PDA

View Full Version : logic questions.



Shinizak
2011-04-16, 09:40 PM
lets face it, D&D doesn't make sense, let's figure out some problems here that the game(s) create. just tell use which edition (or other game) you're using.

3.5 D&D


what happens when you put the gem containing a soul (as per the magic jar spell) into an anti magic field?
what happens when a liches phylactery is placed in an anti magic field and the lich is destroyed?
what happens when 2 casters usequickened spells at the same time? who goes first?

Treblain
2011-04-16, 10:13 PM
1. I don't believe souls are stated to be magical, and its container no longer functions. The soul probably goes free.
2. Pretty much the same thing, but more complicated. No idea.
3. Roll for initiative.

Vknight
2011-04-16, 11:42 PM
The soul goes free becoming a ghost or something

The Lich loses the Lich template until removed from the field, and cannot be destroyed. That or the Lich comes back normally

They hit each other and they roll spellcraft the winners spell goes first. That or the winners overcomes the losers

Koury
2011-04-16, 11:47 PM
The third one doesn't really make sense. How would that come about?

Dvandemon
2011-04-16, 11:47 PM
Uh, all the questions you stated aren't faults in logic though, they're just situations not covered in the rules.

PirateMonk
2011-04-17, 12:08 AM
what happens when 2 casters use quickened spells at the same time? who goes first?

Quickened spells can only be cast on the caster's turn. This is impossible, unless you're thinking of Celerity.

bloodtide
2011-04-17, 12:11 AM
1.Nothing. The soul is still trapped in the gem, no where does it say souls are incorporeal(it may sound nice, but it's pure speculation). As long as the gem is within the antimagic area it is 'cut off' from the spellcaster and 'out of range'.

2.The lich can't return as long as the phylactery is in an anti-magic area. This in effect puts the lich's return on pause.

3.They both happen at exactly the same time...just like any other action. If you must know a 'first', a spellcraft roll can get you a highest number wins.

valadil
2011-04-17, 12:14 AM
what happens when you put the gem containing a soul (as per the magic jar spell) into an anti magic field?


What happens you you put a live body containing a soul in an antimagic field? Nothing? Why then would the soul in a gem be any different?

Hecuba
2011-04-17, 12:21 AM
lets face it, D&D doesn't make sense, let's figure out some problems here that the game(s) create. just tell use which edition (or other game) you're using.

3.5 D&D


what happens when you put the gem containing a soul (as per the magic jar spell) into an anti magic field?
what happens when a liches phylactery is placed in an anti magic field and the lich is destroyed?
what happens when 2 casters usequickened spells at the same time? who goes first?


1) Existing magical items are merely suppressed in an AMF. Thus, the ruling on this would be logically based on whether or not you believe the magic is in the trapping or in keeping trapped. Based on the description for trap the soul (or at least as I remember it at the moment), it is the former.

2) You have to decide a lot more about how lichdom works before you can even attempt a logic based answer.

By the rules, the phylactery's direct purpose is in keeping the life force (soul) locked up. It's never indicated that the lich need use that life force to reform, and it's equally reasonable to posit that they simply need for it to remain locked up so that they don't end up headed to the afterlife instead. The Giant has chosen to show it as having a role in the process in reforming. Other fantasy authors (for example, Rowling) have chosen to show near identical devices to be important primarily for locking up the soul (see #1).

Claudius Maximus
2011-04-17, 01:02 AM
What's this spellcraft nonsense? For #3, initiative determines who goes first.

Sillycomic
2011-04-17, 01:59 AM
Actually number 3 is the more interesting of these logic questions.

First of all, is there something in the game which will allow someone to cast 2 spells at once... or even more importantly is there some mechanic which can allow two people to cast two different spells at exactly the same time?

Celerity shenanigans perhaps?

Because if so, then we have a situation of two spells going off at once, and then you can appropriately ask this logic question.

Koury
2011-04-17, 02:01 AM
Because if so, then we have a situation of two spells going off at once, and then you can appropriately ask this logic question.

Not that I can think of. Celerity won't work. Readied actions won't work. I think counterspelling is as close as it gets, and the rules there are clear.

Mystic Muse
2011-04-17, 02:05 AM
What happens you you put a live body containing a soul in an antimagic field? Nothing? Why then would the soul in a gem be any different?

because one is in a place because it's intended to be there and the other is in a place because it's magic?

In the case of the gem I'd say it depends on the DM's ruling.

Koury
2011-04-17, 02:19 AM
For Magic Jar, near as I can tell, the soul would leave the gem (since the magic keeping it there is being suppressed) and return to its body if the body is in range, or die if its not.

Is there a reason this wouldn't be the case?

Rixx
2011-04-17, 03:32 AM
I'd imagine the phylactery would be unable to reconstruct the lich's body until it is removed from the anti-magic field and resumes functioning.

Hecuba
2011-04-17, 11:31 PM
I'd imagine the phylactery would be unable to reconstruct the lich's body until it is removed from the anti-magic field and resumes functioning.

You're presuming that the phylactery carries out the reconstruction. That's never actually stated. All we actually know about the reconstruction is that the lich reappears 1d10 days later. There's a lot of of room left to fill in the blank based on how you decide the magic of lichdom works.


Not that I can think of. Celerity won't work. Readied actions won't work. I think counterspelling is as close as it gets, and the rules there are clear.

They way I read #3 was a reference to, for example, a quickened spell as a readied action that is triggered in response to another quickened spell. The rule governing this would be from readied actions, which states that the readied action occurs immediately before the action that triggers it.

The perceived logic problem comes precisely from this adjudication. A quickened spell is a swift action, not a non-action: thus it takes some (trivial) amount of time. Moreover, any two spells quickened to a swift action should take the same amount of time to cast. Thus, since the other caster has to have started the process of casting to trigger your readied action, your quickened spell should go off at least as long after the triggering spell as it takes you to notice the trigger.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-18, 11:10 AM
Celerity shenanigans perhaps?

Because if so, then we have a situation of two spells going off at once, and then you can appropriately ask this logic question.

Negative. Celerity makes you go first, not at the same time.

If you both cast Celerity, the second person to cast it goes first. The other person then goes. Then you return to the normal init order.

The case of two people casting quickened spells at the same time does not arise.

Fouredged Sword
2011-04-18, 11:30 AM
In the case of celarity the person who lost initiative would decide who goes first. In the case of delayed actions the person who won initiative decides goes first. (as you can delay to just before or just after)

Hecuba
2011-04-18, 01:37 PM
The case of two people casting quickened spells at the same time does not arise.

I think the logic issue being referred to is in how the initiative issue handles the idea of simultaneity and not any rule ambiguity.


Event A takes time T.
Event B also takes time T.
And yet, if event B is somehow triggered in response to Event A starting, event B resolves first.

A simple explanation to resolve this is that some portion of time T for event B is taken care of between when the trigger mechanism is set and when Event A begins.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-18, 01:38 PM
I think the logic issue being refereed to is in how the initiative issue handles the idea of simultaneity and not any rule ambiguity. Event A takes time T. Event B also takes time T. And yet, if event B is somehow triggered in response to Event A starting, event B resolves first.

The simple logical resolution is that some portion of time T for event B is taken care of between when the trigger mechanism is set and when Event A begins.

It doesn't contain any idea of events actually taking time. That exists only in fluff.

Therefore, there is no conflict, and no resolution is required.

Hecuba
2011-04-18, 01:45 PM
It doesn't contain any idea of events actually taking time. That exists only in fluff.

Therefore, there is no conflict, and no resolution is required.

Swift actions are not non-actions. They're not even free actions. They take an arbitrarily trivial amount of action, but they are treated as all taking the same amount of time. If you want, we can even have it be the same quickened spell on both ends: 1=1.

Thus we have Qk Magic Missile (2) triggered by Qk Magic Missile (1), but (2) happening before (1). That is, an event is happening before the event that triggered it.

This is perfectly acceptable if your universe operates on a quantum mechanics. If your universe is more Newtonian in scale, it can be jarring and illogical.

It's not a rule ambiguity, of a problem with rule functionality. It is a logical problem relative to what is being described if leave it without further explanation.

To explain this, there must be some difference between the when (1) triggers (2) and when (1) resolves.

valadil
2011-04-18, 01:47 PM
because one is in a place because it's intended to be there and the other is in a place because it's magic?

In the case of the gem I'd say it depends on the DM's ruling.

So Antimagic field is able to distinguish what's natural from what's magical and cause the magically adjusted to revert to its natural state? Let's hope your recently resurrected PC never sets foot in an AM field...

(Actually I kinda like the idea of an epic antimagic field that does just that.)

Back to the original question, I'd say that the soul is stuck in that gem until the gem leaves the field. Then it could return to the body as normal. Or nothing at all happens. Because a person killed in an AM field would lose their soul as normal, regardless of the presence of magic.

Dross
2011-04-18, 02:11 PM
Let's hope your recently resurrected PC never sets foot in an AM field...



Duration of resurrection is "instantaneous". The magic is no longer functioning when the character who was previously resurrected sets foot inside AMF. Thus there is no magic to negate, and the character would be fine.

Dross
2011-04-18, 02:20 PM
Generally speaking, I am a big fan of DM discretion when it comes time to adjudicate "logic questions" or any fuzziness with the rules.

So for your examples:
1) does it advance the story if a soul would be set free when the gem is placed in AMF? if so, then huzzah! soul is free. If it would make for some epic sotry telling, DM should let it happen.
2) Is the lich supposed to be a recurring villain? If so, DM should rule in such a way that the lich can escape. This might sound punitive to a clever approach PCs have taken, so maybe offer up a level penalty to the lich the next time he reforms (thus the PCs actions have had a positive effect)
3) simultaneous effects in general: These occur very fairly, and when they do occur, the DM should shade on the side of the PCs. sort of like "all ties go the runner" in baseball.

These are just my opinions, but i hate when a rules discussion pops up mid game, and the group spends the next 2 hours arguing about it. A good DM should see these events as an opportunity to allow for good story telling, and then move on with the game. Also, good player's should allow a DM to make these kinds of calls without all kinds of fuss.