7d6 damage/level? No save?? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

anacalgion

2013-09-23, 01:58 AM

I believe I have found one of the most effective spells for direct damage. Perhaps ever. Ladies and gentlemen,I give you Major Creation.

The magic of Major Creation, of course, is that you can make objects appear over people's heads. The rules for falling objects state that an object deals a d6 per 200 pounds. Osmium is very dense. About 1400 pounds or 7d6 (if my sleep deprived math is right) dense. Put a block of that above someone's head, let it fall, watch them go splat.

Now of course Major Creation has a 10 minute cast time, but fortunately Greater Shadow Conjuration does not, so we're in business. Cast Greater Shadow Conjuration, duplicate Major Creation, make large amounts of heavy metals, kill everything.

IronFist

2013-09-23, 02:07 AM

Heroes of Battle rules you get a DC 15 Reflex save against falling objects.

Macros

2013-09-23, 02:07 AM

Ok, I'm by no mean a rule expert, but wouldn't that mean that the target only take 7d6 damage ? I suppose that dropping it from an high enough point could increase that (not sure what the rules say on that), but it would also give time for a target to evade (reflex save ?)

EDIT : Swordsag'd. And reflex save it is then.

Fearan

2013-09-23, 02:12 AM

Does your character even knows, what osmium is? Also, why stop on a half-way?
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3cqhbDR1f1rv231do1_1280.jpg

here's the explanation
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2010735#post2010735 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2010735#post2010735)

Siosilvar

2013-09-23, 02:13 AM

This is explicitly shut down by the description of the Conjuration school (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#conjuration):

A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

SciChronic

2013-09-23, 02:29 AM

also, as with Shadow Conjuration, you can make a will save for partial (60% w/ G. Shadow Conjuration)

icefractal

2013-09-23, 02:55 AM

Dropping heavy things is still extremely effective, of course. You just need to use other methods like Shrink Item, polymorphing into something big, summoning big flying things, and so forth.

However, that Reflex save certainly does limit it. I've seen arguments that it didn't make sense to dodge, for example, a 40' x 40' falling iron block with a DC 15 save. However, I'm not inclined to change it. If we're talking about "making sense", then either:
A) Gargantuan+ creatures should do freakishly huge amounts of damage, like swatting a fly (the fly is the PCs). Or ...
B) Falling object damage should be logarithmic, like the rest of the game.

So IMO, live by the RAW, die by the RAW. Or go logarithmic and we can scale both things in a sensical way.

Andreaz

2013-09-23, 04:14 AM

also, as with Shadow Conjuration, you can make a will save for partial (60% w/ G. Shadow Conjuration)
And that's why the caster is a shadowcraft gnome, and disbelieving makes the shadow deal 120% damage;

icks

2013-09-23, 04:37 AM

Are you sure you can create as much matter as 40x40x40 ?

TuggyNE

2013-09-23, 05:01 AM

And that's why the caster is a shadowcraft gnome, and disbelieving makes the shadow deal 120% damage;

Are you sure you can create as much matter as 40x40x40 ?

Why is this still under consideration? It doesn't work, plain and simple, by the rules of Conjuration (which were specifically written to prevent essentially all of this class of cleverness), so all those other considerations are moot.

Gemini476

2013-09-23, 05:45 AM

Why is this still under consideration? It doesn't work, plain and simple, by the rules of Conjuration (which were specifically written to prevent essentially all of this class of cleverness), so all those other considerations are moot.

...Couldn't you create a leaning plate, and then have that simply fall down upon those beneath?
Although in that case a GM would be justified to use he rules for falling Walls of Iron, I suppose.

SiuiS

2013-09-23, 06:10 AM

By the rules, objects don't have weight outside their liste numbers. Granite and sandstone and marble and, if your campaign has it, concrete all weigh the same, have the same hardness and HP.

Osmium sounds like a metal. Is it a noble metal? Then it's weighted like all the others. Is it closer to steel? Then it does not weigh more than steel.

No, the real fun comes from taking two ring gates and shoving ten into each other until you get a closed hemisphere from which things cannot escape but they can go in. Use Wall of Stone or whatever to make stone. Cut it into as many five pound boulders as you can. Shrink them permanently. Make a very, very large amount. Billions. Shove them all into the hemisphere. The constant motion combined with the orientation of the rings means they reach and stay at terminal velocity (D&D terminal velocity, that is, constant maximum falling distance). Then throw this contraption over an area and hit it with dispel magic.

The sudden rain of billions of pounds of stone deals damage best represented with scientific notation. The area is saturated, too, but limited, so it's a controlled area hit by multiple boulders rather than a ginormous spread.

Big Fau

2013-09-23, 06:44 AM

I'd think Black Lotus Extract would be more damaging to anything vulnerable to poison.

Yora

2013-09-23, 07:12 AM

Three words:

10 minutes casting time

Hamste

2013-09-23, 07:17 AM

Three words:

10 minutes casting time

Three words:

Greater Shadow Conjuration

Big Fau

2013-09-23, 07:35 AM

Three words:

Greater Shadow Conjuration

Two words: Arcane Dilettante.

Three words: Dragonmark of Making

Psyren

2013-09-23, 07:41 AM

This is explicitly shut down by the description of the Conjuration school (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#conjuration):

Bold for emphasis. This won't work.

Kish

2013-09-23, 07:44 AM

Three words:

10 minutes casting time
Two words: Your count is off.

Hamste

2013-09-23, 07:46 AM

Two words: Arcane Dilettante.

Three words: Dragonmark of Making

Both work but I personally rather shadow conjuration for the ability to use it for other things and because many more people have that over true creation as a spell like ability (admittedlytadmittedly though spell like ability to cast it does have it's advantages...like actually being real)

Keneth

2013-09-23, 07:49 AM

However, that Reflex save certainly does limit it. I've seen arguments that it didn't make sense to dodge, for example, a 40' x 40' falling iron block with a DC 15 save.

Use d20 Modern rules. DC 15 is for medium-sized objects, and the DC changes by 5 for every size category from there. So a colossal iron block would be a DC 35 to dodge.

Of course then there's the issue of a rogue taking no damage, standing in the same spot with a massive slab of iron on top of them. Not that it's any more difficult to explain than a rogue dodging a fireball in an empty room.

Hamste

2013-09-23, 07:50 AM

Bold for emphasis. This won't work.

The question is...does an illusion spell that just mimics a conjuration spell have to follow the same rules as a conjuration spell? Besides it has also been suggested to put it on the ground but in such a way it would collapse on the foe anyways.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 07:57 AM

The question is...does an illusion spell that just mimics a conjuration spell have to follow the same rules as a conjuration spell? Besides it has also been suggested to put it on the ground but in such a way it would collapse on the foe anyways.

1) If you put it on something designed to collapse, then that surface is not "capable of supporting it," by definition.

2) Shadow Conjurations "mimic" the conjuration spell. Note that the school is mentioned, so any rules that apply to the school would apply to the mimicry.

And if you rule otherwise then why stop there? Create poison or sharp blades directly inside your opponent, much cleaner.

Deophaun

2013-09-23, 08:03 AM

Hamste

2013-09-23, 08:05 AM

Sure the surface can support it...the item just can't support itself. The ground underneath it isn't collapsing or shifting and therefore it is stable enough to support the object. The reason we can't make it inside of them is because of line of effect not because of the surface rule. If your opponent has their mouth open or a hole in their stomach it is totally fair game to make a poison in it.

angry_bear

2013-09-23, 08:15 AM

1) If you put it on something designed to collapse, then that surface is not "capable of supporting it," by definition.

2) Shadow Conjurations "mimic" the conjuration spell. Note that the school is mentioned, so any rules that apply to the school would apply to the mimicry.

And if you rule otherwise then why stop there? Create poison or sharp blades directly inside your opponent, much cleaner.

Unless you put it onto something that is capable of holding it, but can be brought down fairly easy. Technically it's still supporting the weight.

Although I still don't see this working. Just that, you probably can build the right platform, able to hold the blocks, and still be used as an effective trap.

The Random NPC

2013-09-23, 08:17 AM

Hamste

2013-09-23, 08:22 AM

Only if that hole is, IIRC, 1 foot wide.

Really? Atleast it still works on really mildly large creatures. Ready action greater shadow conjuration poison into a t-rex's mouth would be pretty funny (or into the gullet for that matter for when your teammate cuts their way out).

Raven777

2013-09-23, 08:31 AM

If your Wizard is going to know what Osmium is, you might as well take things to eleven and drop Anti-Osmium or ClF3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride).

ahenobarbi

2013-09-23, 08:37 AM

It's easy to workaround Conjuration school description by sacrificing a bit of power. Make a huge cube of osmium (or gold or whatever your DM doesn't complain about) with on hair-thin 'leg' that is resting on solid earth. It's not your fault that it collapses immediately after creations.

anacalgion

2013-09-23, 08:40 AM

Yeesh. Now I feel dumb for posting anything. My bad

Psyren

2013-09-23, 09:01 AM

Unless you put it onto something that is capable of holding it, but can be brought down fairly easy. Technically it's still supporting the weight.

Although I still don't see this working. Just that, you probably can build the right platform, able to hold the blocks, and still be used as an effective trap.

As long as some secondary/external action is needed to bring it down I'm okay with that. But if it collapses on its own, it was never "capable of supporting it" to begin with.

So if you summon/create the object on a balcony and then use lightning bolt or Mountain Hammer to shatter the balcony that is fine. If the balcony collapses simply due to the weight of the object - not fine.

Hamste

2013-09-23, 09:13 AM

As long as some secondary/external action is needed to bring it down I'm okay with that. But if it collapses on its own, it was never "capable of supporting it" to begin with.

So if you summon/create the object on a balcony and then use lightning bolt or Mountain Hammer to shatter the balcony that is fine. If the balcony collapses simply due to the weight of the object - not fine.

So what happens if you summon a celestial monkey and it is caught off guard so that it falls down? It could not support itself so does that mean the spell fails? It collapsed on its self.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 09:18 AM

So what happens if you summon a celestial monkey and it is caught off guard so that it falls down? It could not support itself so does that mean the spell fails? It collapsed on its self.

1) The rules say that the surface has to support the thing you're conjuring, not the thing itself.

2) Where are the rules for "catching something off guard so that it falls down?"

Hamste

2013-09-23, 09:26 AM

1) The rules say that the surface has to support the thing you're conjuring, not the thing itself.

2) Where are the rules for "catching something off guard so that it falls down?"

As I have been saying this is about summoning something that can not support itself...it has nothing to do with the surface (you were the one who said that if it collapses then the ground was not stable enough for it). There are no specific rules for it but what if the monkey collapses itself perhaps from grease or it being icy or even just lazy.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 09:29 AM

As I have been saying this is about summoning something that can not support itself...it has nothing to do with the surface (you were the one who said that if it collapses then the ground was not stable enough for it). There are no specific rules for it but what if the monkey collapses itself perhaps from grease or it being icy or even just lazy.

The OP was talking about summoning a solid osmium block from what I can see.

Summoning a creature on ice would not cause it to fall immediately - it would only have to make a Balance check if it moves. So it comes into existence properly supported, with the falling etc. only happening later.

Aldizog

2013-09-23, 09:31 AM

Does the description of the Conjuration school kill those stupid orbs?
They are instantaneous creation, therefore non-magical once created, and yet are created in mid-air. Which means the spell fails.

Karnith

2013-09-23, 09:37 AM

Does the description of the Conjuration school kill those stupid orbs?
They are instantaneous creation, therefore non-magical once created, and yet are created in mid-air.
No, they seem to be created in your palm. Then they shoot out at an enemy. Also, whether that rule applies would depend on whether the orbs created are objects in the D&D sense.

Plus, y'know, specific trumps general and all that.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 09:39 AM

ahenobarbi

2013-09-23, 09:43 AM

Ouch I see I was late:

Sure the surface can support it...the item just can't support itself. The ground underneath it isn't collapsing or shifting and therefore it is stable enough to support the object.

Basically that's my suggestion. Use surface that totally can support the object, just make the object unable to support itself.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 10:11 AM

ahenobarbi

2013-09-23, 10:18 AM

Creating something that has the necessary built-in flaw in just the right place that it will fall in exactly the way you want would require one heck of a Craft (and possibly architecture/engineering) check to pull off.

Creating big cube "supported" by a hair-thin "pillar" is that difficult? Seeing as all skills you named are INT-based shouldn't be a problem :smallbiggrin:

Deophaun

2013-09-23, 10:20 AM

Segev

2013-09-23, 10:23 AM

Creating something that has the necessary built-in flaw in just the right place that it will fall in exactly the way you want would require one heck of a Craft (and possibly architecture/engineering) check to pull off.

Not...necessarily. "I create a block over his head, held up by four legs that are solid enough at the bottom, but which narrow to hair-fine thickness at the height of his head." At best, that's K:Architecture and Engineering or Craft:rickety objects DC 5.

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 10:24 AM

Osmium would be just fine, just have it next to your target instead of on top. Just make sure it is currently in a plasma state though.

Lightlawbliss

2013-09-23, 10:33 AM

Osmium would be just fine, just have it next to your target instead of on top. Just make sure it is currently in a plasma state though.

you want to commit suicide?

Macros

2013-09-23, 10:39 AM

That is beginning to look like a lot of efforts for something that will do 7d6 damage on a failed DC 15 reflex save. :smallconfused:

Chronos

2013-09-23, 10:45 AM

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 10:48 AM

A thing that's a solid block of osmium with a hair-thin leg can't be supported by the ground. It could, however, be supported in an appropriately-shaped cradle. So if you happen to have such a cradle available, you can summon your deathtrap into it... But then, by definition, it's supported, and doesn't fall.

You can create something that's just barely supported, but then you'd need to take a separate action to knock it down. And getting exactly the amount of "just barely" you want might require a skill check or two.

Sounds like two castings.
1) Create ice cradle over the bad guys on turn 1. Rest of party does the wall thing to keep targets under cradle.
2) Create HOT Metal on cradle. Cradle holds, but starts melting immediatly.

Having seen how quickly hot metal can go through ice, the cradle would hold, but only for a few seconds.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 10:52 AM

Creating big cube "supported" by a hair-thin "pillar" is that difficult? Seeing as all skills you named are INT-based shouldn't be a problem :smallbiggrin:

Is it? Since such an object doesn't actually exist the DM would set the DC, and ditto for the engineering check.

That is beginning to look like a lot of efforts for something that will do 7d6 damage on a failed DC 15 reflex save. :smallconfused:

Tell me about it :smalltongue:

Sounds like two castings.
1) Create ice cradle over the bad guys on turn 1. Rest of party does the wall thing to keep targets under cradle.
2) Create HOT Metal on cradle. Cradle holds, but starts melting immediatly.

Having seen how quickly hot metal can go through ice, the cradle would hold, but only for a few seconds.

Can you control the temperature of things you create though? This sounds like a "the rules don't say I can't!" moment.

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 10:58 AM

Psyren,
If you can't have at least a limited amount of control over temprature you can't get both ice and water. IIRC, there is a WOTC adventure with ice being used by a creation spell (other than wall of ice) to make part of the adventure while the surrounding area is water.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 11:05 AM

Ice is naturally cold though. So it seems to me that you can summon something with the normal temperature for its given state, but not summon "hot metal/cold metal."

ahenobarbi

2013-09-23, 11:11 AM

That is beginning to look like a lot of efforts for something that will do 7d6 damage on a failed DC 15 reflex save. :smallconfused:

7d6/CL

Is it? Since such an object doesn't actually exist the DM would set the DC, and ditto for the engineering check.

Technically you're correct so... ok. But I wouldn't expect any DM to set high DC for one-legged cube.

Segev

2013-09-23, 11:12 AM

A thing that's a solid block of osmium with a hair-thin leg can't be supported by the ground.But it can be and is. "Unfortunately," it can't support ITSELF. But the ground supports it just fine. That it breaks and assumes a new shape under its own weight is its own fault.

Though honestly, this seems like a lot of work when you can get similar effects from spells designed to do this kind of damage. Besides, you're a wizard: all about the prep. Prepare this ahead of time so you can unleash it at leisure. I believe Shrink Item is a popular method.

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 11:16 AM

Psyren
Then summon hydrogen in its natural state. Most hydrogen in the universe is either running around 3 Kelvin or a couple hundred thousand Kelvin. Either way you should either freeze the room solid or reduce the target to a gas.

Unfortunatly D&D and reality have never been on good speaking terms, so I don't think either would work well in game.

In reality I'm taking this tread as very light hearted. As a 7th level spell, why not just take limited WISH? This avoids a lot of the issues.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 11:23 AM

Psyren
Then summon hydrogen in its natural state. Most hydrogen in the universe is either running around 3 Kelvin or a couple hundred thousand Kelvin. Either way you should either freeze the room solid or reduce the target to a gas.

Hydrogen is neither mineral, vegetable nor metal so it's out. And at least for the latter, there's no surface capable of supporting a star anyway.

You also run into the thorny issue of whether gases and liquids count as "objects," what sort of craft check would be required to create liquid hydrogen etc.

In reality I'm taking this tread as very light hearted.

I am too. Some people have fun coming up with absurdities like this, and other people have fun poking holes in the creations of the first group. Both are pretty light-hearted approaches, imo.

Segev

2013-09-23, 11:26 AM

Hydrogen is neither mineral, vegetable nor metal so it's out.*cough* Technically, it's a mineral. Everything is mineral if it's not animal or vegetable. Metals are minerals.

You also run into the thorny issue of whether gases and liquids count as "objects," what sort of craft check would be required to create liquid hydrogen etc.Indeed; can you create liquids with the spell at all?

The Glyphstone

2013-09-23, 11:29 AM

Yeesh. Now I feel dumb for posting anything. My bad

Not your fault, you didn't realize what a can of worms you were re-opening.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 11:29 AM

*cough* Technically, it's a mineral. Everything is mineral if it's not animal or vegetable. Metals are minerals.

Metals are, but I would say nonmetal gases and liquids (at the very least, elements that naturally occur in those forms) are not.

And if the definition is indeed up in the air, we've run into yet another DM call.

Deophaun

2013-09-23, 11:31 AM

Hydrogen is neither mineral, vegetable nor metal so it's out.
Hydrogen can indeed be a metal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen)

Grayed to protect cat-girls. Not for campaign consumption.

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 11:31 AM

Psyren,

then get Metallic hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen)! This has the advantage of only occuring under great pressure, so it should immediatly explode upon being brought into a low pressure atmosphere! :tongue:

NOTE: Trying to match reality with what D&D tries to supply gives you some totally abusable concepts. I'll admit, I can't begin to figure out how much damage 1400lbs of metalic Hydrogen would do when it expands, but I'm betting it would be more than 7d6/lvl. Plus then it would react with the oxygen in the atmosphere. :biggrin:

ahenobarbi

2013-09-23, 11:32 AM

Hydrogen is neither mineral, vegetable nor metal so it's out. And at least for the latter, there's no surface capable of supporting a star anyway.

Metallic hydrogen will work :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Ninjas make me cry ;(

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 11:32 AM

Deophaun and ahenobarbi
Jinx...

Psyren

2013-09-23, 11:51 AM

Hydrogen can indeed be a metal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen)

That won't work - without the necessary 3.5 million PSI to keep it that way, it will not stay in that form. Therefore, the "surface to support it" that you actually need is the core of a planet, and I doubt you'd be getting much spellcasting done down there.

TheDarkSaint

2013-09-23, 11:52 AM

Is anyone else starting to feel like this has turned in to a Monty Python skit?

Psyren

2013-09-23, 11:54 AM

Is anyone else starting to feel like this has turned in to a Monty Python skit?

It is a silly place thread.

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 11:56 AM

Psyren,
but the floor would easily support it... Fortunatly there is no restriction like the specifically included one in summon monster/natures ally that the item summoned needs to be able to survive. As an example, if you summon iron in a room with oxygen, some of the iron will oxidize and rust away. Likewise if you summon ice and it isn't cold enough or if there isn't enough pressure/humidity, some will melt or evaporate.

And Yes, my retainer IS being funded by Asmodeus. :smallbiggrin:

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 11:57 AM

TheDarkSaint
Now I am wondering what shadowspam would taste like...

Deophaun

2013-09-23, 12:43 PM

Therefore, the "surface to support it" that you actually need is the core of a planet, and I doubt you'd be getting much spellcasting done down there.
First, as I said, it was not to be used in a campaign. Second, no. You're trying to shift the definition of support to be whatever is most useful to your position at any given time, rather than being consistent. And the phrasing of the conjuration text does not lend itself to your usage.

If the language said "cannot be conjured on a surface that cannot support it," you would have a case, albeit a slim one, if you could identify some aspect in which the surface did not support the object (such as not being able to support its continued existence). However, it is not worded in the negative that way. Instead, it is worded in the positive: "It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it." Thus, if anything, one need only identify a single aspect in which the surface does support the object (such as bearing its weight), and the condition is satisfied.

Besides, surfaces do not support objects in the fashion that you use it. It is not the floor, after all, that prevents your blood from boiling off or stops the Sun's radiation from cooking you. There are other external forces at work supporting you in this manner.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 12:52 PM

You're trying to shift the definition of support to be whatever is most useful to your position at any given time, rather than being consistent.

How is it inconsistent?

If the language said "cannot be conjured on a surface that cannot support it," you would have a case, albeit a slim one, if you could identify some aspect in which the surface did not support the object (such as not being able to support its continued existence). However, it is not worded in the negative that way. Instead, it is worded in the positive: "It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

I see no difference between these two phrasings that matters. In either case, what is important is the support.

Besides, surfaces do not support objects in the fashion that you use it. It is not the floor, after all, that prevents your blood from boiling off or stops the Sun's radiation from cooking you. There are other external forces at work supporting you in this manner.

But the very nature of the object is defined by the pressure forces in your article. Without that level of pressure it simply ceases to be Metallic Hydrogen, therefore it cannot exist outside of that environment and still be what it is. Whereas a human with all his blood boiled off or cooked is still human (albeit dead) etc.

Raven777

2013-09-23, 01:28 PM

That won't work - without the necessary 3.5 million PSI to keep it that way, it will not stay in that form. Therefore, the "surface to support it" that you actually need is the core of a planet, and I doubt you'd be getting much spellcasting done down there.

Objection. At moment t (where t -> 0) that it is summoned, it is in its metallic state and totally supported by the surface it is summoned on. Not our fault if that state ain't sustainable past t.

Psyren

2013-09-23, 01:33 PM

Objection. At moment t (where t -> 0) that it is summoned, it is in its metallic state and totally supported by the surface it is summoned on. Not our fault if that state ain't sustainable past t.

Except you're not summoning it, you're creating it. Thus there is no quantum moment t such that it exists independently of the pressure required for its creation.

Deophaun

2013-09-23, 01:44 PM

How is it inconsistent?
Because the definition of support must change depending on the object summoned. Otherwise, it's possible to summon a chunk of granite on a cobweb, because the cobweb supports its existence, instead of its weight.

I see no difference between these two phrasings that matters. In either case, what is important is the support.
Phrased in the negative, any failure to support can be interpreted as satisfying the condition of not being allowed to conjure. Phrased in the positive, any support can be interpreted as satisfying the condition to conjure. These are very big differences.

But the very nature of the object is defined by the pressure forces in your article. Without that level of pressure it simply ceases to be Metallic Hydrogen.
That's fine. It will cease to be metallic hydrogen. After it is created. Just as ice ceases to be ice after it is created inside a furnace.

JaronK

2013-09-23, 01:47 PM

Easier way of doing this: just summon a whole bunch of Sinmaker's Surprise. There's roughly 996 doses per cubic foot, and each dose forces a DC 24 save or take 3d6 acid damage and 2d6 con damage (and take the con damage again in a minute if you fail a second save). You don't need to summon it over the enemy, just a bunch where they're standing. They have to be immune to poison and acid to be immune to the whole thing, otherwise they're just dead.

And if you're a Factotum or otherwise can cast it as a standard action, it's an instant kill. It's also vegetable based so it lasts a long time... so you can keep the poison that's created and use it to poison your arrows or something.

JaronK

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 01:49 PM

Psyren,
Once more breaking out my solicitors hat, I'd have to point out that the surface will support the item, just not the surrounding environment.

If you wish to argue that the surrounding environment must be non-damaging to the item, then that would preclude most everything you summon. After all, damp dungeons (a common local) are very destructive towards metal object and often cause rot in vegetation.

I will admit, were I DMing I'd not allow a player to do this kinda thing. :smallbiggrin:

Phelix-Mu

2013-09-23, 01:55 PM

Summon Physicists

This epic druidic spell is seen as a last line of defense against wizards intent on destroying the natural balance in some ill-conceived magical experiment. By drawing on the laws inherent in the world (read: RAW), the spell seeks to bewitch the wizards into thinking that advanced physics is the best direction to go with their magic.

In game terms, any group of up to 1d4 wizards targeted by this spell will spend n+1 rounds involved in pithy, yet ultimately futile, discussion of the interaction between magic and science. "n" is defined to be a number not less than the number of rules lawyers at the table, yet not greater than the number of catgirls whom Asmodeus is currently busy damning, their only crime a combination of sheer numbers, and a reality-defying tendency to expire at the behest of online discussions.

:smallsmile:

Psyren

2013-09-23, 01:59 PM

Because the definition of support must change depending on the object summoned. Otherwise, it's possible to summon a chunk of granite on a cobweb, because the cobweb supports its existence, instead of its weight.

I agree that shouldn't be possible but don't see how anything I said makes that possible (granite on cobwebs.)

Phrased in the negative, any failure to support can be interpreted as satisfying the condition of not being allowed to conjure. Phrased in the positive, any support can be interpreted as satisfying the condition to conjure. These are very big differences.

I'm still not seeing the difference. If the item has 3 requirements for "support" and the surface only meets two of them, then the conjuration would fail - so what's the problem?

For instance, water has two "support" conditions - weight and volume. You can't conjure it in midair due to the first, and you can't conjure it on a perfectly flat plane due to the second - it needs to be in a container.

That's fine. It will cease to be metallic hydrogen. After it is created. Just as ice ceases to be ice after it is created inside a furnace.

Let's assume you're right and take a step back. This whole digression started because I said Hydrogen wasn't a metal/mineral, which in turn started because Longarrow wanted to create "hot Osmium" over someone's head on a platform of ice.

So my question then is - can the spell create Hot X or Cold X? "Ice" and "Water" are different situations I would say, because there are actually different names for those states. Letting temperature be a parameter where it isn't specified as one in the spell for every material just leads to trouble. What's stopping you from using "Create Hot Water" to scald someone with for instance?

Summon Physicists

:smallsmile:

:smallbiggrin:

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 02:12 PM

Phelix-Mu for the WIN!!!

Only thing left is to get the Marching band to parade so Godwin's law is triggered!

Phelix-Mu

2013-09-23, 08:17 PM

Phelix-Mu for the WIN!!!

Only thing left is to get the Marching band to parade so Godwin's law is triggered!

I keep thinking I can come up for a better name for the spell, but I went for an obvious/expedient one in an (apparently futile) effort to stem the tide of dead catgirls.

The Random NPC

2013-09-23, 08:33 PM

For instance, water has two "support" conditions - weight and volume. You can't conjure it in midair due to the first, and you can't conjure it on a perfectly flat plane due to the second - it needs to be in a container.

I don't believe that is correct, the only requirement for conjuring water is a surface that won't collapse when you summon/create it. Otherwise Create Water (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createWater.htm) wouldn't have that line about possibly creating a downpour when conjured.

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 08:40 PM

Phelix-Mu

Only thing you need to add is "Upon expiration of spell duration, said Physicists conjure cherry pies by science and proceed to propel them at a rate equal to not less than the number of wizards raise by the number of catgirls power kilometers per parsec into the faces of the wizards."

TuggyNE

2013-09-23, 08:49 PM

Phelix-Mu

2013-09-23, 09:03 PM

Kilometers per what now? Do you mean meters per mile, or something of that nature? A parsec is a unit of length, not time.

I wouldn't amend the spell until we iron that last bit out. All I could picture was some warp engines on a cherry pie. Not the amount of mindscrew I was looking for, but nice nonetheless.

John Longarrow

2013-09-23, 10:58 PM

Kilometers per what now? Do you mean meters per mile, or something of that nature? A parsec is a unit of length, not time.

Not sure if its before your time or not, but its from the line "made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs". Gotta Love Han's line!

Phelix-Mu
I've I'm sure you'll get it expanded to truly epic levels soon!
NOTE: Once you get past 20th level, you are EPIC. Once you break your DM's brain to hurt, you are TRULY EPIC!

Jack_Simth

2013-09-23, 11:23 PM

No, the real fun comes from taking two ring gates and shoving ten into each other until you get a closed hemisphere from which things cannot escape but they can go in. Use Wall of Stone or whatever to make stone. Cut it into as many five pound boulders as you can. Shrink them permanently. Make a very, very large amount. Billions. Shove them all into the hemisphere. The constant motion combined with the orientation of the rings means they reach and stay at terminal velocity (D&D terminal velocity, that is, constant maximum falling distance). Then throw this contraption over an area and hit it with dispel magic.

The sudden rain of billions of pounds of stone deals damage best represented with scientific notation. The area is saturated, too, but limited, so it's a controlled area hit by multiple boulders rather than a ginormous spread.
Trouble is, in 3.5, Ring Gates (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#ringGates) have a per-day weight limit. In order for things to become trapped, they have to have a nature that prevents them from ever being fully through. Otherwise, the ring gate quickly hits the limit, and things simply start going through like they would a mundane ring.

That aspect can be used to make an amusing gravity cannon - get two sets of ring gates: One set arranged so that the exit is directly above the entry (so anything falling in that path keeps falling until the daily weight limit is reached). The other set with an entry just below the other two, and an exit mounted on your fighter friend's shield (which he keeps pointed at the enemy).

Really? Atleast it still works on really mildly large creatures. Ready action greater shadow conjuration poison into a t-rex's mouth would be pretty funny (or into the gullet for that matter for when your teammate cuts their way out).
Yep. Part of the Line of Effect (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#lineofEffect) rules.

TuggyNE

2013-09-24, 03:38 AM

Not sure if its before your time or not, but its from the line "made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs". Gotta Love Han's line!

I'm aware. The joke is that that is almost the worst nonsequitur possible in that context. I suppose "in less than twelve radians" might be weirder, but not by all that much.

It gets worse when you remove the only possible justification for using the unit like that (i.e., that he'd managed to find a shortcut that spanned less than 12 parsecs distance, which presumes that the regular run is something over 12) by deliberately using it as if it were a unit of time.