW says very little about the matter, and I really don't think it should be brought into this discussion when "Extradimensional space shenanigans cause more trouble than they're worth" is a serviceable argument.

RAW is always the starting point. You have to know the RAW before you can tell someone "whatever interaction you come up with between bags and rope tricks is a houserule."

And RAW, nothing happens, because there are no rules on what happens.

The SMG article was to show RAI - I never said that was RAW.

Gnaeus
2010-06-10, 03:06 PM
Okay, here's the alternatives I can see:

A. The party can always be safe anywhere they want.

B. Have monsters patrol suspicious areas where others died

C. Bad guys send out scouts or use Divination to find the party using Rope Trick.

D. Have time advance meaningfully outside the context of the dungeon, or elsewhere in the dungeon but not near the rope trick. Enemies advance their nefarious plots while the party is advancing by 15 minutes per day. Rivals enter the dungeon and grab the best loot while party sleeps in hole. Monsters flee, taking their stuff with them. The party's boss, upon completion of the mission, asks why it took so darn long and pays half what he promised.

You can give realistic consequences to rope trick that AREN'T "Rocks fall, everyone dies".

Wolf Warhead
2010-06-10, 03:11 PM
D. Have time advance meaningfully outside the context of the dungeon, or elsewhere in the dungeon but not near the rope trick. Enemies advance their nefarious plots while the party is advancing by 15 minutes per day. Rivals enter the dungeon and grab the best loot while party sleeps in hole. Monsters flee, taking their stuff with them. The party's boss, upon completion of the mission, asks why it took so darn long and pays half what he promised.

You can give realistic consequences to rope trick that AREN'T "Rocks fall, everyone dies".

All excellent points and suggestions, thank you.

I particularly like the idea of rivals.
"They went in five days ago and didn't come out. They're probably dead. You do it instead."

And in non-ruled dungeons, monsters fleeing - or fortifying their position - after finding more dead companions day after day does make sense.

Vizzerdrix
2010-06-10, 03:24 PM
Have a minion use the pigments to paint a pool of lava under the rope trick :smallsmile:

dextercorvia
2010-06-10, 03:29 PM
Banksy works for your BBEG?

Hague
2010-06-10, 03:37 PM
From what I understand of how extra-dimensional spaces work is that the whatever is in the space is considered to occupy the same space that the entrance to the space is. Therefore, if there is a 40'x40' area of items in a bag of holding or portable hole, and a transdimensional spell with an area of only 5' burst hits that bag of holding, it will expand the spell effect to affect everything in the bag since everything fundamentally occupies the same space as the entrance. It's like someone took the space that normally is inside the bag of holding and blew it up like a photograph, creating a pocket of unreal space.

Am I incorrect in this regard?

jmbrown
2010-06-10, 03:40 PM
All excellent points and suggestions, thank you.

I particularly like the idea of rivals.
"They went in five days ago and didn't come out. They're probably dead. You do it instead."

And in non-ruled dungeons, monsters fleeing - or fortifying their position - after finding more dead companions day after day does make sense.

Another way to defeat rope trick is through its window. Yes, it's invisible and you can't see through it but it still allows air inside. The villains can track the PCs via scent or more mundane methods ("hmmm, five sets of tracks end here...") and literally smoke the PCs out by setting a fire beneath them.

If PCs honestly sleep in the middle of a dungeon then you should seriously consider having the monsters move out. Gygax was a big proponent of moving monsters and mentioned many times in his writing that enemies will escape from a dungeon carrying as much treasure as their pockets can carry. From a player perspective it's unfair but so is blowing your load and expecting to rest 24 hours inside a dungeon.

Fouredged Sword
2010-06-10, 04:14 PM
I always have a list in my head.

What happens 1 round after the players make contact with monserts, do they set off alarms? activate traps further in?

What happens 1 min after the players make contact? how oftine do sentries check in? 1 min may set off alarms for sentries disapearing in key psoitions.

What happens 10 min. No sentry loss will go unnoticed this long. Maybe in unorganised groups, but not any smart villan.

How does the foe act when they can't repel a group after 1 hour? And a smart villian will activly try to repell the group, not just wait in a room for them.

what happens 8 hours +, after the party has been "gone". All camps and most fortresses can be cleared out fairly quickly if there is need, and if the group is trying to stay hidden they may just move the first suspision that they have been found out. If they are agressive they may go for the characters while they rest if at all posible. When my players rest they normaly leave the dungon entierly and watch the enterance from afar. After all, if those kobolds do move, you can get them out from all those traps, and if they don't move, then you know to look for more traps when you go in fresh. In any game the players need to be able to rest. Rope trick just makes it safer, but also pins you in one spot. That can be dangerous if the oponent finds that spot. Detect magic is a level 1 spell I belive, and as said before there are lots of people and animals with the track feat and scent.

Amphetryon
2010-06-10, 04:17 PM
D. Have time advance meaningfully outside the context of the dungeon, or elsewhere in the dungeon but not near the rope trick. Enemies advance their nefarious plots while the party is advancing by 15 minutes per day. Rivals enter the dungeon and grab the best loot while party sleeps in hole. Monsters flee, taking their stuff with them. The party's boss, upon completion of the mission, asks why it took so darn long and pays half what he promised.

You can give realistic consequences to rope trick that AREN'T "Rocks fall, everyone dies".

I have been specifically told on gleemax, long ago, in response to a similar suggestion I made on handling Rope Trick, that this was the 'jerk DM' reaction and would earn me at least player walking out. YMMV.

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 04:34 PM
I have been specifically told on gleemax, long ago, in response to a similar suggestion I made on handling Rope Trick, that this was the 'jerk DM' reaction and would earn me at least player walking out. YMMV.

How is having a realistic world being a "jerk DM?" :smallconfused:

Players that expect the world to stand still while they catch Z's everytime they run out of spells just aren't being realistic.

gbprime
2010-06-10, 04:38 PM
How is having a realistic world being a "jerk DM?" :smallconfused:

Players that expect the world to stand still while they catch Z's everytime they run out of spells just aren't being realistic.

Indeed. That's one of the best ways to run an immersive campaign. You make lots of plots, lots of things for the PCs to poke their noses into, and let them choose most of the time. Every BBEG and organization has a timeline, which only the actions of the PC's can slow or derail. Leave it alone for a while, and the BBEG gets stuff done.

Nothing stands still, and often haste is good drama.

Starbuck_II
2010-06-10, 04:42 PM
C. Bad guys send out scouts or use Divination to find the party using Rope Trick. In the morning, on exiting, they are greeted by traps, Dimensional Anchors and about ten times more monsters they can handle. Everyone dies. At best, pray they survive so they'll never do it again.

Guess, you forgot Rope trick is a one way mirror as well. PCs can see out, but the monsters can't see in.

Thus, the Party gets a surprise round. At best, ten times monsters is a challenge. At best, they are a blip on the encounter rate.
Remember, if the party is absolutely sure enemies on way down: Buffing + 15 minute rest day = good idea.
Time to go nova!

Amphetryon
2010-06-10, 04:43 PM
How is having a realistic world being a "jerk DM?" :smallconfused:

Players that expect the world to stand still while they catch Z's everytime they run out of spells just aren't being realistic.
If memory serves (as indicated, it was a long while ago) I was told that such behavior was 'railroading' and 'discouraging PC creativity with their resources.'

I am not saying that I agree with this point. I am saying it was raised against me when I used the same argument, and seconded by others. Therefore, I would advise caution before employing this particular tactic, as a DM without players is not especially productive.

Wolf Warhead
2010-06-10, 04:48 PM
I always have a list in my head.

What happens 1 round after the players make contact with monserts, do they set off alarms? activate traps further in?

What happens 1 min after the players make contact? how oftine do sentries check in? 1 min may set off alarms for sentries disapearing in key psoitions.

What happens 10 min. No sentry loss will go unnoticed this long. Maybe in unorganised groups, but not any smart villan.

How does the foe act when they can't repel a group after 1 hour? And a smart villian will activly try to repell the group, not just wait in a room for them.

what happens 8 hours +, after the party has been "gone". All camps and most fortresses can be cleared out fairly quickly if there is need, and if the group is trying to stay hidden they may just move the first suspision that they have been found out. If they are agressive they may go for the characters while they rest if at all posible. When my players rest they normaly leave the dungon entierly and watch the enterance from afar. After all, if those kobolds do move, you can get them out from all those traps, and if they don't move, then you know to look for more traps when you go in fresh. In any game the players need to be able to rest. Rope trick just makes it safer, but also pins you in one spot. That can be dangerous if the oponent finds that spot. Detect magic is a level 1 spell I belive, and as said before there are lots of people and animals with the track feat and scent.

It's funny how logical this is, yet hadn't entered my head yet for any dungeon design. It's creating a whole new way of structuring dungeons in my head. Logistics and planning, safety measures, guard shifts, reports, patrols...

It's a lot more work, but it'd create a challenging and realistic dungeon.

Tyger
2010-06-10, 10:15 PM
If memory serves (as indicated, it was a long while ago) I was told that such behavior was 'railroading' and 'discouraging PC creativity with their resources.'

I am not saying that I agree with this point. I am saying it was raised against me when I used the same argument, and seconded by others. Therefore, I would advise caution before employing this particular tactic, as a DM without players is not especially productive.

Wow, I would hate to play under any DM that didn't play to the adversary's strengths! Who on earth gave you such unusual advice?

Any group with an average INT score of 10 or more should be mounting patrols and have ways to locate intruders. Any group with a caster(s) should be capable of guessing that maybe you have hidden via magic, and use either magic, or if possible, mundane means to locate the party, or at least narrow down the search. If the party does try the 15 minute day - well their opponents have 23 3/4 hours to prepare a lovely melange of surprises, to reinforce barricades, to call in reinforcements, to set out traps, to leave...

And that isn't counting very powerful and intelligent enemies, who have likely formulated counter-plans to this very eventuality, whose minions are combing every available inch of the area with Scent, See Invisible, True Sight, Lanterns of Revealing, etc. Nothing says "Hi there!" like the PCs climbing out of the RT to find a well defended, well armed, and well informed force waiting for them.

If a DM was running a game with bad video game AI monsters, quite frankly, I would rather not play. So, were I you, I would ignore such advice. Unless that's the kind of game you prefer, in which case, all the power to you. And that's the beauty of it really.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-10, 10:25 PM
If memory serves (as indicated, it was a long while ago) I was told that such behavior was 'railroading' and 'discouraging PC creativity with their resources.'

I am not saying that I agree with this point. I am saying it was raised against me when I used the same argument, and seconded by others. Therefore, I would advise caution before employing this particular tactic, as a DM without players is not especially productive.

Those people had....low Int scores IRL. If your players understand beforehand that your world isn't Video Game Stasis, and they complain when this happens, they also have low Int scores IRL.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-06-10, 11:41 PM
D. Have time advance meaningfully outside the context of the dungeon, or elsewhere in the dungeon but not near the rope trick. Enemies advance their nefarious plots while the party is advancing by 15 minutes per day. Rivals enter the dungeon and grab the best loot while party sleeps in hole. Monsters flee, taking their stuff with them. The party's boss, upon completion of the mission, asks why it took so darn long and pays half what he promised.

You can give realistic consequences to rope trick that AREN'T "Rocks fall, everyone dies".
It's funny; we DMs are always saying "I wish my players were more creative, they just want to charge in to hack 'n' slash." But then when our players find creative uses for their resources we complain "That spell is broken! That's not how the game should be played!" /inflammatory generalization

Okay, in all seriousness I can see how the realistic approach might be seen as railroading or '**** DMing.' Think about it: a player spends resources (spells known and spell slots) to learn and use a spell to its logical conclusion (blowing their daily load and then snoozing safely for 8 hours). And then when their snooze is over, I spring an army of monsters on them with some vague 'realism' excuse, as if half of the game isn't crazy illogical. That does come off as pretty passive aggressive.

Personally, I say just ban the dam spell. Sure, you can build in time limits, you can use mobile home dungeons, you can do all kinds of things to prevent your players from abusing Rope Trick. Or you can just say "It's a broken hassle; no."

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-11, 12:12 AM
Personally, I say just ban the dam spell. Sure, you can build in time limits, you can use mobile home dungeons, you can do all kinds of things to prevent your players from abusing Rope Trick. Or you can just say "It's a broken hassle; no."Employing a gentleman's agreement, or reducing the duration to 10 minutes per level, gives Rope Trick a niche without removing it completely, but I agree with your general sentiment.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-11, 12:35 AM
Don't wizards have a hard time preparing spells in a "hazardous" situation?

I've had villains escape the PCs by using rope trick. They didn't even figure it out until the fourth time the same sorcerer escaped them. The first time they even used detect magic and spotted the area the window was in but couldn't figure out the significance of the aura. For the longest time they thought they were chasing someone with teleport.

Scrolls of Transdimensional Greater Dispel Magic are a very popular item for trackers and bounty hunters in the game nowadays.

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 12:39 AM
Personally, I say just ban the dam spell. Sure, you can build in time limits, you can use mobile home dungeons, you can do all kinds of things to prevent your players from abusing Rope Trick. Or you can just say "It's a broken hassle; no."

Except for the whole "broken" part, you'd be right.


I've had villains escape the PCs by using rope trick. They didn't even figure it out until the fourth time the same sorcerer escaped them. The first time they even used detect magic and spotted the area the window was in but couldn't figure out the significance of the aura. For the longest time they thought they were chasing someone with teleport.

How do they miss a bad guy clambering up a rope, disappearing, then the rope being pulled up into thin air? That level of blindness is just criminal.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-11, 12:46 AM
How do they miss a bad guy climbing up a rope, disappearing, then the rope being pulled up into thin air? That level of blindness is just criminal.

The first time it happened, they were chasing the guy and his second through the burning ruins of a small town. Heavy smoke limited visibility. The second is a defense-specialized tower-shield-using character who blocked up a doorway with his tower shield after the sorcerer ran inside. The party cast a number of spells and eventually sundered the shield. The shieldbearer fled into the burning wreckage (and smoke) toward where he knew the sorcerer had cast the spell.

The party, being clever, realized the pair had just fled into a burning building. They surrounded the place and guarded all the exits, expecting the fire to do their job for them. Eventually, they figured their opponents had fallen to the flames or were still hiding inside, and went to check it out.

That's when the detect magic the mage was concentrating on as she walked through the building turned up the aura. But as I said, they couldn't figure out what it was and after several rounds of nothing happening aside from some more poorly-protected characters suffering smoke inhalation (per RAW), they left, thinking the villains must've escaped somehow, when all the time the two were hovering just under above the party's noses.

The second time involved a locked door and several failed strength checks.

The third time involved a corner, the rope, a skill trick, and the invisibility spell.

Dracons
2010-06-11, 12:54 AM
Once during the rare times I was a player I was hold up with a monk, rogue, DM UBER POWERFUL NPC, (Same level, just had max stats, max HP, best gear, was main character.... It was all of our first game of DnD ever, and he felt he had to make a leader..), a wizard NPC, a small dragon NPC, a Half-giant human NPC, and a minor healer NPC. We had to prepare for an upcoming army of evil clerics of a new god of death.

We used many rope tricks spells filled with vials of acid, alchmist fire and such. When large groups past under it, we dispiled it. Many bad guys died.


It was one of the few tricks that DM allowed me to use. Most of the time he tell me my character wouldn't think of that plan, despite my 18 intelligence and 19 wisdom of a Paladin of Tyr, and that we had to do a plan his NPC's would come up with.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-11, 12:55 AM
It was one of the few tricks that DM allowed me to use. Most of the time he tell me my character wouldn't think of that plan, despite my 18 intelligence and 19 wisdom of a Paladin of Tyr, and that we had to do a plan his NPC's would come up with.

DMPCs are bad.

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 12:58 AM
Was he using Silent Spell each time? I can't imagine that Rope Trick and Teleport have the same verbal component, so a Spellcraft check should have been able to tell them apart when he was casting them.

It just seems a bit contrived to me.

Above directed at the "Rope Trick Houdini" BBEG.

Shadowleaf
2010-06-11, 01:00 AM
DMPCs are bad.
I don't think he meant a DMPC, but rather that they had to use the escape plan (or whatever) Deckard Cain told them to use.

Dracons
2010-06-11, 01:10 AM
DMPCs are bad.

I agree. All his NPC's were the best and awesome. We had to sit back and let them do all the actions, all the plans, and we were just his ****ing followers.


I was very happy when we were in arena, and we had to fight each other. Despite me flat out always fighting to subdue, and I told him that I'm using flat of my blade and not trying to kill at all, I rolled six natural twenties in a roll for my dual wielding. I thought that be it, and his npc was knocked out.


Instead I was arrested for beheading his NPC. He even stated my character sliced his head off, becauise three natural twenties is instant death. Even though I was fighting to knock him out, he acted like a big cry baby.

But since he was the DM, his npc was naturally revived, and turned out that npc, our leader by force, also had the aquired ability to automatically resurrect anytime he was killed.

I was released, and eventally I made the mistake of saying I didn't like Torm.

I was smited and struck by lighting by Torm repeatedly, and had my charisma reduced to 3.
My Paladin charsima... reduced to 3 for saying I didn't like Torm.

Torm being that DM's favorite god.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-11, 01:12 AM
Was he using Silent Spell each time? I can't imagine that Rope Trick and Teleport have the same verbal component, so a Spellcraft check should have been able to tell them apart when he was casting them.

It just seems a bit contrived to me.

Above directed at the "Rope Trick Houdini" BBEG.

It's difficult to hear through a locked door (DC +5)* or past the ambient sounds of a village burning down around you (DC +10)*. Every 10 feet of distance adds another +1* to the DC and to discern "the actual content of what is being said", a character must beat the DC by 10*. So it becomes much more difficult to identify a spell if you can't see the caster (or hear them properly).

And of course, the players rarely put points in Listen. :D Knowing all these rules was worth it when the PCs finally figured it out (after using the same trick themselves for months). There was much forehead-smacking.

*Rules Compendium pg. 114

Shadowleaf
2010-06-11, 01:15 AM
I agree. All his NPC's were the best and awesome. We had to sit back and let them do all the actions, all the plans, and we were just his ****ing followers.


I was very happy when we were in arena, and we had to fight each other. Despite me flat out always fighting to subdue, and I told him that I'm using flat of my blade and not trying to kill at all, I rolled six natural twenties in a roll for my dual wielding. I thought that be it, and his npc was knocked out.


Instead I was arrested for beheading his NPC. He even stated my character sliced his head off, becauise three natural twenties is instant death. Even though I was fighting to knock him out, he acted like a big cry baby.

But since he was the DM, his npc was naturally revived, and turned out that npc, our leader by force, also had the aquired ability to automatically resurrect anytime he was killed.

I was released, and eventally I made the mistake of saying I didn't like Torm.

I was smited and struck by lighting by Torm repeatedly, and had my charisma reduced to 3.
My Paladin charsima... reduced to 3 for saying I didn't like Torm.

Torm being that DM's favorite god.
Why do you play with such an obvious jerk? Seriously, tell him to stop acting like a 5 year old, that's just stupid.

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 01:20 AM
And of course, the players rarely put points in Listen. :D

Ah, so in other words, they totally deserved it. Consider me mollified. :smalltongue:

Dracons
2010-06-11, 01:21 AM
He no longer DM's. The other two girls quit playing because he wouldn't stop hitting on them, one had a boyfriend and wouldnt cheat, the other had a major crush on him but he wouldn't do anything more then be a friends with benifits with her, because she wasn't /attrative/ enough to date.

She ended up dating the sorcerer player, and then went nuts and had to be put in mental ward for a while. She doesn't play with us anymore.


He sometimes DM's, as I've stuck with him quite a bit. But the new batch of players agree that I'm a better DM then him, as I like to, you know, make the players the stars.

That and when he DM's, he makes impossible puzzles and expects us to solve it with no help. We talk to NPC's to get help, and they just go "I don't know. You should. Ok. Bye".


So we walk blind in alot of his games.


So I am the main DM now. He dm's when I need a break.

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 02:01 AM
Oooooookay.

Back to Rope Trick. The spell is cast on the rope itself. The psionic version - Psychoportive Shelter - has "a single entrance on the plane on which it was created." Does that mean PS can be dispelled, since there is explicitly something on the local plane to zap?

sdream
2010-06-11, 11:02 AM
D20srd says the window remains visible (to anyone who can see invisible, which is a decent number of creatures, casters). So it is not just the rope which is still on this plane and subject to dispel.

Even not dispelled, once noticed (by see invisible or scent) anything can climb in with their own ladder, fly in, jump in, throw in other creatures or alchemical nasties, or smoke the occupants out.

Spells cannot be cast across the barrier, which limits the caster's inside methods of dealing with outside activities (and bonfires) rather significantly.

These circumstances are natural side effects of using rope trick near foes with good tracking/scent/see invisible and SHOULD DEFINITELY be used where appropriate (not all the time, but whatever reasonable odds would be).

It is silly to think that foes will sit still for you to take them out one room at a time.

PS - if the window is open to physical transit, voidsense should also detect it just as an opening, like any other.

Ranos
2010-06-11, 11:29 AM
Oooooookay.

Back to Rope Trick. The spell is cast on the rope itself. The psionic version - Psychoportive Shelter - has "a single entrance on the plane on which it was created." Does that mean PS can be dispelled, since there is explicitly something on the local plane to zap?

Well, let's see. Dispel magic says : "For each ongoing area or effect spell whose point of origin is within the area of the dispel magic spell, you can make a dispel check to dispel the spell."
Psychoportive shelter is an effect power whose point of origin is within the plane of origin. 10ft away from the caster, to be exact.
So even if there wasn't an invisible shimmering portal, you could dispel it.

On the other hand, no sdream, while you can see a rope trick portal with see invisibility or whatever, you can't climb in a closed rope trick or dispel it. Read the spell again.

Tyger
2010-06-11, 11:38 AM
D20srd says the window remains visible (to anyone who can see invisible, which is a decent number of creatures, casters). So it is not just the rope which is still on this plane and subject to dispel.

Not sure if this is a correct interpretation. Technically the window is just a manifestation of the spell, not magical in and of itself. The spell is cast upon the rope, not the air.


Even not dispelled, once noticed (by see invisible or scent) anything can climb in with their own ladder, fly in, jump in, throw in other creatures or alchemical nasties, or smoke the occupants out.

Again, not sure that this is accurate. The window isn't a hole, its a window that you can see through, one way only. There is no wording in the spell to indicate that others can pass through it, nor have I heard that used as an interpretation before. If area effects don't go through, and it does not specify magical here, then why would people be able to do so?


Spells cannot be cast across the barrier, which limits the caster's inside methods of dealing with outside activities (and bonfires) rather significantly.

Yup. This is sound tactics on the part of a group which has located (via the above discussed means) for dealing with the party. Sure, they are immune whilst in the RT, but when they come out, they're landing in a fire, surrounded and targetted. :smallsmile: Of course, as they can see the bonfire being built, they can certainly prepare for it to the best of their ability though.


These circumstances are natural side effects of using rope trick near foes with good tracking/scent/see invisible and SHOULD DEFINITELY be used where appropriate (not all the time, but whatever reasonable odds would be).

It is silly to think that foes will sit still for you to take them out one room at a time.

Couldn't agree more.


PS - if the window is open to physical transit, voidsense should also detect it just as an opening, like any other.

Its not open to transit, as noted above.

Starbuck_II
2010-06-11, 11:41 AM
Even not dispelled, once noticed (by see invisible or scent) anything can climb in with their own ladder, fly in, jump in, throw in other creatures or alchemical nasties, or smoke the occupants out.

Nice if we ignore the rules.

Only way in is through rope.
Read:
The upper end (of the rope) is, in fact, fastened to an extradimensional space that is outside the multiverse of extradimensional spaces.

Plus: You can see the window, but not through it.



It is silly to think that foes will sit still for you to take them out one room at a time.

What options do they have? If you follow the rules, I mean.

Read this and point to where it says you can get inside besides the rope:

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

Amphetryon
2010-06-11, 11:59 AM
Read this and point to where it says you can get inside besides the ropeIt's in the sentence right after the statement that you must use the rope to enter the space....

Mauther
2010-06-11, 12:02 PM
Best response I’ve seen for the opening an extra dimensional space inside another: Party’s resting and healing and one PC accidently opens his haversack to get something (I think it was his spellbook). Anyways, there’s gasps then silence and everyone goes quiet, then slowly turn to look at the DM and await their doom. He just smiled for a little bit, then unleashed the destruction. When the beached occur, there was a roar and some sort of extra dimensional creature appeared (githyanki maybe??) and started berating us for disrupting the neighborhood, essentially knocking out his cable TV. For the next 15 minutes we get a string of interdimmensional/extradimmensional neighbors showing up to complain about how disruptive we’d been and what’s-wrong-with-us-why-weren’t-we-raised-with-better-manners, my potion preparation was ruined whos’e going to pay for that, I missed the last 15 minutes of my story now I’ll never know if Xyllb’llt was really Tnoquirii’s illegitimate son or if it was all a scam by Mellifgo to ruin his marriage, etc. Eventually an Inevitable showed, demanded we stop, apologize, promise never to do it again, and leveled a modest fine.

PId6
2010-06-11, 12:04 PM
Best response I’ve seen for the opening an extra dimensional space inside another: Party’s resting and healing and one PC accidently opens his haversack to get something (I think it was his spellbook). Anyways, there’s gasps then silence and everyone goes quiet, then slowly turn to look at the DM and await their doom. He just smiled for a little bit, then unleashed the destruction. When the beached occur, there was a roar and some sort of extra dimensional creature appeared (githyanki maybe??) and started berating us for disrupting the neighborhood, essentially knocking out his cable TV. For the next 15 minutes we get a string of interdimmensional/extradimmensional neighbors showing up to complain about how disruptive we’d been and what’s-wrong-with-us-why-weren’t-we-raised-with-better-manners, my potion preparation was ruined whos’e going to pay for that, I missed the last 15 minutes of my story now I’ll never know if Xyllb’llt was really Tnoquirii’s illegitimate son or if it was all a scam by Mellifgo to ruin his marriage, etc. Eventually an Inevitable showed, demanded we stop, apologize, promise never to do it again, and leveled a modest fine.
Well, that's definitely hazardous...

Tyger
2010-06-11, 12:05 PM
Best response I’ve seen for the opening an extra dimensional space inside another: Party’s resting and healing and one PC accidently opens his haversack to get something (I think it was his spellbook). Anyways, there’s gasps then silence and everyone goes quiet, then slowly turn to look at the DM and await their doom. He just smiled for a little bit, then unleashed the destruction. When the beached occur, there was a roar and some sort of extra dimensional creature appeared (githyanki maybe??) and started berating us for disrupting the neighborhood, essentially knocking out his cable TV. For the next 15 minutes we get a string of interdimmensional/extradimmensional neighbors showing up to complain about how disruptive we’d been and what’s-wrong-with-us-why-weren’t-we-raised-with-better-manners, my potion preparation was ruined whos’e going to pay for that, I missed the last 15 minutes of my story now I’ll never know if Xyllb’llt was really Tnoquirii’s illegitimate son or if it was all a scam by Mellifgo to ruin his marriage, etc. Eventually an Inevitable showed, demanded we stop, apologize, promise never to do it again, and leveled a modest fine.


Cool story and great houserule by the DM. Not RAW though.

Milskidasith
2010-06-11, 12:08 PM
Best response I’ve seen for the opening an extra dimensional space inside another: Party’s resting and healing and one PC accidently opens his haversack to get something (I think it was his spellbook). Anyways, there’s gasps then silence and everyone goes quiet, then slowly turn to look at the DM and await their doom. He just smiled for a little bit, then unleashed the destruction. When the beached occur, there was a roar and some sort of extra dimensional creature appeared (githyanki maybe??) and started berating us for disrupting the neighborhood, essentially knocking out his cable TV. For the next 15 minutes we get a string of interdimmensional/extradimmensional neighbors showing up to complain about how disruptive we’d been and what’s-wrong-with-us-why-weren’t-we-raised-with-better-manners, my potion preparation was ruined whos’e going to pay for that, I missed the last 15 minutes of my story now I’ll never know if Xyllb’llt was really Tnoquirii’s illegitimate son or if it was all a scam by Mellifgo to ruin his marriage, etc. Eventually an Inevitable showed, demanded we stop, apologize, promise never to do it again, and leveled a modest fine.

Ah yes, the old "Screw the PCs for using quite possibly the most commonly used magic item in the game just because you can" method. At least he didn't make you lose all your items like some suggest doing, but I don't really see what it adds to the game to make you unable to use your stuff in a Rope Trick. It's not really RAW, either, so it's hardly relevant to the discussion.

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 12:24 PM
*snip*

To quote Shakespeare: "It is not that Caesar sees himself as a wolf, but that the Romans see themselves as sheep."

If the table lets the DM get away with crap like that... well, he gets away with crap like that.


Yup. This is sound tactics on the part of a group which has located (via the above discussed means) for dealing with the party. Sure, they are immune whilst in the RT, but when they come out, they're landing in a fire, surrounded and targetted. :smallsmile: Of course, as they can see the bonfire being built, they can certainly prepare for it to the best of their ability though.

If they have another means of planar travel also (e.g. Plane Shift) they don't even have to exit the Rope Trick via the window. So they can leave the enemy camped around a juicy red herring.

NEO|Phyte
2010-06-11, 12:27 PM
If they have another means of planar travel also (e.g. Plane Shift) they don't even have to exit the Rope Trick via the window. So they can leave the enemy camped around a juicy red herring.

There is that pesky 5-500 mile margin of error, though, unless you've got greater plane shift.
:edit: or a Seer with Anchored Navigation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/anchoredNavigation.htm).

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 12:29 PM
There is that pesky 5-500 mile margin of error, though, unless you've got greater plane shift.
:edit: or a Seer with Anchored Navigation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/anchoredNavigation.htm).

Beats being dead.

(You can also teleport back to the dungeon once you arrive on the MP. You're "familiar" with the room you painstakingly cleared, right?)

Tyger
2010-06-11, 12:30 PM
If they have another means of planar travel also (e.g. Plane Shift) they don't even have to exit the Rope Trick via the window. So they can leave the enemy camped around a juicy red herring.

Yup. I think that's captured in the "as they can see the bonfire being built, they can certainly prepare for it to the best of their ability though" portion.

I agree, any party that has the resources to get out of any situation the Bad Guys (tm) have put them in while they are in the RT, shouldn't have too much trouble there.

Mauther
2010-06-11, 12:47 PM
Ah yes, the old "Screw the PCs for using quite possibly the most commonly used magic item in the game just because you can" method. At least he didn't make you lose all your items like some suggest doing, but I don't really see what it adds to the game to make you unable to use your stuff in a Rope Trick. It's not really RAW, either, so it's hardly relevant to the discussion.

Well the compaint people were leveling is that the RAW doesn't address what hazardous means, except at the one point where it does and says everything is destroyed. You call one screwing the PCs I call one selective amnesia. I prefer methods were the DMs and players can come to a solution instead of people just complaining that rules don't work because they don't like them. Heaven forbid there's a PC initiated action that restricts their own options. Rope Trick creates and extradimensional space, your not supposed to open an ED inside of another. That's RAW. Having a machete wielding monkey appear is closer to RAW than having the PCs items not work or ignoring the effect completly. Just because the specifics are left murky isn't enough to ignore the effect, at least not to do and then claim the cover of RAW.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-11, 12:55 PM
"You hear about the Order of the Tree?"
"No... what about them?"
"Well, you know they always rested in a Rope Trick, right?"
"Who doesn't?"
"Well, I heard this from one of their henchmen. He'd slipped outside to take a leak, just as the wizard was starting to do spell preps... you know, pull the book out of the bag of holding and all that?"
"Yeah."
"Seems this henchman got halfway down the rope when it just cut... fell ten feet to floor, holding twenty feet of rope. No sign of the Order of the Tree."
"You're drekkin' me."
"He said he holed up in a closet for three days, waiting for them to return. By then, his food was almost out and he was looking at the bugbear rations still around."
"What happened to 'em?"
"I don't know, but when I told Fizzard... you know, our sorcerer? ... he just said 'They always said 'Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.'"

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-11, 12:58 PM
Well the compaint people were leveling is that the RAW doesn't address what hazardous means, except at the one point where it does and says everything is destroyed.

The rules say absolutely nothing about the effects of a Bag of Holding, Portable Hole, Handy Haversack or any similar item being used in a Rope Trick.

Not one thing.

They say what happens when a Bag of Holding or a Portable Hole interact, as an artifact from the "**** you" days of AD&D, but absolutely nothing about what happens when a Rope Trick is involved.

So, no, you're wrong.

sdream
2010-06-11, 01:04 PM
Read this and point to where it says you can get inside besides the rope:

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


Well, besides Amphetryon's very important point that anything not forbidden is allowed (there is no line saying you must use the rope to pass through the window). It specifically says:



The window is present on the Material Plane, but it’s invisible, and even creatures that can see the window can’t see through it.


It clearly says it is there, and that it cannot be seen - nothing about it blocking anything but spells, area effects, and vision (from the outside). This is a matter of interpretation, but why mention it is there if it cannot be interacted with?

As for dispelling, can you not dispel a spell at any point on it's surface? A fog cloud block line of sight to the point of origin, but it can dispelled, because some part of the effect is exposed, and it is all one spell. The surface of the window is exposed (invisibly) on this plane, and the entirety of the spell crumbles if it goes.

My (I believe reasonable) interpretation is that Rope Trick provides a cheap, convenient, and mostly hidden "safe place". Not that if you pull up the rope it is a fortress impregnable to all effects and creatures.

One more debatable point: sight is detailed, physical access seems to be open, but sound and airflow is unspecified.

If sound passes through blindsense and snores might allow location of your hideout. If sound is blocked, you will have less idea what is happening in the dungeon below you. (sounds of traps being set, tunnels collapsed, water flooding, etc.

Airflow could be blocked, preventing smoking out or scent detection... the time limit might dump you out before asphyxiation is an issue. This does mean the party would have no warning of scent based changes below (like poison gas, or bonfires) but it also prevents these from bothering you inside (which I feel the Area effect line was intended to do anyway).

Note that I am not advocating banning the spell, (or always trying to shaft the users) just keep an open mind that a level 2 spell effect is NOT the same as a Tippy level sanctuary.

Tyger
2010-06-11, 01:08 PM
Well, besides Amphetryon's very important point that anything not forbidden is allowed (there is no line saying you must use the rope to pass through the window). It specifically says:



It clearly says it is there, and that it cannot be seen - nothing about it blocking anything but spells, area effects, and vision (from the outside). This is a matter of interpretation, but why mention it is there if it cannot be interacted with?

As for dispelling, can you not dispel a spell at any point on it's surface? A fog cloud block line of sight to the point of origin, but it can dispelled, because some part of the effect is exposed, and it is all one spell. The surface of the window is exposed (invisibly) on this plane, and the entirety of the spell crumbles if it goes.

My (I believe reasonable) interpretation is that Rope Trick provides a cheap, convenient, and mostly hidden "safe place". Not that if you pull up the rope it is a fortress impregnable to all effects and creatures.

One more debatable point: sight is detailed, physical access seems to be open, but sound and airflow is unspecified.

If sound passes through blindsense and snores might allow location of your hideout. If sound is blocked, you will have less idea what is happening in the dungeon below you. (sounds of traps being set, tunnels collapsed, water flooding, etc.

Airflow could be blocked, preventing smoking out or scent detection... the time limit might dump you out before asphyxiation is an issue. This does mean the party would have no warning of scent based changes below (like poison gas, or bonfires) but it also prevents these from bothering you inside (which I feel the Area effect line was intended to do anyway).

Note that I am not advocating banning the spell, (or always trying to shaft the users) just keep an open mind that a level 2 spell effect is NOT the same as a Tippy level sanctuary.


All great houserules. So long as its agreed they are houserules. We just make a point of sticking with RAW in rules discussions, as... well... that's the point of a rules discussion. The actual rules. :smallbiggrin:

Cogidubnus
2010-06-11, 01:33 PM
To quote Shakespeare: "It is not that Caesar sees himself as a wolf, but that the Romans see themselves as sheep."

If the table lets the DM get away with crap like that... well, he gets away with crap like that.


Not fair. If I'd been playing that game I'd have laughed. It's different, it's clever, and it is a lot better than being dropped onto a random plane, while still sticking to the rules, as they're so vague.

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 01:39 PM
Not fair. If I'd been playing that game I'd have laughed. It's different, it's clever, and it is a lot better than being dropped onto a random plane, while still sticking to the rules, as they're so vague.

I would have loved it, myself.

sdream
2010-06-11, 01:41 PM
All great houserules. So long as its agreed they are houserules. We just make a point of sticking with RAW in rules discussions, as... well... that's the point of a rules discussion. The actual rules. :smallbiggrin:

I was trying to be clear as to what were the actual specified rules:

- 8 person limit
- exists on same plane, but invisible outside
- can move through but not cast/effect through window
- can see out as one way mirror
- spell has no exemption from dispell effects

And what there are NO RULES about, and must be decided by each group:

- does sound pass through
- does scent pass through

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-11, 01:41 PM
Not fair. If I'd been playing that game I'd have laughed. It's different, it's clever, and it is a lot better than being dropped onto a random plane, while still sticking to the rules, as they're so vague.

But, you see, it doesn't stick to the rules. The "hazardous" line is flavour text...

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 01:43 PM
Stuff the rules if it makes sense and makes my gaming session more entertaining. I'd high five a DM who ran a game like that.

olentu
2010-06-11, 02:14 PM
I was trying to be clear as to what were the actual specified rules:

- 8 person limit
- exists on same plane, but invisible outside
- can move through but not cast/effect through window
- can see out as one way mirror
- spell has no exemption from dispell effects

And what there are NO RULES about, and must be decided by each group:

- does sound pass through
- does scent pass through

Where does it say one can move through the window. Perhaps with some qualifiers but your statement is quite general.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-11, 02:34 PM
But, you see, it doesn't stick to the rules. The "hazardous" line is flavour text...

So? It's undefined, but that doesn't mean its undefinable or irrelevant. It can equally be up to a DM to define what "hazardous" means in context, with full backing of the spell having warned you. Using the Portable Hole/Bag of Holding interactions as a guideline is good DMing... whining that a DM did something bad to you when you did something specifically noted to be hazardous is prima donna playing.

Starbuck_II
2010-06-11, 02:53 PM
"You hear about the Order of the Tree?"
"No... what about them?"
"Well, you know they always rested in a Rope Trick, right?"
"Who doesn't?"
"Well, I heard this from one of their henchmen. He'd slipped outside to take a leak, just as the wizard was starting to do spell preps... you know, pull the book out of the bag of holding and all that?"
"Yeah."
"Seems this henchman got halfway down the rope when it just cut... fell ten feet to floor, holding twenty feet of rope. No sign of the Order of the Tree."
"You're drekkin' me."
"He said he holed up in a closet for three days, waiting for them to return. By then, his food was almost out and he was looking at the bugbear rations still around."
"What happened to 'em?"
"I don't know, but when I told Fizzard... you know, our sorcerer? ... he just said 'They always said 'Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.'"

Wait, why would a Wizard (one of the most intelligent people you'll know) act stupid by pulling out and openin a bag of holding?

olentu
2010-06-11, 02:59 PM
Wait, why would a Wizard (one of the most intelligent people you'll know) act stupid by pulling out and openin a bag of holding?

You would expect that given the traditionally low strength of wizards and the commonness of this spell due to its low level people would know what the interaction actually are.

Amphetryon
2010-06-11, 03:00 PM
Because rational acts, rather than rational thoughts, are governed more by WIS than by INT?

An Intelligent person knows smoking is bad for him.

A Wise person doesn't smoke.

sdream
2010-06-11, 03:05 PM
Where does it say one can move through the window. Perhaps with some qualifiers but your statement is quite general.

That is a good point, it does not say that moving through the window enters (or EXITS) the extradimensional space.

It also does not say what happens when you reach the end of the rope which is attached to the extradimensional space.

It also does not mention any method of exiting the space besides waiting for the duration to expire.

I guess by strict RAW I should have placed "one may enter or exit the extra-dimensional space" down under the things there are no written rules about and would have to be ruled by the DM.

Of course, there must be SOME way of entering and exiting the space as it talks about creatures in the space... just doesn't specify by RAW.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-11, 03:10 PM
You would expect that given the traditionally low strength of wizards and the commonness of this spell due to its low level people would know what the interaction actually are.

Unless, of course, such interactions are rare and not really above the level of tavern-talk.

olentu
2010-06-11, 03:19 PM
Unless, of course, such interactions are rare and not really above the level of tavern-talk.

That could be true but then why would it be noted in the spell description.

Amphetryon
2010-06-11, 03:22 PM
That could be true but then why would it be noted in the spell description.

Perhaps nobody is around after the interactions to explain....

olentu
2010-06-11, 03:40 PM
Perhaps nobody is around after the interactions to explain....

Which returns to the question as to why it is even listed if everyone dies.

Amphetryon
2010-06-11, 04:01 PM
Which returns to the question as to why it is even listed if everyone dies.

If people are aware of other bad interactions with extra-dimensional space, and are aware that Xurxius the Serious had added it to his spellbook from Ye Olde Magick Shoppe just before he and his party vanished, intelligent conjecture can be made. When this pattern becomes apparent, Rope Trick can eventually be deduced as the LCD. In a world of medieval stasis like D&D's presumptive standard, there are bound to be plenty of folks to become the accidental test subjects for the hypothesis.

olentu
2010-06-11, 04:04 PM
If people are aware of other bad interactions with extra-dimensional space, and are aware that Xurxius the Serious had added it to his spellbook from Ye Olde Magick Shoppe just before he and his party vanished, intelligent conjecture can be made. When this pattern becomes apparent, Rope Trick can eventually be deduced as the LCD. In a world of medieval stasis like D&D's presumptive standard, there are bound to be plenty of folks to become the accidental test subjects for the hypothesis.

And thus it becomes something that casters should know about and then as I said you would expect that people would know about this.

Riffington
2010-06-11, 04:10 PM
I don't think standard definitions of "should know about" apply in a world where the more powerful a creature is, the more learned a sage must be to have heard of it.

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 04:12 PM
Stuff the rules if it makes sense and makes my gaming session more entertaining. I'd high five a DM who ran a game like that.

I'm all for "fun." Not so much Inevitables playing Magic Tax Collector.


So? It's undefined, but that doesn't mean its undefinable or irrelevant. It can equally be up to a DM to define what "hazardous" means in context, with full backing of the spell having warned you. Using the Portable Hole/Bag of Holding interactions as a guideline is good DMing... whining that a DM did something bad to you when you did something specifically noted to be hazardous is prima donna playing.

And yelling "GOTCHA!" at the party wizard's player when their character presumably has ranks in both Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana) is metagaming.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-11, 04:14 PM
And yelling "GOTCHA!" at the party wizard's player when their character presumably has ranks in both Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana) is metagaming.

No. Metagaming is relying on the fact that something is a game to figure out how to play.

It is noted as being dangerous. Presumably, the player has read this. If he hasn't asked about it, then that's his own fault.

Mauther
2010-06-11, 04:16 PM
But, you see, it doesn't stick to the rules. The "hazardous" line is flavour text...

I don't agree. By what point are you decided it's flavor. Ill defined, sure. But by that position a good 1/3rd of game effects are flavor. There are multiple similar effects upon which to draw this conclusion. You can ignore thee "harardous" line, but I wouldn't grant the fig leaf of RAW to that. So deciding that something is ill defined and incovenient and therefore flavor is subjective at best.

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 04:16 PM
No. Metagaming is relying on the fact that something is a game to figure out how to play.

It is noted as being dangerous. Presumably, the player has read this. If he hasn't asked about it, then that's his own fault.

So I have to ask about all of your houserules before you tell me what they are, and it's my fault if I don't think of something before it comes up?

olentu
2010-06-11, 04:18 PM
I don't think standard definitions of "should know about" apply in a world where the more powerful a creature is, the more learned a sage must be to have heard of it.

It is however not a powerful creature or spell.

Amphetryon
2010-06-11, 04:20 PM
So I have to ask about all of your houserules before you tell me what they are, and it's my fault if I don't think of something before it comes up?

Asking about the spells one wants to cast would seem appropriate for players of characters who rely on them, in the same way that asking about the weapons one uses is appropriate for those who hit things with other things.

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 04:22 PM
Asking about the spells one wants to cast would seem appropriate for players of characters who rely on them, in the same way that asking about the weapons one uses is appropriate for those who hit things with other things.

No offense, but that's ridiculous. If I was intended to ask the DM how my spells work, why are they in the PHB and not in the DMG?

It's the DM's job to tell me his houserules.

sdream
2010-06-11, 04:22 PM
It's noted as being dangerous.

A bad GM will make something unfun happen when someone ignores that.

A good GM will make something interesting happen to explore this detail of the world they live in, when he feels it is appropriate and entertaining.

A bad player will whine that the specific result was not written in the rulebook.

A good player will enjoy the surprising entertainment, and learn for next time (even if it causes a TPK, they learn that GM is bad, and the sooner they learn that the less time they waste).

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 04:22 PM
I'm all for "fun." Not so much Inevitables playing Magic Tax Collector.

Oh no, boohoo, I lost some gold. (Not even XP or a character level or anything.) Big deal. I just laughed my ass off, and because the game is centered around the players, there is no such thing as a lose condition in 90% of games - just odd ways of 'insert coin to continue.'

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 04:27 PM
Oh no, boohoo, I lost some gold. Big deal. I just laughed my ass off, and because the game is centered around the players, there is no such thing as a lose condition in 90% of games - just odd ways of 'insert coin to continue.'

*shrug*
I never denied that different people are entertained by different things.


It's noted as being dangerous.

Swimming without fins is dangerous too.
Or going out into the rain.
Driving above 50 mph.
Running with your eyes closed.
etc.

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 04:29 PM
*shrug*
I never denied that different people are entertained by different things.

That's fine. 'I'm not having fun' is a distinct sentiment from some of the attitudes I've been seeing lately around here re: DMs who do anything that's not strictly by the rules, including recommendations to walk out of the group immediately.

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 04:30 PM
That's fine. 'I'm not having fun' is a distinct sentiment from some of the attitudes I've been seeing lately around here re: DMs who do anything that's not strictly by the rules, including recommendations to walk out of the group immediately.

Obviously if the group is enjoying the houserules they don't need to be changed. I didn't think I actually needed to say that. :smallconfused:

LibraryOgre
2010-06-11, 04:32 PM
No offense, but that's ridiculous. If I was intended to ask the DM how my spells work, why are they in the PHB and not in the DMG?

It's the DM's job to tell me his houserules.

The spell DOES tell you how it works. It tells you that using an E-D space inside another E-D space is dangerous, and it says it in so many words. It doesn't tell you the specific effects of "dangerous", but, then, neither does it tell you the specific abilities of orcs or gibbering mouthers. Not everything that the players can acquire is placed in the PH; after all, where are the magic items? Or certain feats (like Leadership)? You can infer some of these things from what's in the PH, but others are going to be a mystery until it happens.

AstralFire
2010-06-11, 04:32 PM
Obviously if the group is enjoying the houserules they don't need to be changed. I didn't think I actually needed to say that. :smallconfused:

It's pretty discouraging to a lot of new 'off the cuff' DMs, which can already be a pretty demoralizing role in a group.

Zeful
2010-06-11, 04:33 PM
I have been specifically told on gleemax, long ago, in response to a similar suggestion I made on handling Rope Trick, that this was the 'jerk DM' reaction and would earn me at least player walking out. YMMV.

I've gotten the very same response on this forum over the same issue (having time move on without the PCs and them no longer getting paid for a mission someone your party failed to complete). And to be perfectly honest, I'm okay with that, if a player would leave over something as simple as running a semi-realistic world, I don't want to play with them at all.

Now I take a different approach. If the enemies have the resources at their disposal to locate the portal for either MMM or Rope Trick, and to fill the room with stone/Acid/Water/Poison Gas, they will do just that, preventing the PCs from escaping from their new prison or at least massively injuring them if they do. Just because nothing can get in the rope trick, doesn't make it safe.

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 04:34 PM
The spell DOES tell you how it works. It tells you that using an E-D space inside another E-D space is dangerous, and it says it in so many words. It doesn't tell you the specific effects of "dangerous", but, then, neither does it tell you the specific abilities of orcs or gibbering mouthers. Not everything that the players can acquire is placed in the PH; after all, where are the magic items? Or certain feats (like Leadership)? You can infer some of these things from what's in the PH, but others are going to be a mystery until it happens.

The effects of spells, however, ARE in the PHB. Any effects not spelled out in the description need to be communicated to the players.

Please note that I have nothing against the DM tacking on whatever crazy effect to Bag of Holding + Rope Trick that he wants to. It's his game, after all, not mine. But why the reluctance to communicate the fact to the players when they sit down at the table?

Riffington
2010-06-11, 04:41 PM
It's not an effect of the spell, it's an interaction between two types of dimensions; the nature of the interfaces between various forms of pocket dimensions was never fully spelled out in any book yet published.
Similarly, some spells say they may annoy their targets; this annoyance is not a spell effect, it's just a possible consequence of the spell having been cast upon one.

Quietus
2010-06-11, 04:48 PM
The effects of spells, however, ARE in the PHB. Any effects not spelled out in the description need to be communicated to the players.

Please note that I have nothing against the DM tacking on whatever crazy effect to Bag of Holding + Rope Trick that he wants to. It's his game, after all, not mine. But why the reluctance to communicate the fact to the players when they sit down at the table?

Out of curiosity, are you playing Devil's Advocate, or are you as decidedly against a DM defining "Hazardous" - or more specifically, them attaching consequences to it - as you seem?

Alternatively : If you cast Rope Trick, then go to take your Bag of Holding/Portable Hole/Handy Haversack inside of it, and when you go to use such items you're reminded that there is a warning of "hazards", do you still consider that unfair? What if they give the prior example with invading giths and such, minus the magic tax, as an in-game "There are hazards!" reminder, as opposed to an out of game one?

LibraryOgre
2010-06-11, 04:50 PM
The effects of spells, however, ARE in the PHB. Any effects not spelled out in the description need to be communicated to the players.

That's not a spell effect, though; it's an incidental effect of the interaction of the spell and the magic item. Do I need to spell out to players that throwing a fireball into a grain silo is a bad idea? Or that fireballing someone wearing a Helm of Brilliance may result in catastrophic failure?

Gnaeus
2010-06-11, 04:53 PM
That's not a spell effect, though; it's an incidental effect of the interaction of the spell and the magic item. Do I need to spell out to players that throwing a fireball into a grain silo is a bad idea? Or that fireballing someone wearing a Helm of Brilliance may result in catastrophic failure?

If the PC has high intelligence and/or wisdom, it is probably a good idea for you to do so. At least a pointed "Are you sure?".

Starbuck_II
2010-06-11, 04:55 PM
That's not a spell effect, though; it's an incidental effect of the interaction of the spell and the magic item. Do I need to spell out to players that throwing a fireball into a grain silo is a bad idea? Or that fireballing someone wearing a Helm of Brilliance may result in catastrophic failure?

Hint: it is in the item's description.

PId6
2010-06-11, 04:56 PM
Out of curiosity, are you playing Devil's Advocate, or are you as decidedly against a DM defining "Hazardous" - or more specifically, them attaching consequences to it - as you seem?
I think what he's against is unfairly attaching heavy consequences without warning the players, which I'd agree with. It may say it's "hazardous," but it's not unreasonable to dismiss that as pure fluff since 1) there are no consequences given, anywhere, and 2) WOTC even says to ignore that line (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a).

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 05:01 PM
Out of curiosity, are you playing Devil's Advocate, or are you as decidedly against a DM defining "Hazardous" - or more specifically, them attaching consequences to it - as you seem?

I'm fine with any definition of hazardous that is spelled out to the players beforehand. The anecdote earlier in the thread made it clear that the players had no idea what would happen; indeed, it seemed as though the DM itself made something up on the fly.


That's not a spell effect, though; it's an incidental effect of the interaction of the spell and the magic item. Do I need to spell out to players that throwing a fireball into a grain silo is a bad idea? Or that fireballing someone wearing a Helm of Brilliance may result in catastrophic failure?

It's not that it's an incidental effect that's the problem; it's that it's an incidental effect that you created, not the game designers.

EDIT: Kudos to PId6 for understanding my position.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-11, 05:03 PM
I'm fine with any definition of hazardous that is spelled out to the players beforehand. The anecdote earlier in the thread made it clear that the players had no idea what would happen; indeed, it seemed as though the DM itself made something up on the fly.



It's not that it's an incidental effect that's the problem; it's that it's an incidental effect that you created, not the game designers.

EDIT: Kudos to PId6 for understanding my position.

Do you demand to know your change to hit before using Power Attack, as well? Not everything is going to be spelled out. "Dead" is not a defined state. "Hazardous" is not a defined state.

It might be fair to warn the players once that the spell makes mention of the hazard and then pull something on them when they risk it anyway, just as it's fair to say "The bridge looks rickety" rather than "The bridge appears as though any weight over exactly 215 pounds will cause it to begin to collapse."

PId6
2010-06-11, 05:21 PM
Do you demand to know your change to hit before using Power Attack, as well? Not everything is going to be spelled out. "Dead" is not a defined state. "Hazardous" is not a defined state.
Chance (I assume that's what you mean) to hit with Power Attack has nothing to do with houserules. Dead is fairly obvious in what it means, and should be clear to most people what it entails. "Hazardous" is far more ambiguous.


It might be fair to warn the players once that the spell makes mention of the hazard and then pull something on them when they risk it anyway, just as it's fair to say "The bridge looks rickety" rather than "The bridge appears as though any weight over exactly 215 pounds will cause it to begin to collapse."
Since it's even against RAI for the interaction to be meaningful, and a wizard with maxed out Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana would supposedly know how his own spells work, it's perfectly reasonable to assume there are no houserules in effect regarding it. If the DM cautions you when you attempt to go into a Rope Trick with a Handy Haversack on, only then has he given fair warning of the houserule (though I'd still question why my wizard doesn't know what exactly would happen).

Optimystik
2010-06-11, 05:23 PM
Do you demand to know your change to hit before using Power Attack, as well? Not everything is going to be spelled out. "Dead" is not a defined state. "Hazardous" is not a defined state.

I would think that if the DM changes what happens when you're "dead" that he would tell the players.
If the DM has a houserule in effect on Power Attack, yes, I would want to know that too.


It might be fair to warn the players once that the spell makes mention of the hazard and then pull something on them when they risk it anyway, just as it's fair to say "The bridge looks rickety" rather than "The bridge appears as though any weight over exactly 215 pounds will cause it to begin to collapse."

That's a strawman. You don't have to elaborate down to specifics, merely warn the players that you have a houserule in place where rope trick and storage is concerned, and let them take the risk if they choose.

Amphetryon
2010-06-11, 05:34 PM
That's a strawman. You don't have to elaborate down to specifics, merely warn the players that you have a houserule in place where rope trick and storage is concerned, and let them take the risk if they choose.For example, you could let them read the spell description. :smallwink:

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-11, 05:34 PM
That's a strawman. You don't have to elaborate down to specifics, merely warn the players that you have a houserule in place where rope trick and storage is concerned, and let them take the risk if they choose.

DM: "You can do that, but it's hazardous."
Player: "Why is it hazardous?"
DM: "You don't know exactly, only that the spell itself warns that to do such a thing is very dangerous."
Player: "My guy has a bazillion ranks in Arcana and Spellcraft and doesn't know what happens?"
DM: "It either appears that nobody has tried, due to the implicit warning in the spell, or that those who have tried have not made their knowledge public for some reason or another. It is possible that those who know are unable to share their knowledge due to succumbing to the hazard."

Are you suggesting that this is an unreasonable exchange on the part of the DM?

Quietus
2010-06-11, 05:41 PM
I'm fine with any definition of hazardous that is spelled out to the players beforehand. The anecdote earlier in the thread made it clear that the players had no idea what would happen; indeed, it seemed as though the DM itself made something up on the fly.



It's not that it's an incidental effect that's the problem; it's that it's an incidental effect that you created, not the game designers.

EDIT: Kudos to PId6 for understanding my position.


To be clear, I *am* playing Devil's Advocate here. Personally I ignore the rope trick/extradimensional space, because I don't feel it really adds to the game to play off of vague "hazard" warnings that were grandfathered in from older editions for the sake of nostalgia. However, I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are on the other part of my post :



Alternatively : If you cast Rope Trick, then go to take your Bag of Holding/Portable Hole/Handy Haversack inside of it, and when you go to use such items you're reminded that there is a warning of "hazards", do you still consider that unfair? What if they give the prior example with invading giths and such, minus the magic tax, as an in-game "There are hazards!" reminder, as opposed to an out of game one?

PId6
2010-06-11, 05:50 PM
Are you suggesting that this is an unreasonable exchange on the part of the DM?
I'd say yes, a bit. How can there be "implicit warning" in the spell unless it's happened before and people have recorded the results? Regardless, however, the important thing is that the DM has made clear that he's using the houserule. I don't mind him being a bit unrealistic with the world as long as he's not springing insta-kill on the players without warning for it.

goken04
2010-06-11, 06:21 PM
Once, in a Sliders-like campaign, where I knew our characters would only be on this specific Material Plane for another few hours, my party killed an important NPC in a back alley and I quickly hid his body in a rope trick. Knowing it would last nine hours, it was the perfect way to delay the discovery of our crime.

Fortunately for all parties, there were no bags of holding involved.

graeylin
2010-06-11, 07:27 PM
Don't worry about it. the rope trick states that extra dimensional spaces inside each other are hazardous.

Bags of holding are NON dimensional spaces.

Portable hole in a rope trick is not a smart idea, however, as that is an extra dimensional space that opens into a non dimensional space... it's probably already pretty shaky for safety.

The Shadowmind
2010-06-11, 07:42 PM
Portable Hole, Bag of Holding, and Efficient Quiver are all nondimensional
Mirror of Life Trapping and Portable Hole are extradimensional.
Handy Haversack is untyped. So the portable hole is a extra dimensional nondimensional space.

Quietus
2010-06-11, 07:44 PM
Don't worry about it. the rope trick states that extra dimensional spaces inside each other are hazardous.

Bags of holding are NON dimensional spaces.

Portable hole in a rope trick is not a smart idea, however, as that is an extra dimensional space that opens into a non dimensional space... it's probably already pretty shaky for safety.

This is win. Use the wording against WoTC!

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-11, 08:14 PM
This is win. Use the wording against WoTC!

What?

Wizards of the Coast are advocating against making Rope Trick react badly to Bags of Holding!

It's been linked, what, four times so far?

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-11, 08:20 PM
Portable Hole, Bag of Holding, and Efficient Quiver are all nondimensional
Mirror of Life Trapping and Portable Hole are extradimensional.
Handy Haversack is untyped. So the portable hole is a extra dimensional nondimensional space.

Actually, the haversack entry says that it is "like a bag of holding", which seems justification enough to classify it as non-dimensional as well.

Lysander
2010-06-12, 12:33 PM
One interpretation I like is that a bag of holding simply doesn't function in extradimensional space, just like in an anti-magic field. The items inside are merely inaccessible until you return to a normal plane.

As for how to screw over people in a Rope Trick, just cast Forbiddance in the area. Since returning to the plane obviously counts as planar travel, I can only assume people in the rope trick are royally effed when the RT ends.

taltamir
2010-06-12, 12:58 PM
I never got the problem with rope trick... Or why people try so hard to ruin it.

Lets say you ban it or stealth nerf it (every time you use it the enemies magically get a wizard to transdimensional fireball you or set up an ambush of 100 orcs or whatever)...

fine. you need to be level 5 or 9 to safely rest in a rope trick (8 hours sleep, 1 hour prepare spells... and you fall out as soon as you finish so level 10 is better than level 9... level 5 is if you drop an extend feat on it)...

So lets see what else we have.

Level 9 you get teleport, forget rope trick, I am teleporting to my fortress every night, and teleporting back in the morning.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm

Don't want to waste a high level spell slot? no problem!
Phantom steed.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantomsteed.htm
gives you land speed of 20 ft per CL.
and starting at CL8 "The mount can ride over sandy, muddy, or even swampy ground without difficulty or decrease in speed."
Make it hustle for 4 miles an hour per CL.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm
A CL 10 phantom steed is thus going at 40 MPH. You don't even have to go that far, just "far enough". The higher your level, the further you can go.

You can always get creative as well... amulet of adaptation creates air, combine it with creative uses of shape stone, earth, or just plain old disintegrate...
or heck, skip the amulet and leave breathing holes.

There are a plethora of other effective spells...

The effect in game is simple though...
If the BBEG's lair is attacked, and then the heroes vamoose for the night, then the BBEG simply has his troops strip everything of value from the lair and leave to another lair.
The BBEG needs only a few low-mid level casters to build an entire new lair in under a minute (10 castings of various "construction" type spells will do).
Whether they teleported away, rode phantom steeds, used a rope trick, or any of the many other ways to get a good night sleep... well, the enemy is gone and they gotta find them again.

Oh, and at really higher levels? thats when you rest in another dimension...

At the very lowest levels... well, give your players a break. You say your BBEG has the means and resources to get transdimensional dispels or divine their locations in the rope trick and set up an ambushing army? (against your sub level 5 players)
then why the hell can't said BBEG organize his defenses such that he would be alerted to an attack and the army would converge on the players as soon as they attack? The answer is "because if he could then it would be TPK"... at very low levels players face weak opponents, its how those things work.

Optimystik
2010-06-12, 06:59 PM
For example, you could let them read the spell description. :smallwink:

*reads it*
Hmm, no houserules there.



Are you suggesting that this is an unreasonable exchange on the part of the DM?

No, because he is warning the players that he has something planned there if they try it - i.e. a houserule.

It's "Gotcha!" DMing that I am primarily advocating against.


However, I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are on the other part of my post :

It depends on whether you warn the players, or simply have stuff happen to them because they weren't "smart enough" to anticipate your houserules.

JonestheSpy
2010-06-12, 09:22 PM
What?

Wizards of the Coast are advocating against making Rope Trick react badly to Bags of Holding!

It's been linked, what, four times so far?

No, actually one guy from WotC who evidently wants to ignore the spell as written to make things easier for players advocates making Rope Trick not react badly to Bags, Holes, and the like. It's not like the company didn't have ample opportunity to rewrite the spell in the switch to 3.5 or in official errata.

PId6
2010-06-12, 09:29 PM
It's not like the company didn't have ample opportunity to rewrite the spell in the switch to 3.5 or in official errata.
Just like they had ample opportunity to make the fighter better, make the wizard worse, make the Incantatrix less overpowered, make the Tainted Scholar nonexistent, and make the Tome of Battle errata not suck, all of which are far more important than one little spell that doesn't say anything about the hazards anyway?

Hawriel
2010-06-12, 10:10 PM
I believe a bag of holding in rendered inert when inside a rope trick. Any thing inside the bag is unusable. So if your all messed up and the cleric is out of spells be sure to take your healing potions out of the bag befor entering.

Also how did the STR 10-12 wizard drag that 60 pound bag up the rope?


As to the great idea of hiding in the rope trick be very wary of when and whare you do this. There are many outsiders, demonds and devils for example, who have extensive planer knowledge, have divination magic, and can teleport. So yeah your in your rope trick good for you. In pops in a balor, miralith, or vorok. Or ten. Or maybe they just nuke the crap out of you through a portal.



Main Entry: haz·ard·ous
Pronunciation: \ˈha-zər-dəs\
Function: adjective
Date: 1585
1 : depending on hazard or chance
2 : involving or exposing one to risk (as of loss or harm) <a hazardous occupation> <disposing of hazardous waste>

synonyms see dangerous

— haz·ard·ous·ly adverb

— haz·ard·ous·ness noun


Thought this might help.

It is hazardous to live on a fault line. Yet peaple do. Should there be a stated worning for peaple entering California? When your born should the OBGYN hold up a sign?

Edit: copied and pasted from Merriam Websters online dictionary.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-12, 10:45 PM
I believe a bag of holding in rendered inert when inside a rope trick. Any thing inside the bag is unusable. So if your all messed up and the cleric is out of spells be sure to take your healing potions out of the bag befor entering.Source for this?


Also how did the STR 10-12 wizard drag that 60 pound bag up the rope?He can fly at and after level 3.


As to the great idea of hiding in the rope trick be very wary of when and whare you do this. There are many outsiders, demonds and devils for example, who have extensive planer knowledge, have divination magic, and can teleport. So yeah your in your rope trick good for you. In pops in a balor, miralith, or vorok. Or ten. Or maybe they just nuke the crap out of you through a portal.No can do. It's already been mentioned (and its sources cited) that you can't affect anyone inside of a rope trick outside of Transdimensional Spell.

Riffington
2010-06-12, 11:04 PM
It depends on whether you warn the players, or simply have stuff happen to them because they weren't "smart enough" to anticipate your houserules.

As long as this attitudes equally applies to rules that aren't houserules.
Characters shouldn't be punished or rewarded for the players' knowledge of rules (whether written or houserules) - if a player tries something the character would know is silly, give them a little warning. This has nothing to do with whether a rule is a houserule or not.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-06-12, 11:20 PM
Why do bags of holding weigh so obscenely much, anyway? Do extradimensional spaces have intrinsic mass, or does the bag's enchantment require several inches of lead lining, or what?

JonestheSpy
2010-06-12, 11:34 PM
Just like they had ample opportunity to make the fighter better, make the wizard worse, make the Incantatrix less overpowered, make the Tainted Scholar nonexistent, and make the Tome of Battle errata not suck, all of which are far more important than one little spell that doesn't say anything about the hazards anyway?

Regardless of the snarky tone of your comments, yes, they could have changed any number of things - and in fact did so in many cases switching from 3 to 3.5 - but didn't change the wording of Rope Trick. So yeah, one one guy says on the web is not the same as an official rules change.

Flickerdart
2010-06-12, 11:47 PM
Why do bags of holding weigh so obscenely much, anyway? Do extradimensional spaces have intrinsic mass, or does the bag's enchantment require several inches of lead lining, or what?
You see, the bag is filled with gold bullion prior to being enchanted by a cabal of Wizard pirates. It is the ultimate treasure chest!

Optimystik
2010-06-13, 01:53 PM
No, actually one guy from WotC who evidently wants to ignore the spell as written to make things easier for players advocates making Rope Trick not react badly to Bags, Holes, and the like. It's not like the company didn't have ample opportunity to rewrite the spell in the switch to 3.5 or in official errata.

That "one guy" is Skip Williams. You might recognize that name. (Hint: check your copy of the PHB.)


It is hazardous to live on a fault line. Yet peaple do. Should there be a stated worning for peaple entering California? When your born should the OBGYN hold up a sign?

It is hazardous to live on a fault line. Yet people do. Do they have to rebuild their houses every day? every month? Once a year? Once every two years?

Quietus
2010-06-13, 02:07 PM
It depends on whether you warn the players, or simply have stuff happen to them because they weren't "smart enough" to anticipate your houserules.

So then how would YOU define "hazardous"? Because making NOTHING happen is, explicitly, making the combination of extradimensional spaces NOT hazardous, which is in itself a houserule. So what's the fair mid-point there?

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-13, 02:32 PM
So then how would YOU define "hazardous"? Because making NOTHING happen is, explicitly, making the combination of extradimensional spaces NOT hazardous, which is in itself a houserule. So what's the fair mid-point there?

Obviously it gives them cancer.

dextercorvia
2010-06-13, 02:35 PM
Perhaps it removes an hour from their maximum life span? Or increases the odds of them coming in contact with a weird monster in the next few weeks... I know, maybe it curses them to be an adventurer for the rest of their life.

All of these sound pretty hazardous to me.

Starbuck_II
2010-06-13, 02:36 PM
Obviously it gives them cancer.

Does this qualify them for Cancer Mage?
Pinkie, are you realizing what I am?

AstralFire
2010-06-13, 02:42 PM
Does this qualify them for Cancer Mage?
Pinkie, are you realizing what I am?

I think so Brain, but what happens when you realize your Shadow Evocationed Contingency is an illusion?

Sliver
2010-06-13, 02:51 PM
It's just an incomplete joke.

"You know how bad it is to put them together?"
"How bad?"
"Just... Bad."

JonestheSpy
2010-06-13, 03:57 PM
That "one guy" is Skip Williams. You might recognize that name. (Hint: check your copy of the PHB.)


I'm quite aware it was Skip. It is still just one guy, not WotC, nor an official errata rules change.

Why is that so hard for people to get?

And for some reason, though it is in fact hazardous to live on a fault line, the game designers did not see fit to mention that in any of their writings about towns, castles, or any other construction, and yet DID point out that it is hzardous to mix extra-dimensional spaces. I wonder why that is?

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-13, 04:17 PM
And for some reason, though it is in fact hazardous to live on a fault line, the game designers did not see fit to mention that in any of their writings about towns, castles, or any other construction, and yet DID point out that it is hzardous to mix extra-dimensional spaces. I wonder why that is?

Because they didn't want to model plate tectonics in D&D?

Optimystik
2010-06-13, 05:29 PM
So then how would YOU define "hazardous"? Because making NOTHING happen is, explicitly, making the combination of extradimensional spaces NOT hazardous, which is in itself a houserule. So what's the fair mid-point there?

If you're asking for my houserule, I simply make the bags inert in a ropetrick. That could easily be hazardous if you need something that's in your extradimensional bags before you exit.

I also like "cursed to be an adventurer for the rest of your life," but I avoid effects that last beyond the spell's duration.


I'm quite aware it was Skip. It is still just one guy, not WotC, nor an official errata rules change.

Why is that so hard for people to get?

Why is it so hard for people to get that without an "official errata rules change," the interaction does nothing?

Koury
2010-06-13, 05:35 PM
Why is it so hard for people to get that without an "official errata rules change," the interaction does nothing?

But, but, but... How then am I supposed to kick around my PCs?

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-13, 05:44 PM
But, but, but... How then am I supposed to kick around my PCs?Use level 13 wizards like everyone else.

Koury
2010-06-13, 05:51 PM
Use level 13 wizards like everyone else.

Touché, sir.

Quietus
2010-06-13, 06:55 PM
If you're asking for my houserule, I simply make the bags inert in a ropetrick. That could easily be hazardous if you need something that's in your extradimensional bags before you exit.

I also like "cursed to be an adventurer for the rest of your life," but I avoid effects that last beyond the spell's duration.

Why is it so hard for people to get that without an "official errata rules change," the interaction does nothing?

Because it DOESN'T do nothing. By RAW, it is "hazardous". The only time it does nothing is when you're the type of person who insists that being at -10 HP does nothing because "dead" isn't defined. YOU are the one insisting that actually MAKING it "hazardous" in any form is a houserule.. when in point of fact, making it NOT do anything is the houserule here, by removing the chance of something hazardous happening.

I do think that the "bags of holding are inert in a rope trick" ruling is fair, however. Though, I'm also considering making it so opening an extradimensional space in the rope trick "pops" it, and everyone tumbles out. Potentially very hazardous, if one isn't careful!

All things being said, however, I think that the onus is on the Wizard/Sorcerer player who takes a spell that warns of vague hazards to ask the DM about it, as opposed to the DM to dutifully scour every spellcaster's spell list and go "Oh! You have Rope Trick! Now I have to decide how hazardous this is..". The onus is on the player, when rules are not 100% clear, to get them clarified.. not on the DM to be the guy with the stick up his arse.

Optimystik
2010-06-13, 07:21 PM
Because it DOESN'T do nothing. By RAW, it is "hazardous".

I've been over this already. "This is hazardous" does NOT mean "something will happen." It means "something MAY happen." There are numerous examples throughout the thread.


The only time it does nothing is when you're the type of person who insists that being at -10 HP does nothing because "dead" isn't defined.

Do I have to point out the fallacy here?


YOU are the one insisting that actually MAKING it "hazardous" in any form is a houserule.. when in point of fact, making it NOT do anything is the houserule here, by removing the chance of something hazardous happening.

If nothing happens in the spell description, and you cause nothing to happen, in what way is that a houserule?

This is a good reason to ignore the reference like the article suggested.


All things being said, however, I think that the onus is on the Wizard/Sorcerer player who takes a spell that warns of vague hazards to ask the DM about it, as opposed to the DM to dutifully scour every spellcaster's spell list and go "Oh! You have Rope Trick! Now I have to decide how hazardous this is..". The onus is on the player, when rules are not 100% clear, to get them clarified.. not on the DM to be the guy with the stick up his arse.

I'm not sure where you got "dutifully scouring" from. If they don't ask, you can tell them your houserule when they buy the scroll. Or tell them when they choose the spell on level-up. Or just tell them when they cast the spell. No "scouring" needed.

The point is, it's your rule, you have to tell them.

JonestheSpy
2010-06-13, 07:32 PM
Why is it so hard for people to get that without an "official errata rules change," the interaction does nothing?

Quite inaccurate. Your claim is that without explicitly spelled out rules that describe exactly what happens, the interaction does nothing.

Obviously, many folks disagree.

I wish I had my old 1st edition PH handy - I wonder if the warning of such hazards is a holdover from AD&D, when there was a lot more in the way of vague-but-important-seeming stuff.

Optimystik
2010-06-13, 07:36 PM
Quite inaccurate. Your claim is that without explicitly spelled out rules that describe exactly what happens, the interaction does nothing.

Obviously, many folks disagree.

And they're entitled, but that doesn't make them right.

The simple fact is this - no definition of hazardous that you or anyone else devises can be found in the rules of Rope Trick as written - therefore, it will be a houserule.

I don't like it any more than you do, but that's all there is to it, where RAW is concerned.

Quietus
2010-06-13, 07:41 PM
I've been over this already. "This is hazardous" does NOT mean "something will happen." It means "something MAY happen." There are numerous examples throughout the thread.

Yes, it means something MAY happen. Your houserule of "Ignore that, because it doesn't say what happens" is no more official than "Bags of holding are intert", "The rope trick pops", "nearby denizens of the astral plane raid your rope trick", or "your body is turned inside out in the most painful way possible". Some are better than others, but ALL are equally valid interpretations of these undefined "hazards".


If nothing happens in the spell description, and you cause nothing to happen, in what way is that a houserule?

So they went out of their way to describe what happens... when nothing happens? No, they went out of their way to describe what happens, because SOMETHING MAY HAPPEN. Making that something happen is not a houserule.




I'm not sure where you got "dutifully scouring" from. If they don't ask, you can tell them your houserule when they buy the scroll. Or tell them when they choose the spell on level-up. Or just tell them when they cast the spell. No "scouring" needed.

The point is, it's your rule, you have to tell them.

And when a character is created at higher levels? Or fails to tell you which spells they picked? I'm pretty lenient as a DM, and trust my players to follow the rules, asking only for an up-to-date copy of their sheet when they level up. They have their own methods of laying out their spells, so in order to know what spells they picked this level, I would have to look at an older copy and reverse-engineer their choices. Or, go out of my way to ask them, specifically so I can make sure to let them know what their spells do? If this is going to be on anyone, it needs to be on the person picking the spells, so that when they make a decision that specifically calls out hazardous consequences, I can work with them to define what, exactly, that means.

Optimystik
2010-06-13, 07:44 PM
Yes, it means something MAY happen. Your houserule of "Ignore that, because it doesn't say what happens" is no more official than "Bags of holding are intert", "The rope trick pops", "nearby denizens of the astral plane raid your rope trick", or "your body is turned inside out in the most painful way possible". Some are better than others, but ALL are equally valid interpretations of these undefined "hazards".

Obviously they are valid if the DM came up with them. It's his game. That doesn't make them RAW.


So they went out of their way to describe what happens... when nothing happens?

Please show me where they described what happens.


And when a character is created at higher levels? Or fails to tell you which spells they picked?

Generally the DM is aware of when a player casts a spell. Tell him your houserule then, as I already suggested.

JonestheSpy
2010-06-13, 07:58 PM
The simple fact is this - no definition of hazardous that you or anyone else devises can be found in the rules of Rope Trick as written - therefore, it will be a houserule.

I don't like it any more than you do, but that's all there is to it, where RAW is concerned.

Hmm, I suppose the best way to put it is at the spell RAW is requiring DM's to houserule. Ignoring 'hazardous' warning is as much a houserule as any other response.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-13, 08:04 PM
Maybe it should just be agreed that whatever WOTC staff member wrote that particular description went full retard and move on?

The "Note" is clearly not fluff comparing to all other fluff, but without defining a consequence its just plain stupid and any solution is pretty much the same in the face of such poor editorial control. Bag of holding nonsense is pretty poor methodology when it comes to countering abuse of the spell anyways.

Optimystik
2010-06-13, 08:05 PM
Hmm, I suppose the best way to put it is at the spell RAW is requiring DM's to houserule. Ignoring 'hazardous' warning is as much a houserule as any other response.

I have no problem with this. But like every other houserule, you should inform your players of this one.

Quietus
2010-06-13, 08:10 PM
Obviously they are valid if the DM came up with them. It's his game. That doesn't make them RAW.



Please show me where they described what happens.



Generally the DM is aware of when a player casts a spell. Tell him your houserule then, as I already suggested.

RAW says, specifically, not WHAT happens, but that something happens. Your continual insistent use of the term "houserule" as a near-derogatory term through pretty much the entirety of this thread since you joined it suggests two things; first, that those of us who actually do make Rope Trick + Bag of Holding hazardous are Doing It Wrong, and second, that your stance of nothing happening as the "correct" way to do things is clearly superior.

All I'm seeking, here, is a concession that in ignoring the hazardous warning, you are creating a houserule, just as much as you insist that anyone upholding that warning is doing. Yeah, the spell was poorly written. What say we get over it, and determine that RAW says absolutely nothing helpful on the issue, so no matter how we go about solving that dilemma, we're ALL just making crap up?

DragoonWraith
2010-06-13, 08:18 PM
I think you misunderstand Optimystik. Basically, I think, the way the argument is something like this: "You claim that Rope Trick is not broken, RAW, because of what happens with Bags of Holding. However, RAW, nothing definitive is spelled out, so whatever you're talking about happening is a houserule, which is basically meaningless for a RAW discussion."

Mostly, it comes up in conversations where people try to argue that 3.5 is actually balanced, and that everyone's just been reading things wrong. It basically means whoever is making that claim is trying to push his own personal houserule as RAW, which is just irritating. Here, obviously, the rules do say something, so it's a bit different from what I'm talking about, but I think it likely that this is what Optimystik is getting at.

Optimystik
2010-06-13, 08:26 PM
RAW says, specifically, not WHAT happens, but that something happens.

No, it really doesn't. Again, something being hazardous does not mean something happens.
You can cross a street with your eyes closed a dozen times, does that mean something will happen to you?


What say we get over it, and determine that RAW says absolutely nothing helpful on the issue, so no matter how we go about solving that dilemma, we're ALL just making crap up?

Uh, I've long since agreed RAW did not help the issue :smallconfused: I was arguing against DMs hiding their houserules from their players, remember?

PId6
2010-06-13, 08:26 PM
RAW says, specifically, not WHAT happens, but that something happens.
Yes, something happens. RAW defines that the act of being hazardous happens. When you put an extradimensional space into another extradimensional space, it becomes hazardous. That's what RAW says. The air begins tingling with hazardousness. There you go. Anything beyond that is a houserule.

And houseruling what happens is perfectly fine, as long as players are aware that there is a houserule there. As far as I'm concerned, a DM saying "Gotcha!" when a player unwittingly brings a bag of holding into his Rope Trick without giving a warning really is doing it wrong.

Zeful
2010-06-13, 08:39 PM
The way this thread has gone is yet another reason to ignore someone who tries to use RAW as an argument outside of Theoretical Optimization discussions. It just wastes time.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-13, 08:43 PM
The way this thread has gone is yet another reason to ignore someone who tries to force his house rules on everyone else. It just wastes time.

Quietus
2010-06-13, 08:49 PM
The way this thread has gone is several people smashing headfirst into each other shouting "NO YOU!". And I'm kinda tired of it, so I'ma be leaving it here, with an "agree to disagree" with regard to several things Optimystik and I have bashed heads about.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-13, 08:53 PM
But Optimystik is actually right here - the spell description is vague as hell, so anything you decide to do in the event of an extradimensional space being brought into a Rope Trick is a house rule. And you should tell your players about your house rules ahead of time, rather than going "Gotcha!" when they absent-mindedly open up their bag of holding because none of their previous DMs were malicious enough to kill them for bringing the most common item in the entire game into their Rope Trick.

Fun fact: Bags of Holding aren't even extradimensional. They're nondimensional. So making Bags of Holding to anything inside a Rope Trick is a house rule...

Lamech
2010-06-13, 09:01 PM
Yes, something happens. RAW defines that the act of being hazardous happens. When you put an extradimensional space into another extradimensional space, it becomes hazardous. That's what RAW says. The air begins tingling with hazardousness. There you go. Anything beyond that is a houserule.
Wait because its not exactly defined what it does... having it do anything is a "houserule"? So its not exactly defined what happens so nothing happens? Lets look at reincarnate: on the chart there is a "other" slot its not exactly defined what the character becomes, so clearly a result of 100 means the character is nothing. Or as you might say he is "other"? I'm sorry but if they bring an extradimensional space in (or use another rope trick) bad stuff can happen. Rope trick and reincarnate require making stuff up, its in the spell description.

Also lets look at rope trick. Its not a perfectly safe place to be, there is nothing that prevents anyone else from getting in just as easily as you, except for the lack of convient rope. If sound can get through and the bad guys find it? No way your getting quite, no spell prep. If you can't hear, magical darkness+deadly trap=dead party. The window can be found with scent, blindsense, and blindsight for sure, so anyone with the money to purchase a riding dog will find it.

Also by RAW theres no air in the space so if the rope is the only way to get in anyone using rope trick better not need air.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-13, 09:04 PM
Defining what it does is a house rule, because, while it's hazardous, what exactly is hazardous about it is undefined.

Deciding it does nothing and isn't hazardous at all is a house rule, because the spell quite plainly states that it is hazardous, somehow.

There is nothing wrong with house rules. You do not need to play exactly by the RAW to have a good time. Just don't try arguing that your house rules are RAW. And, for the love of various gods, tell your damn players about your house rules.

Koury
2010-06-13, 09:09 PM
And of course, this really only matters for a tiny level range anyway. You need to be level 5 before you can Extend the Rope Trick to last long enough for you to regain your spells.

If you don't have Extend, you need level 9. And of course, what do you get at level 9 that allows a safe place to rest?

Teleport.

*shrug*

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 04:39 AM
What's so bad about these 'Gotcha' moments? While I agree it's not a good idea being the type of DM that just waits for players to make a mistake so he can punish them, I'm all for 'finding things out the hard way'.

Players memorizing and casting Rope Trick - you were warned. It spells it out in the...well, the spell. Hazardousness ensues. It's not my fault you chose to ignore the warning. It's not my fault you didn't ask me about it. It's not my fault you took the hole inside/opened the bag inside of it.

I don't care how smart a player/character is, sometimes there is just too much going on for them to think of everything. And, often times, that's exactly when a small mistake comes back to bite you in the arse.

A good DM allows his characters to make mistakes. He doesn't always ask "Are you sure?" or "Make an Int check." because, how can he create memorable circumstances if he just gives them the solution to their problems before hand?

I'm not advocating a TPK here, but something unpleasant without an immediately recognizable cause should happen. And you should be consistent. It never happened before because they never had any extradimensional spaces before. This time they did.

I've always told my players that good stories contain more unfortunate events that fortunate ones. This, to me, is just another bad thing that they can learn from and triumph over. How long will the memory of the Int check that told them that bad things happen in Rope Trick with Bags of Holding last vs. the explosion of extradimensional energy that dumped them in the floor of the room, mild injured and highly disoriented for no immediately apparent reason?

Killer Angel
2010-06-14, 05:05 AM
But Optimystik is actually right here - the spell description is vague as hell, so anything you decide to do in the event of an extradimensional space being brought into a Rope Trick is a house rule.


The description is vague, but there is. Defining what is "hazardous" is absolutely a House Rule, but given that, by RAW, we have an indication that it can be hazardous, we have more basis for house ruling something inconvenient, rathen than apply the "nothing never happens" for convenience.



And you should tell your players about your house rules ahead of time, rather than going "Gotcha!" when they absent-mindedly open up their bag of holding because none of their previous DMs were malicious enough to kill them for bringing the most common item in the entire game into their Rope Trick.


Agreed.
Of course, a DM must tell the players his house rules, but not everything can be covered before the beginning of the game... something will be cleared while playing.
But certainly, you cannot use a house rule to make abuse on your player.
The DM cannot wait for the group to enter in the rope trick, to tell they're screwed, but if the wizard cast Rope Trick, the DM can say: "before entering, wait a moment: your wizard knows that..."

Segial
2010-06-14, 05:35 AM
Does the "hazardous" part only apply to actually opening an extradimensional container inside a rope trick, or does even bringing one into the area, like carrying a bad of holding inside, constitutes as a hazardous action?

Killer Angel
2010-06-14, 05:59 AM
Does the "hazardous" part only apply to actually opening an extradimensional container inside a rope trick, or does even bringing one into the area, like carrying a bad of holding inside, constitutes as a hazardous action?

Carrying in qualifies.



It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one

But you can always argue that the bag of holding opens into a nondimensional space, so it's not "extradimensional".

Sliver
2010-06-14, 06:00 AM
Bringing it.


Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.

Although IIRC bag of holding isn't extradimensional...

Ninja'd!

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-14, 06:31 AM
What's so bad about these 'Gotcha' moments? While I agree it's not a good idea being the type of DM that just waits for players to make a mistake so he can punish them, I'm all for 'finding things out the hard way'.

Anyone who knows the spell well enough and is trained in Spellcraft, Knowledge: Arcana or both will know the hazards of taking an extradimensional space into a Rope Trick. Letting the Wizard do it and then shouting "Gotcha!" is a breach of verisimilitude - the Wizard character would not have done that.

Riffington
2010-06-14, 07:02 AM
Anyone who knows the spell well enough and is trained in Spellcraft, Knowledge: Arcana or both will know the hazards of taking an extradimensional space into a Rope Trick. Letting the Wizard do it and then shouting "Gotcha!" is a breach of verisimilitude - the Wizard character would not have done that.

Agreed, except that the relevant knowledge is Knowledge: Planes (not the others), since it's an effect of the dimensional interactions rather than the spell. Whether the required number of skill ranks should be 1 or 15 depends how common such spaces are in your campaign.
But again, this has nothing to do with houserules. If your character has a knowledge that the player doesn't, the DM should tell you. That includes grappling a creature you should know is stronger than you, casting a spell when you should know it's dangerous, or using a fire effect on a creature you should know is strengthened by fire.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-14, 07:30 AM
Why wouldn't the effects of extradimensional magic be under Knowledge: Arcana?

Riffington
2010-06-14, 07:31 AM
Why wouldn't the effects of extradimensional magic be under Knowledge: Arcana?

Would the effects of a fireball on an Demon be Knowledge: Arcana or Knowledge: Religion?

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-14, 07:40 AM
Would the effects of a fireball on an Demon be Knowledge: Arcana or Knowledge: Religion?

False dilemma. There is no reason it has to be one or the other.

Killer Angel
2010-06-14, 07:43 AM
Imho a wizard knows what's the backlash of an arcane spell, he needs only a Knowledge: arcana (or Spellcraft) check. He don't need to know why it happens, but he knows what's going to happen.
If it's something that involves planes, alternatively, you can use a Knowledge: Planes, for that specific danger. And you'll know why.

You simply use different roads to reach the same destination.

Riffington
2010-06-14, 07:44 AM
False dilemma. There is no reason it has to be one or the other.

I just want to clarify: you are saying that the fact you are using a spell on a demon should allow you to know that demon's resistances/abilities based on your Knowledge: Arcana?

Optimystik
2010-06-14, 07:47 AM
Agreed.
Of course, a DM must tell the players his house rules, but not everything can be covered before the beginning of the game... something will be cleared while playing.
But certainly, you cannot use a house rule to make abuse on your player.
The DM cannot wait for the group to enter in the rope trick, to tell they're screwed, but if the wizard cast Rope Trick, the DM can say: "before entering, wait a moment: your wizard knows that..."

Exactly; thank you.


Agreed, except that the relevant knowledge is Knowledge: Planes (not the others), since it's an effect of the dimensional interactions rather than the spell.

If you're getting that technical, then there are no "dimensional interactions" given that bags of holding aren't actually extradimensional.

Riffington
2010-06-14, 07:49 AM
If you're getting that technical, then there are no "dimensional interactions" given that bags of holding aren't actually extradimensional.

Very possible, and if you have enough ranks in Knowledge: Planes, you'll know for sure.

Killer Angel
2010-06-14, 07:52 AM
False dilemma. There is no reason it has to be one or the other.

To be fair, in this specific case, Spellcraft is needed to know the effect of the spell.
To know the Demon's reaction to that spell, you need Knowledge: planes.
Knowledge: arcana, is related to magical beasts, etc, not outsiders... eventually I think you can apply it also to outsiders, but you'll have certainly a malus on the DC.


Exactly; thank you.


You're welcome. :smallwink:

sdream
2010-06-14, 08:19 AM
Also lets look at rope trick. Its not a perfectly safe place to be, there is nothing that prevents anyone else from getting in just as easily as you, except for the lack of convient rope. If sound can get through and the bad guys find it? No way your getting quite, no spell prep. If you can't hear, magical darkness+deadly trap=dead party. The window can be found with scent, blindsense, and blindsight for sure, so anyone with the money to purchase a riding dog will find it.

Also by RAW theres no air in the space so if the rope is the only way to get in anyone using rope trick better not need air.

Just to bring a little more "live-play" experience into this, I discussed it with my group last night and we decided that sound is stopped at the barrier (more restful), air goes through (no worries about staleness), and the window is freely permeable (large animal companions without thumbs can jump through low windows).

Having decided how the spells description translates into our game world, our party used it happily to reduce the risk of being ambushed, posting a watch in shifts just to make sure nothing wandered in in the night (sound being blocked, only voidsense or see invisible would reveal the window, but scent might make creatures poke around looking for secret doors).

Optimystik
2010-06-14, 09:37 AM
air goes through (no worries about staleness),

That interpretation could present problems if they, say, drop a cloudkill on the square containing the interface.

It's a pocket dimension, I don't think you need to worry about things like staleness. Have it generate enough air to last for at least the spell's duration.

Sliver
2010-06-14, 09:49 AM
Also lets look at rope trick. Its not a perfectly safe place to be, there is nothing that prevents anyone else from getting in just as easily as you, except for the lack of convient rope. If sound can get through and the bad guys find it? No way your getting quite, no spell prep. If you can't hear, magical darkness+deadly trap=dead party. The window can be found with scent, blindsense, and blindsight for sure, so anyone with the money to purchase a riding dog will find it.

If it's not safe to be inside a rope trick due to the risk of ambush, then there is no way it is safe outside of a rope trick. Rope Trick reduced the chance of being spotted and increases the effort needed to find and attack the resting party. There are ways around a second level spell, which is not a surprise.

Rope Trick is powerful because of the amount of random encounters it can reduce. If there is a way to ambush a party in one, then wouldn't they be in even more danger without it? Or is it a case of "They wouldn't be ambushed if they didn't use it" where you punish them for being cautious? The party can put up a watch from inside a Rope Trick as well, ya know?

The no-air reading is just ridiculous.

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 10:11 AM
Anyone who knows the spell well enough and is trained in Spellcraft, Knowledge: Arcana or both will know the hazards of taking an extradimensional space into a Rope Trick. Letting the Wizard do it and then shouting "Gotcha!" is a breach of verisimilitude - the Wizard character would not have done that.

Really? Just like you'd think that every single player who has their character memorize the spell would have read all 15 sentences of the spell's description. You are assuming something that is not necessarily true, and your assumption is generalizing ALL characters with a Knowledge of a certain rank. Just because I know that fire is hot, doesn't mean I don't burn myself on occasion. Knowing that fire is hot is so simple that I don't even have to roll to know it. And yet I still burn myself at times. It teaches me to slow down. The same can be said for the wizard who casts Rope Trick. The spell says its hazardous. There is no excuse for you as a PLAYER not asking questions about that. I don't coddle my players.

Let me put it this way: Are you saying that, in real life, people all over the world DON'T things they shouldn't every day, things that we as outside observers think should be self-evident in their stupidity?

Killer Angel
2010-06-14, 11:15 AM
Just because I know that fire is hot, doesn't mean I don't burn myself on occasion. Knowing that fire is hot is so simple that I don't even have to roll to know it. And yet I still burn myself at times.

Your example is more fitting with the wizard knowing the AoE of the fireball, and still hurting some ally, or even himself.
But this is different: you don't drive your car in the nighttime wearing dark sunglasses without car ligths; the wizard don't enter in the rope trick carrying a extradimensional space.
IF the rogue has a bag of holding (or something else) that the wizard don't know, it's another matter.


Let me put it this way: Are you saying that, in real life, people all over the world DON'T things they shouldn't every day, things that we as outside observers think should be self-evident in their stupidity?

In your games, sometime the fighter falls ruinously from his charging horse, because he didn't tell you that in the morning, he checked his saddle?
Because it's a thing that, in real life, all the horsemen must do, and it's stupid don't do it.


The spell says its hazardous. There is no excuse for you as a PLAYER not asking questions about that.

If NO ONE in your games, ever used that note, it's sufficient.
Or the player knows it, but thinks to be safe: after all, a bag of holdin is not an extradimensional space.

The player can have lot of reasons for not knowing the whole description: he saw that spell played in a certain way for long time, he don't bother to read the description for his first arcane caster; he take the spell.
But the character, knows it. It's his job.

2xMachina
2010-06-14, 11:34 AM
Really? Just like you'd think that every single player who has their character memorize the spell would have read all 15 sentences of the spell's description. You are assuming something that is not necessarily true, and your assumption is generalizing ALL characters with a Knowledge of a certain rank. Just because I know that fire is hot, doesn't mean I don't burn myself on occasion. Knowing that fire is hot is so simple that I don't even have to roll to know it. And yet I still burn myself at times. It teaches me to slow down. The same can be said for the wizard who casts Rope Trick. The spell says its hazardous. There is no excuse for you as a PLAYER not asking questions about that. I don't coddle my players.

Let me put it this way: Are you saying that, in real life, people all over the world DON'T things they shouldn't every day, things that we as outside observers think should be self-evident in their stupidity?

Does knowing fire is hot stop you from sticking a finger in it? Accidental burning happens, but deliberately burning yourself generally has a: Are you sure?

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-14, 12:16 PM
Really? Just like you'd think that every single player who has their character memorize the spell would have read all 15 sentences of the spell's description. You are assuming something that is not necessarily true, and your assumption is generalizing ALL characters with a Knowledge of a certain rank. Just because I know that fire is hot, doesn't mean I don't burn myself on occasion. Knowing that fire is hot is so simple that I don't even have to roll to know it. And yet I still burn myself at times. It teaches me to slow down. The same can be said for the wizard who casts Rope Trick. The spell says its hazardous. There is no excuse for you as a PLAYER not asking questions about that. I don't coddle my players.

Let me put it this way: Are you saying that, in real life, people all over the world DON'T things they shouldn't every day, things that we as outside observers think should be self-evident in their stupidity?

Wizards are smart.

Much, much smarter than the average person - and much, much smarter than you and anyone who might decide to play a Wizard.

Optimystik
2010-06-14, 12:20 PM
There is no excuse for you as a PLAYER not asking questions about that. I don't coddle my players.

I'm very glad I don't play at a table where knowing the DM's houserules is considered "being coddled."


Let me put it this way: Are you saying that, in real life, people all over the world DON'T things they shouldn't every day, things that we as outside observers think should be self-evident in their stupidity?

How can a mistake be called "stupid" when the arbiter of the universe is denying information to the actors?

If you tell him your houserules and he does it anyway, then yes, that would be dumb. If you gleefully keep them to yourself so you can spring them on him, then no, they're not "self-evident" at all.

Mauther
2010-06-14, 12:21 PM
Anyone who knows the spell well enough and is trained in Spellcraft, Knowledge: Arcana or both will know the hazards of taking an extradimensional space into a Rope Trick. Letting the Wizard do it and then shouting "Gotcha!" is a breach of verisimilitude - the Wizard character would not have done that.

People do thinks they ought not to do all the time. Its the very definition of user error. Pilot error. People drive the wrong way down a one way street. They mistakenly leave a metal spoon in their soup while microwaving. They leave the car running inside a closed garage. Open your local newspaper and you'll find a catlog of people who know well enough and are trained but still have a brain fart and cause something bad to happen. That a wizard might purely out of habit reach into his handy ED carry-all of choice without considering where exactly he's standing is not a tremendous stretch.

Starbuck_II
2010-06-14, 12:25 PM
People do thinks they ought not to do all the time. Its the very definition of user error. Pilot error. People drive the wrong way down a one way street. They mistakenly leave a metal spoon in their soup while microwaving. They leave the car running inside a closed garage. Open your local newspaper and you'll find a catlog of people who know well enough and are trained but still have a brain fart and cause something bad to happen. That a wizard might purely out of habit reach into his handy ED carry-all of choice without considering where exactly he's standing is not a tremendous stretch.

Those should be rare.
Or no one would ever take a plane or a taxi.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 12:51 PM
People do thinks they ought not to do all the time. Its the very definition of user error. Pilot error. People drive the wrong way down a one way street. They mistakenly leave a metal spoon in their soup while microwaving. They leave the car running inside a closed garage. Open your local newspaper and you'll find a catlog of people who know well enough and are trained but still have a brain fart and cause something bad to happen.
Yeah, but when people make those mistakes, they know why the mistake is hazardous. People don’t avoid putting metal in the microwave because they’ve been told “It can be hazardous.” They avoid it because they’ve been told “Metal makes microwaves explode!”

Those examples, by the way, don’t always result in consequences, either. Once again, stressing the difference between “might happen” and “will happen.”

Anyway, I believe it’s been touched on that there are differing degrees of “hazard,” too. Is this hazardous in the vein of driving the wrong way down the freeway with your eyes closed (almost certainly fatal in the short term), in the vein of smoking (likely fatal in the long term), in the vein of driving without a seat belt (possibly fatal or crippling if you happen to get in an accident), or in the vein of mixing darks and whites in the laundry (nothing more than embarassment and having to buy new clothes)?

So which is the type of hazard associated with extradimensional spaces? Of the four I listed, only one is absolutely stupid to do when you have foreknowledge of the possible consequences. If it’s something fatal only in the long term or possibly fatal if the circumstances change, then you might be willing to risk mixing spaces if you really need to do so. I it’s only embarassment and/or financial cost, well then you can decide whether it is an appropriate price for your needs. But a wizard will have some idea of what level of “hazardous” this is, at the very least, and so the DM should tell the player.

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 01:15 PM
Wizards are smart.

Much, much smarter than the average person - and much, much smarter than you and anyone who might decide to play a Wizard.

First of all, don't generalize me. You don't know me. You don't know how smart I am. I might be much smarter than the average person.

Second, this is a horrible argument. You have no real way to quantify how smart a wizard is in comparison to the person playing him. Go ahead and search through this forum. Look at the number of threads that try to correlate Int score and IQ. There has never been a definitive answer.

Third, since when are smart people perfect?

And, if wizards are so stinkin' smart, then they would know why bringing one extradimensional space into another is hazardous, as they would probably know about the interactions of portable holes and bags of holding. A smart person would look at that and say, "Hmmm...that's a pretty similar situation, and while this spell doesn't exactly tell me WHY it's hazardous, it might be smart to assume it acts similarly to this other situation."

As for giving people an "Are you sure?" or just flat out telling them, real life doesn't work like that. God doesn't always ask me if I'm sure about my actions, he just lets me do it and learn from the mistake. If you, as a player, read the hazardous line in the spell and fail to do some research or ask questions or whatever, that's your fault. It isn't my job as a DM to hand everything to you on a silver platter. You think the NPC who discovered the hazardous nature of the spell had the DM just TELL them what the problem was? No, they figured it out the hard way. Same for my players. And they enjoy my DMing style, because I challenge them.

People don't always know exactly how dangerous something is when they create it. Just look at the snafu with drop-side cribs right now. They are thinking about making them illegal because kids are dying in them.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-14, 01:16 PM
You do not have an Intelligence score higher than 18. Intelligence 18 is defined as the absolute human maximum. Therefore, Intelligence 19 is literally unattainable to anyone playing a Wizard.

Wizards tend to have Intelligence 19 by level 4.

Zeful
2010-06-14, 01:17 PM
I'm very glad I don't play at a table where knowing the DM's houserules is considered "being coddled."

It's a conundrum for DMs with a large number of house rules. Do they throw down a pamphlet of rules and expect the players to know them before the game starts (this is roughly what you're advocating) or does the DM bring them up as they come up?

There really is no correct answer when it comes to these things. Certain gameplay changing issues (race and class changes, skill and feat changes) would come up immediately, while others (prestige classes, magic items) won't be relevant for a while, so why worry?

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 01:21 PM
You do not have an Intelligence score higher than 18. Intelligence 18 is defined as the absolute human maximum. Therefore, Intelligence 19 is literally unattainable to anyone playing a Wizard.

Wizards tend to have Intelligence 19 by level 4.

Really? Then WotC are kinda breaking their own rules there, don't you think, seeing as a 4th level human can achieve an Int of 19 nonmagically just by sinking their 4th level attribute point into it, considering a starting Int of 18.

Not to mention the fact that any other character in the game can do the same thing if the player chooses to do so. So, yeah, bad argument there.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-14, 01:22 PM
So how many level 4 people do you know?

2xMachina
2010-06-14, 01:22 PM
It's a conundrum for DMs with a large number of house rules. Do they throw down a pamphlet of rules and expect the players to know them before the game starts (this is roughly what you're advocating) or does the DM bring them up as they come up?

There really is no correct answer when it comes to these things. Certain gameplay changing issues (race and class changes, skill and feat changes) would come up immediately, while others (prestige classes, magic items) won't be relevant for a while, so why worry?



Why not both? Let them see it when they join (so they don't build something and find out it doesn't work), and remind them when it comes up: "I've a houserule on this. Might want to check on it before you go on."

Amphetryon
2010-06-14, 01:24 PM
You do not have an Intelligence score higher than 18. Intelligence 18 is defined as the absolute human maximum. Therefore, Intelligence 19 is literally unattainable to anyone playing a Wizard.

Wizards tend to have Intelligence 19 by level 4.
I'll be quite amazed if this is actually statistically true, given default creation rules (4d6x6) or DMG-advocated Point Buy (25 points); it's demonstrably hard to achieve if you use the default array. Even with 28 Point Buy, starting with an 18 INT is not the observed tendency in games I've seen.

Could you cite the source where you got your information on tendencies?

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 01:25 PM
So how many level 4 people do you know?

Quite a few actually. I just put enough points in my sense motive score the other day to determine people's ECL in relation to my own, and since I have my character sheet sitting right here in front of me, I know that I'm level...

COME ON. Really?


I'll be quite amazed if this is actually statistically true, given default creation rules (4d6x6) or DMG-advocated Point Buy (25 points); it's demonstrably hard to achieve if you use the default array. Even with 28 Point Buy, starting with an 18 INT is not the observed tendency in games I've seen.

Could you cite the source where you got your information on tendencies?

The general consensus on these forums is that wizards only need on attribute to be LEET, so they just dump everything else.

2xMachina
2010-06-14, 01:27 PM
I'd drop other stats to get an 18 usually.

That leaves you with 9 or 12 points, which can be used to increase Con and Dex/Wis. Dump the rest.

28 pb: 18,14,10,10,10,8 is rather ok actually.

Killer Angel
2010-06-14, 01:29 PM
I'lEven with 28 Point Buy, starting with an 18 INT is not the observed tendency in games I've seen.


The tendency I've seen (with 28 pts buy) is start with 16 and buy a headband... :smallamused:


The general consensus on these forums is that wizards only need on attribute to be LEET, so they just dump everything else.

Instead of irony, I would like to read your consideration regarding this:


(levels of "hazard")

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 01:32 PM
The tendency I've seen (with 28 pts buy) is start with 16 and buy a headband... :smallamused:



Instead of irony, I would like to read your consideration regarding this:


Alright, which part specifically?

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-14, 01:32 PM
I'd drop other stats to get an 18 usually.

That leaves you with 9 or 12 points, which can be used to increase Con and Dex/Wis. Dump the rest.

28 pb: 18,14,10,10,10,8 is rather ok actually.

Seriously. 18 in Int, 14 in Con or Dex (depending on the type of Wizard), 8 in Str and put the 10s in the rest.

A Wizard does not need anything other than Intelligence and maybe Con or Dex.

Riffington
2010-06-14, 01:38 PM
You do not have an Intelligence score higher than 18. Intelligence 18 is defined as the absolute human maximum. Therefore, Intelligence 19 is literally unattainable to anyone playing a Wizard.

Wizards tend to have Intelligence 19 by level 4.

This has to do with Wisdom, not Intelligence. It's the cleric who tells the party not to open the bag, when we're giving out helpful advice to the players.

2xMachina
2010-06-14, 01:41 PM
I'm not sure the Cleric even knows the details about the Rope Trick spell. If anyone, it's the Wizard. (My spellbook tells me it is hazardous. Does my Int/memory remind me of that?)

Wisdom is more to: Ok, it's hazardous. Shall I do it anyway? Low Wis = HELL YES, LETS WATCH THE FIREWORKS!

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 01:43 PM
Okay, here's my problem. It is being assumed that, if a spell says it is hazardous, a wizard will know why. Now, while it doesn't provide a direct link the the bag of holding/portable hole consequences in the spell description, I think we can all agree that a wizard would most likely know about that.

There are reasons why something could be considered hazardous, but people not know what would happen should those hazardous conditions be tested. The hazardous tag could just be a theory connected to the Bag of Holding/Portable Hole problem. Or it could be the result of an experiment gone awry where the wizard couldn't exactly determine the cause of the problem. Who freakin knows.

The point is, the spell says its hazardous, and it would be stupid to ignore a warning just because it doesn't spell out the consequences.

Hawriel
2010-06-14, 01:43 PM
Oh my god There are reasons why the rules in D&D, and any RPG style game, have vague statments such as "it may be hazardous" is so the writers do not have to define every little damn thing in the game. This is because the GMs are supposed to reason out possible consequences for player (and NPC) actions, changes in the enviornment, enviornmental interactions with magic, reactions between different magics, or what ever els.

These are all for the most part on the spot decisions based on the circumstances at the time.

For example where does the air inside the rope trick come from? Depending on the number of beings in the rope trick how long with the air last? Seeing as the rope trick spell does not clearly state where the air in the rope trick comes from. This leaves any number of possabilities open.

1)The air in the rope trick could be created by the spell its self.

2)The window/door into the rope trick could be permable for the free exchange of air.

If so is it all gassess or just breathable air? Sence air is actualy a mixture of gassess in wich humans, elves, dwarves, ect, need only one of to live (oxygen) does it only let oxygen in? That could be very dangerios. Not just as a fire hazard :smallamused:, it also leaves the occupants exposed to the effects of being in a highly oxygenated enviornment for a long period of time. This also begs the question, what happens to the carbondioxide espelled from the occupants?

3)Like a bag of holding or portable hole does the rope trick only hold the amount of air its volume would allow? In other words do you have to leave the window open, or open it periodicly to allow fresh air to enter?

If the wizard casting this spell created it on his own, he would know the answer to these questions. If the wizard baught a scroll learned and copied it into his spell book, he would know the answer. however if the wizard had baught a magic item he would only know after experinced using it.

If a player sees finds any thing unclear about his spells that it's that players responsability to ask the GM about it when they obtane the use of that spell.

Other wise the GM is only obligated to use the long standing compormise for unthought of concequence. That is the question of "Are you sure?" and or asking the player to roll an INT/WIS check.

The hazardous clause refers to extrademential spacess. There is presidence for this in the game. So any ruling is not a house rule it is fallowing established presidence.

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 01:48 PM
Oh my god There are reasons why the rules in D&D, and any RPG style game, have vague statments such as "it may be hazardous" is so the writers do not have to define every little damn thing in the game. This is because the GMs are supposed to reason out possible consequences for player (and NPC) actions, changes in the enviornment, enviornmental interactions with magic, reactions between different magics, or what ever els.

These are all for the most part on the spot decisions based on the circumstances at the time.

For example where does the air inside the rope trick come from? Depending on the number of beings in the rope trick how long with the air last? Seeing as the rope trick spell does not clearly state where the air in the rope trick comes from. This leaves any number of possabilities open.

1)The air in the rope trick could be created by the spell its self.

2)The window/door into the rope trick could be permable for the free exchange of air.

If so is it all gassess or just breathable air? Sence air is actualy a mixture of gassess in wich humans, elves, dwarves, ect, need only one of to live (oxygen) does it only let oxygen in? That could be very dangerios. Not just as a fire hazard :smallamused:, it also leaves the occupants exposed to the effects of being in a highly oxygenated enviornment for a long period of time. This also begs the question, what happens to the carbondioxide espelled from the occupants?

3)Like a bag of holding or portable hole does the rope trick only hold the amount of air its volume would allow? In other words do you have to leave the window open, or open it periodicly to allow fresh air to enter?

If the wizard casting this spell created it on his own, he would know the answer to these questions. If the wizard baught a scroll learned and copied it into his spell book, he would know the answer. however if the wizard had baught a magic item he would only know after experinced using it.

If a player sees finds any thing unclear about his spells that it's that players responsability to ask the GM about it when they obtane the use of that spell.

Other wise the GM is only obligated to use the long standing compormise for unthought of concequence. That is the question of "Are you sure?" and or asking the player to roll an INT/WIS check.

The hazardous clause refers to extrademential spacess. There is presidence for this in the game. So any ruling is not a house rule it is fallowing established presidence.

This. And the angry dwarf avatar TOTALLY fits the rant to a tee.

However, I'm going to disagree with one part. I agree, to a point, that the wizard who created the spell should know just about everything there is to know about it. TO A POINT. However, Joe McWizardingtonovch who just bought the scroll off a vendor doesn't really get that same consideration. Casting the spell and creating the spell are two COMPLETELY different ball games.

I can drive my car. I might even be able to take it apart and rebuild it. MAYBE. But I could never build a car from the ground up.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 01:50 PM
People don't always know exactly how dangerous something is when they create it.
But if there’s a note about something being dangerous in its description, whoever put that note there must have some idea that it is dangerous and some idea why it is dangerous.

If there is no note, then no one can be expected to ask any questions. So the player can’t be berated for not asking.


Just look at the snafu with drop-side cribs right now. They are thinking about making them illegal because kids are dying in them.
Yes, however, their hazards are now noted, but only because we know what happens with them.

If they are made illegal, it’s not because of some vague warning someone put out that they “may be hazardous,” but because people have recorded a host of specific factors that can create a place for babies to get trapped and suffocate (http://babyproducts.about.com/od/sleepbedding/a/drop_side_cribs_safety.htm). It would be rather silly to expect a lawmaker to ban such a product just because someone said they’re dangerous. You have to tell the lawmaker why they are dangerous and convince him or her that the danger is significant enough to require action.


There are reasons why something could be considered hazardous, but people not know what would happen should those hazardous conditions be tested. The hazardous tag could just be a theory connected to the Bag of Holding/Portable Hole problem. Or it could be the result of an experiment gone awry where the wizard couldn't exactly determine the cause of the problem. Who freakin knows.
So the note relies on absolutely now empirical data and only faulty logic and superstition?


The point is, the spell says its hazardous, and it would be stupid to ignore a warning just because it doesn't spell out the consequences.
It is hazardous for you to go outside today.

Okay, I’ve warned you. You better stay inside.

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 01:57 PM
But if there’s a note about something being dangerous in its description, whoever put that note there must have some idea that it is dangerous and some idea why it is dangerous.

If there is no note, then no one can be expected to ask any questions. So the player can’t be berated for not asking.


If they are made illegal, it’s not because of some vague warning someone put out that they “may be hazardous,” but because people have recorded a host of specific factors that can create a place for babies to get trapped and suffocate (http://babyproducts.about.com/od/sleepbedding/a/drop_side_cribs_safety.htm). It would be rather silly to expect a lawmaker to ban such a product just because someone said they’re dangerous. You have to tell the lawmaker why they are dangerous and convince him or her that the danger is significant enough to require action.

Sure. I get that. And you are right. My point was that people don't always know how dangerous something is when they create it.

Back to the spell, who knows why there isn't an explanation? And I don't mean from a RAW standpoint. Maybe the guy who made it had a theory, but never wanted to test it. Maybe someone saw their friend take a portable hole into a Rope Trick and then never come out. He doesn't really know what happened to him, can't really explain it, but he thinks something DID happen.

Let me ask this. You are walking up to someone's house. You see a sign that says "Beware of dog." Doesn't say why. Doesn't give an explanation, just warns you that something about this dog is hazardous. Do you ignore it because it doesn't tell you what will happen? Or do you look around for this dog, sneak up to the door carefully, try to not provoke it? You can infere that the dog is dangerous from the sign, but maybe the dog just likes to hump the crap out of stranger's legs, leaving a nasty wet stain on their trousers. Not really dangerous, but I appreciated the heads up.


It is hazardous for you to go outside today.

Okay, I’ve warned you. You better stay inside.

Strawmanish, but I'll bite.

Maybe you know something more than I do. Maybe its been hailing all day, and I don't know that. Tornados or something. Either way, thanks for the warning, now I'll go try and find out why you would tell me that.

"Hey, why is it so hazardous out there today?"

"Flash flood warning."

"Oh, thanks."

Unfortunately, we can't ask the man who invented the spell why he said that, now can we? It sucks that he didn't think to include all the necessary information...


So the note relies on absolutely now empirical data and only faulty logic and superstition?

Faulty logic? Superstition? I'd say its pretty smart to expect two similar things to react similarly.

Tyger
2010-06-14, 02:09 PM
Except in this case, the "wizard who wrote the spell" aka Skip Williams, has said 'don't worry about it, just ignore it, nothing to see here.'

Hawriel
2010-06-14, 02:10 PM
This. And the angry dwarf avatar TOTALLY fits the rant to a tee.

However, I'm going to disagree with one part. I agree, to a point, that the wizard who created the spell should know just about everything there is to know about it. TO A POINT. However, Joe McWizardingtonovch who just bought the scroll off a vendor doesn't really get that same consideration. Casting the spell and creating the spell are two COMPLETELY different ball games.

I can drive my car. I might even be able to take it apart and rebuild it. MAYBE. But I could never build a car from the ground up.

He just needs a beer in hand.

Honestly the rant kinda ended with the first paragraph. Mostly by going to my over thinking analyst mode. Which is funny enough partly the reason I forgot to mentioned your caviot. I kinda assumed that if a character buys a scroll they study it for afew days. Just the way I think. Ah assumptions :smallredface:

Lamech
2010-06-14, 02:14 PM
If it's not safe to be inside a rope trick due to the risk of ambush, then there is no way it is safe outside of a rope trick. Rope Trick reduced the chance of being spotted and increases the effort needed to find and attack the resting party. There are ways around a second level spell, which is not a surprise.

Rope Trick is powerful because of the amount of random encounters it can reduce. If there is a way to ambush a party in one, then wouldn't they be in even more danger without it? Or is it a case of "They wouldn't be ambushed if they didn't use it" where you punish them for being cautious? The party can put up a watch from inside a Rope Trick as well, ya know?
Yeah rope trick will normally reduce dangers of being caught in an ambush, but it limits your field of vision, stops all sorts of methods to detect things and it also means the party has a tiny area to escape into. If the rope trick is found the party has no real way of knowing. Then... marvelous pigments, necklace of fireballs, wall of stone... all leave the party screwed.

It helps but its not a huge help.


The no-air reading is just ridiculous. Its completely reasonable if one wants to argue the only way into the rope trick is by using the rope. If air can't get in it was made by the rope trick. So why would it be standard pressure instead of 1/100th of standard pressure or 100*standard pressure? Why would it have oxygen instead of methand or neon? Why would it be 290K instead of 390K or 200K

I think the reasonable assumption is anyone can waltz in to a rope trick.

Optimystik
2010-06-14, 02:17 PM
It's a conundrum for DMs with a large number of house rules. Do they throw down a pamphlet of rules and expect the players to know them before the game starts (this is roughly what you're advocating) or does the DM bring them up as they come up?

"As they come up" does not mean "when it's too late for the players to change their minds." The latter is railroading, full stop.

Tell them when they cast Rope Trick - they have to tell the DM they're doing it, don't they? And even if you forget and tell them after they open the bag of holding, give them a chance to rethink the action since it's your fault you forgot to warn them of your houserule.

The "GOTCHA" is the problem here. Some DMs enjoy this (e.g. Gan), and they would probably make great car salesmen, but I don't expect to have to peruse the fine print when I sit down to play a game with my friends.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 02:36 PM
Back to the spell, who knows why there isn't an explanation? And I don't mean from a RAW standpoint. Maybe the guy who made it had a theory, but never wanted to test it. Maybe someone saw their friend take a portable hole into a Rope Trick and then never come out. He doesn't really know what happened to him, can't really explain it, but he thinks something DID happen.
So this note has been floating around in every copy of the spell ever, but no one except this one PC has ever tried to find out why?


Let me ask this. You are walking up to someone's house. You see a sign that says "Beware of dog." Doesn't say why. Doesn't give an explanation, just warns you that something about this dog is hazardous. Do you ignore it because it doesn't tell you what will happen?
I don’t need to know extra details. The factors that make a dog potentially dangerous are detailed and well recorded. As such, I have no reason to expect further explanation. An owner who sees fit to post such a warning has no obligation to give further detail, because such detail is common knowledge.

Apparently, such detail is not common knowledge with respect to rope trick. So why are the wizards of the world so uncurious as to find out these details with thoughtful experimentation? Seems to me that it would be a pretty good prank to invent a few new spells, include a few false warnings in the formula notes, sell them off, and then laugh at everyone going to ridiculous lengths to avoid triggering some imaginary danger.


Or do you look around for this dog, sneak up to the door carefully, try to not provoke it?
Actually, if I thought the warning was made in good faith and that the dog could be loose in the yard, I’d avoid entering that yard at all. Because I know the nature of the hazard, and that hazard includes wicked senses of hearing and smell that make it nearly impossible for a human to sneak around. I’d only try sneaking if I didn’t know these things. Once again, detailed knowledge makes all the difference.


You can infere that the dog is dangerous from the sign, but maybe the dog just likes to hump the crap out of stranger's legs, leaving a nasty wet stain on their trousers. Not really dangerous, but I appreciated the heads up.
Then the person who posted the sign has a questionable sense of humor. Most folks don’t use “Beware of Dog” to indicate their pooch engages in embarrassing behavior. But I know this because “Beware of Dog” has a long-standing standard cultural meaning. In almost all cases, it means exactly the same thing. “This dog will bite, hurt, and maybe even kill you.”

There is no such standard for “This action is hazardous” in D&D.


Maybe you know something more than I do. Maybe its been hailing all day, and I don't know that. Tornados or something. Either way, thanks for the warning, now I'll go try and find out why you would tell me that.
I thought the warning was supposed to be enough. I told you it was hazardous, so that’s all you need to know.


Unfortunately, we can't ask the man who invented the spell why he said that, now can we?
Maybe we can. Who says he’s no longer around?

Failing that, why can’t we, I dunno, try stuffing some extradimensional spaces into each other and watch what happens?


Faulty logic? Superstition? I'd say its pretty smart to expect two similar things to react similarly.
Yeah, well that will give you a hypothesis. But you still have to test it. Expectations are often broken.

Acting as if a completely untested hypothesis is true is faulty logic.

More specifically, this is a hasty generalization (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalisation/). Portable hole and bag of holding is a very specific case. You cannot assume it applies to absolutely everything remotely like that. Maybe the portable hole and bag of holding are simply particularly unstable, even moreso than other extradimensional and/or nondimensional spaces. Can’t say for sure without further experimentation.

Hawriel
2010-06-14, 02:43 PM
Its completely reasonable if one wants to argue the only way into the rope trick is by using the rope. If air can't get in it was made by the rope trick. So why would it be standard pressure instead of 1/100th of standard pressure or 100*standard pressure? Why would it have oxygen instead of methand or neon? Why would it be 290K instead of 390K or 200K

I think the reasonable assumption is anyone can waltz in to a rope trick.

Im going to assume you are responding to me. What evedence do you have that a rope trick creates its own air? A bag of holding does not, neather a portable hole. Fallowing the warning of the hazards clause along with no mention of the enviornment of the rope trick. Other than its dementions. If you insist on assuming any thing other than the stated properties in the spell prepar to be wrong.

However you do bring up a good point what if the creator of the spell rope trick was a methane breather. :smallwink: Now if it was created by a human it would not be filled with methane. However it could be 50*F because the wizard thought it was good enough and he would whare a sweater.

There is no stated light sorce eather. So build a camp fire, bring a torch or use a lantern. Oh wait there is no flew, that would be a bad idea. I dont want to assume the wizard has a light spell.

A total of 7 mediem sized beings can hide in the rope trick with the rope drawn up. That could get kinda hot and stuffy. Would condensation form in the window? would it drip down creating a puddle? Would this not alert intelligent NPCs that there might be somthing funny going on? Can you brake the window?

Mauther
2010-06-14, 03:03 PM
"As they come up" does not mean "when it's too late for the players to change their minds." The latter is railroading, full stop.

Tell them when they cast Rope Trick - they have to tell the DM they're doing it, don't they? And even if you forget and tell them after they open the bag of holding, give them a chance to rethink the action since it's your fault you forgot to warn them of your houserule.

The "GOTCHA" is the problem here. Some DMs enjoy this (e.g. Gan), and they would probably make great car salesmen, but I don't expect to have to peruse the fine print when I sit down to play a game with my friends.

I still don't see how following the description counts as "GOTCHA" gaming, and I don't see how the spells description counts as fine print. Is it the DM's responsibility to point out to the fighter that he's moving into a position to be flanked? Its pretty clear that at this point that both sides are pretty much talking past each other, so I don't see anything constructive being acheived going forward.

Sliver
2010-06-14, 03:12 PM
I still don't see how following the description counts as "GOTCHA" gaming, and I don't see how the spells description counts as fine print. Is it the DM's responsibility to point out to the fighter that he's moving into a position to be flanked? Its pretty clear that at this point that both sides are pretty much talking past each other, so I don't see anything constructive being acheived going forward.

While it is written there, it is not clearly stated what it actually means. Every group has it's own way of dealing with that line, some just ignore it. If your player doesn't know how you deal with it and you play in a setting where wizards know what their spells do, you shouldn't just let your player make a mistake his character wouldn't do.

It's almost at the same level of bothering players for not saying their characters are blinking, breathing or relieving themselves. Would you tell your player "you crapped yourself" when he wasn't aware that you want that much realism in your game?

Lamech
2010-06-14, 03:28 PM
Im going to assume you are responding to me. What evedence do you have that a rope trick creates its own air?
I'm assuming it does not and stuff can pass freely through the window. So any air in the rope trick comes from the environment. The point is that say... a dragon could fly in to the rope trick and start nomming on the party.

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 03:38 PM
{Scrubbed}

Killer Angel
2010-06-14, 04:07 PM
Alright, which part specifically?

You already answered.
For you, the entity of danger doesn't matter: there is danger; apparently, the wizard has absolutely no idea of the nature of the danger, so he should presume that it can be deadly. He didn't pay attention? bad for him.
The player didn't read the note of the spell? it means he didn't care, bad for him.

I'm I right in reading your position?

Edit: BTW, even if I see your point (the players should pay more attention), i don't agree with it.
It's not a matter of letting the character live a easy life, but it's the fact that the players are playing a game, and the characters are risking their life. The level of attention for details is different, and also is the knowledge of the world they're living in.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 04:54 PM
{Scrubbed}

:smallconfused:

Fine.

Magnema
2010-06-14, 05:02 PM
"Dead" is not a defined state.
Maybe a different example would be better. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead)[/nitpick]

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 05:18 PM
So… uh, regarding that whole “Extradimensional” and “Nondimensional” distinction…

Is there really one?

I mean, the description of portable hole seems to use both terms synonymously:

Portable Hole
A portable hole is a circle of cloth spun from the webs of a phase spider interwoven with strands of ether and beams of starlight. When opened fully, a portable hole is 6 feet in diameter, but it can be folded up to be as small as a pocket handkerchief. When spread upon any surface, it causes an extradimensional space 10 feet deep to come into being. This hole can be picked up from inside or out by simply taking hold of the edges of the cloth and folding it up. Either way, the entrance disappears, but anything inside the hole remains.

The only air in the hole is that which enters when the hole is opened. It contains enough air to supply one Medium creature or two Small creatures for 10 minutes. The cloth does not accumulate weight even if its hole is filled. Each portable hole opens on its own particular nondimensional space…
(Emphasis mine)

About the closest either term gets to a proper definition is the description of “nondimensional” in the entry for bag of holding, so can we really ever know if there is supposed to be a difference?

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 05:20 PM
You already answered.
For you, the entity of danger doesn't matter: there is danger; apparently, the wizard has absolutely no idea of the nature of the danger, so he should presume that it can be deadly. He didn't pay attention? bad for him.
The player didn't read the note of the spell? it means he didn't care, bad for him.

I'm I right in reading your position?

Edit: BTW, even if I see your point (the players should pay more attention), i don't agree with it.
It's not a matter of letting the character live a easy life, but it's the fact that the players are playing a game, and the characters are risking their life. The level of attention for details is different, and also is the knowledge of the world they're living in.

That pretty much it. But also, as the DM, I have already decided what will happen when the situation is tested. Just because the spell doesn't specify, doesn't mean the player can't find out the answer without placing themselves in serious danger.

You are also right that there is a difference between being a player and being a character. The character should have advantages over the player. They should know things the player doesn't. Sometimes. But its up to the player to ask the questions about those differences. Otherwise, for me, it takes the mystery out of the game.

And this situation is a little unique, as the spell specifically warns the player of the problem without telling them the consequence. This doesn't happen alot in DnD. The way I see it, this spell is testing the player, not the character, because it is the player that will or will not choose to ignore the warning written in the spell.

I guess my major hangup with just TELLING my players what will happen is that it just isn't the same as experiencing it, and they will NEVER experience it if I tell them ahead of time the houserule. I like putting my players in unique situations to see how they react, and they enjoy being in unique situations.

Maybe we just have a different style of playing than most. *shrugs*

Optimystik
2010-06-14, 05:58 PM
Is it the DM's responsibility to point out to the fighter that he's moving into a position to be flanked?

No, because the rules on flanking are spelled out (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking) - i.e., not houserules.

"Here is what causes you to be flanked, and here is what happens to you when you are flanked." Done.

But if you have some creation of your own in place - say, that a fighter that is flanked becomes harder to disarm, because he is nervous about being between two attackers and grips his weapon more tightly - that's something you should tell your players.


I guess my major hangup with just TELLING my players what will happen is that it just isn't the same as experiencing it, and they will NEVER experience it if I tell them ahead of time the houserule. I like putting my players in unique situations to see how they react, and they enjoy being in unique situations.

If your players enjoy getting the rug pulled out from under them, then fine. I'm not going to show up at their houses with pamphlets printed from this thread. I'm just trying to point out why you shouldn't be surprised if they chuck their dice at your head instead.

Gan The Grey
2010-06-14, 06:08 PM
If your players enjoy getting the rug pulled out from under them, then fine. I'm not going to show up at their houses with pamphlets printed from this thread. I'm just trying to point out why you shouldn't be surprised if they chuck their dice at your head instead.


Um...I'm been DM for this group and a few others for over 15 years now. Not ONCE has anyone thrown dice, books, or anything other than high fives toward me. No one has yelled at me. Yes, they disagree, and we discuss. Then we solve the problem. That's what mature gaming is all about. We evolve together.

The funny thing is, I posited to my players this exact circumstance about 10 minutes ago. Their response? "Yeah, we don't expect you to baby us. It says in the spell that it is hazardous. If we don't pay attention, that's our bad."

So I'm not really worried. But thanks for the concern.

LibraryOgre
2010-06-14, 06:20 PM
Why is it so hard for people to get that without an "official errata rules change," the interaction does nothing?

Because that's not RAW.