Pathfinder How would you rule this spell combo? [Archive]

jedipotter

2014-06-20, 12:09 PM

I have to ask Jedipotter: can I pick your mind for a ruling?

I don't know what your preferred gaming poison is, but my group is playing pathfinder so we'll use for this example.

Sorceror casts Aqueous Orb (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/aqueous-orb) and rolls it on top of boss enemy. Boss makes his save and on his turn moves out of it's area and does his thing.

On Sorceror's next turn he uses his action to cast Hideous Laughter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/hideous-laughter). Boss enemy fails save and starts laughing his butt off.

Sorceror uses his move action to roll the ball of water on top of boss again.

What happens?

The boss would be entangled and/or take damage, unless he made his save. He can hold his breath just fine. Both making a save and holding ones breath are not actions, so a character can do both even when they can't take actions(and they are not helpless).

So the boss would last a couple rounds at least, even if he failed all his saves. Then kind of a long drawn out ''what will happen?''. Will both spells last long enough for the boss to drown or start taking real damage or both?

It is not a bad spell combo, just kind of a long waiting one. It's fine for mid level, but after that a lot a foes will be resistant or immune to both spells or some or all the effects.

nedz

2014-06-20, 12:14 PM

The boss would be entangled and/or take damage, unless he made his save. He can hold his breath just fine. Both making a save and holding ones breath are not actions, so a character can do both even when they can't take actions(and they are not helpless).

So the boss would last a couple rounds at least, even if he failed all his saves. Then kind of a long drawn out ''what will happen?''. Will both spells last long enough for the boss to drown or start taking real damage or both?

It is not a bad spell combo, just kind of a long waiting one. It's fine for mid level, but after that a lot a foes will be resistant or immune to both spells or some or all the effects.

This seems fine by RAW, but how do you hold your breath whilst laughing hysterically ?

Deophaun

2014-06-20, 12:16 PM

He can hold his breath just fine.
Curious. How do you hold your breath while making "gales of manic laughter?" Seems to me he would start drowning instantly.

jedipotter

2014-06-20, 06:37 PM

Curious. How do you hold your breath while making "gales of manic laughter?" Seems to me he would start drowning instantly.

Well ''gales of manic laughter'' is vague. I for one am not sure what they are talking about. But more impotantly ''laughing'' has no game effect, other then the ones listed in the spell.

If you would rule this spell combo is auto death, then that is your rule. I don't want to play in a game of just random on the spot random vague rulings, but maybe you do...

Kazudo

2014-06-20, 07:01 PM

Well, as long as you laugh without inhaling I'd see it as passing a sanity check. For example, any races that don't have to breathe could THEORETICALLY figure out some way to laugh without the passage of air. I've made people laugh so hard they expelled their lungs and just sat there rocking, face red and veins popping, mouth open, writhing. The thing is, they all had to breathe, so they breathed in. If they were underwater, they'd have taken in a lungful of water and begun drowning if they couldn't replace it with air.

I'd think you'd end up drowning. Not instantaneously, since I'd imagine you might be able to make an argument that you laughed JUST SO HARD you're holding your breath in reverse for what is it. A number of rounds equal to your CON modifier? Something like that? But once it's done (keeping in mind that any other effects of either spell were still in effect) you'd have to inhale unless your race just doesn't breathe.

Boci

2014-06-20, 07:18 PM

Well ''gales of manic laughter'' is vague. I for one am not sure what they are talking about. But more impotantly ''laughing'' has no game effect, other then the ones listed in the spell.

If you would rule this spell combo is auto death, then that is your rule. I don't want to play in a game of just random on the spot random vague rulings, but maybe you do...

You know I think there is some compromising room between "instant death" and "no, laughing has no effect on how long you can hold your breathe for. Say, reducing the time they can hold their breath for a number of rounds equal to twice their con score. At minimum this should be halved, and really reducing it to 1d4 or even 1 round wouldn't be that OP. Once the duration is out they do still need to fail a con check after all.

Remember, this combo requires a failed will save from a spell with a single target (and then two failed reflex saves from a second spell), so its not that bad if it ends up being pretty severe. Failing 3 saves often is.

Raven777

2014-06-20, 07:38 PM

Curious. How do you hold your breath while making "gales of manic laughter?" Seems to me he would start drowning instantly.

The spell description is pretty clear : The subject can take no actions while laughing, but is not considered helpless. Hideous Laughter has no stated effect on the ability to hold one's breath, which is not an action either. Therefore, the "laughing" has no bearing beyond fluff.

EDIT : To expand and agree with Boci's post below, the above is RAW. This is the common grounds, the starting point that makes every table equal. Adhering to it is perfectly fine and sane. Now, beyond it, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a DM rule zeroing that the laughter makes it impossible to hold one's breath. That's what rule zero was originally made for : adjusting to special cases strict RAW doesn't cover.

Boci

2014-06-20, 07:40 PM

The spell description is pretty clear : The subject can take no actions while laughing, but is not considered helpless. Hideous Laughter has no stated effect on the ability to hold one's breath, which is not an action either. Therefore, the "laughing" has no bearing beyond fluff.

Alternatively the DM takes some personal initiative, thereby increasing verisimilitude and rewarding a player's clever trick.

nedz

2014-06-20, 08:18 PM

Alternatively the DM takes some personal initiative, thereby increasing verisimilitude and rewarding a player's clever trick.

Well you also have to bear in mind that this is a Sorcerer we are talking about — so you are liable to see this spell combo a lot from him. Also the water ball is going to be on the boss for several rounds forcing multiple SoD, if you allow the drowning to work — 1 rd/CL for THL IIRC. OTOH THL is going to kill the boss one way or another so I guess you could hand wave the fight as being over by drowning.

Boci

2014-06-20, 08:20 PM

Well you also have to bear in mind that this is a Sorcerer we are talking about — so you are liable to see this spell combo a lot from him. Also the water ball is going to be on the boss for several rounds forcing multiple SoD, if you allow the drowning to work — 1 rd/CL for THL IIRC. OTOH THL is going to kill the boss one way or another so I guess you could hand wave the fight as being over by drowning.

You also have to bear in mind that this combo requires 3 failed saves. As far as "things that happen to you when you fail 3 saves", drowning isn't actually rated that bad (and you still have to fail a con check before that happens). Plus, you know, I pointed out that the time the target can hold their breath could always be reduced, rather than simply ignored.

jedipotter

2014-06-20, 08:23 PM

Alternatively the DM takes some personal initiative, thereby increasing verisimilitude and rewarding a player's clever trick.

I don't see this as clever at all, but I guess I just set my bar high. This is just a lazy trick at best, and cheating at worst if you have a ''woah cool instantat death'' type of view. But that is just what I think.

Boci

2014-06-20, 08:30 PM

I don't see this as clever at all, but I guess I just set my bar high. This is just a lazy trick at best, and cheating at worst if you have a ''woah cool instantat death'' type of view. But that is just what I think.

It requires 3 failed saves under the most generous ruling of the DM (target cannot hold their breath and automatically begin drowning without a con check). That already is not insta-death, and if you go by a compromise and have a reduced breath holding time for the target (say con mod rounds instead of con score x 2) it becomes even less effective. It may not be clever, but its a neat trick a sorcerer has invested two spells in. Let them have some synergy.

Kazudo

2014-06-20, 08:30 PM

I don't see this as clever at all, but I guess I just set my bar high. This is just a lazy trick at best, and cheating at worst if you have a ''woah cool instantat death'' type of view. But that is just what I think.

How is it cheating? Really? Even once the enemy stops being able to hold its breath, there are saves involved vs drowning. It would follow the rules at some point. I mean, instadeath no, I wouldn't rule that it would make you drown immediately, but it's a very real problem, and it's only cheating if your DM lets it slide, and if your DM let it slide, it can't be cheating since the DM let it happen.

jedipotter

2014-06-20, 09:02 PM

How is it cheating? Really? Even once the enemy stops being able to hold its breath, there are saves involved vs drowning. It would follow the rules at some point. I mean, instadeath no, I wouldn't rule that it would make you drown immediately, but it's a very real problem, and it's only cheating if your DM lets it slide, and if your DM let it slide, it can't be cheating since the DM let it happen.

I would say in my game: To Rule that ''a laughing person can't hold thier breath, and drowns and dies on the first round effected by this spell, is cheating.'' That is just the way I see it. Using two low level spells for instant death is cheating, your making the spells way more powerful then they should be.....it's going down the slipper slope of ''if your paralizied you suffocate'' or ''telekiniesis can crush someones windpipe''.

Kantolin

2014-06-20, 09:06 PM

Realistically, /if/ this combo results in drowning, then it means that you have round/level to not fail constitution checks. If you do fail a check, you then will start dying.

Meanwhile, uh... the remaining party members / henchmen can go murder the caster, or worst case scenario, pull their boss out of the water. And for this to work, the target has to fail a save against Tasha's Hideous Laughter, which means (In absence of henchmen/party members to pull people out of water or murder the caster or both) that you could walk over and coup de grace him. :P The Aquas orb spell is of comparative unimportance, if you ask me - once you've failed your save against Tasha's Hideous Laughter there are better ways to then kill them. Get a scythe or something.

So I dunno. I could see it RAW not doing much else, but that's a lot of work the caster is spending to try to kill the target. I guess I could use this as a DM, as the multitude of extra steps to kill someone is a lot nicer than just 'Tasha's, coup de grace'.

Boci

2014-06-20, 09:07 PM

I would say in my game: To Rule that ''a laughing person can't hold thier breath, and drowns and dies on the first round effected by this spell, is cheating.'' That is just the way I see it. Using two low level spells for instant death is cheating, your making the spells way more powerful then they should be.....it's going down the slipper slope of ''if your paralizied you suffocate'' or ''telekiniesis can crush someones windpipe''.

Right, but no one was advocating that, but a compromise between "instant death" and "these 2 spells have no synergy". Like reducing the time the target can hold their breath to con modifier rounds.

jedipotter

2014-06-20, 09:11 PM

Right, but no one was advocating that, but a compromise between "instant death" and "these 2 spells have no synergy". Like reducing the time the target can hold their breath to con modifier rounds.

I'd give the target the save, and let them hold thier breath. So they would likely last a dozen rounds or so...maybe....but if you kept both spells in effect for more then a dozen rounds or so, chances are you (might) kill the target.

Boci

2014-06-20, 09:13 PM

I'd give the target the save, and let them hold thier breath.

So you would completely ignore common sense (that laughing really hard should reduce your ability to hold your breath), despite the fact that doing so would not unbalance the game and allow a player some synergy between their spells?

Douglas

2014-06-20, 09:29 PM

Using two low level spells for instant death is cheating, your making the spells way more powerful then they should be
The spells in question are level 2 and level 3. Straight up instant death from a single spell is available RAW at level 4 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/phantasmal-killer).

Compared to Phantasmal Killer, this trick:
a) Requires 1 more failed save
b) Requires 1 more spellcasting action
c) Requires 1 more spell slot
d) May require additional failed saves depending on order of and time between castings
e) Takes 2 additional rounds to actually kill, each of which allows yet another save to stop the process

In my opinion, that is a quite sufficient difference in effectiveness to be worth a 1 level reduction in highest spell level required.

Raven777

2014-06-20, 09:33 PM

Well, that is his prerogative as the DM. Personally, I'd make the Laughter make it impossible to hold one's breath the same way I'd rule on the fly that slipping in Greased stairs makes you fall 1d4 5-feet squares down.

EDIT:

Straight up instant death from a single spell is available RAW at level 4 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/phantasmal-killer).

level 4? Try level 2 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/aboleth-s-lung).

Boci

2014-06-20, 09:39 PM

level 4? Try level 2 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/aboleth-s-lung).

Kinda sort of covered with the racial spell...rule? Guideline?

"This spell was originally created for Gillmen. Characters or creatures of other races can learn to cast it with GM permission."

Raven777

2014-06-20, 09:42 PM

Kinda sort of covered with the racial spell...rule? Guideline?

"This spell was originally created for Gillmen. Characters or creatures of other races can learn to cast it with GM permission."

Making a Gillman (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/uncommon-races/arg-gillmen) Sorcerer is actually not bad at all. They have the same bonus spells Favored Class Bonus as Humans do, +Cha, +Con, -Wis, with the Throwback racial traits package removing their water dependency entirely.

Thanatosia

2014-06-20, 09:46 PM

But that is just what I think.How is it cheating? Really? Even once the enemy stops being able to hold its breath, there are saves involved vs drowning. It would follow the rules at some point. I mean, instadeath no, I wouldn't rule that it would make you drown immediately, but it's a very real problem, and it's only cheating if your DM lets it slide, and if your DM let it slide, it can't be cheating since the DM let it happen.
This is Jedipotter you are talking to, he views rolling a wizard or other T1 caster as Cheating (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17597085&postcount=95)

Kazudo

2014-06-20, 09:56 PM

I guess the thing is that I don't understand how one can cheat at D&D. You can display unwelcome levels of cleverness, but unless you're fudging die rolls (while not being the DM) or using completely forbidden material and not telling anyone or giving yourself extra gold or moving your stuff around mid-game without telling the DM or doing some pretty horrendous metagaming, you can't really cheat at a tabletop game. Again, the group can have something against unwelcome levels of cleverness, especially when it comes to bending the rules in the book to the point where they don't resemble their old selves anymore, but if you're staying within the boundaries of the rules and the table's accepted level of cleverness, I don't really see "cheating" as a possibility.

Now, if it's a particularly unskilled or no-nonsense DM who really doesn't like the idea of having clever players, then that's another ball of wax entirely.

Psychoalpha

2014-06-21, 12:18 AM

This is Jedipotter you are talking to, he views rolling a wizard or other T1 caster as Cheating (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17597085&postcount=95)

I read that, and I'm not sure I'm capable of believing that this person is not just trolling all of you. Us. We. Whatever.

If not, he sounds like a great guy to play a game with. I mean, if his view of how the rules work is so absolutist that common sense can never, ever interact with the rules, it means any spellcaster who finds a RAW loophole can abuse it with impunity. Right?

I'd respond more seriously, but I can't see why one would bother. If he'd just said, "I don't really like it and spellcasters are powerful enough, so I'd ask the player not to make me adjudicate such an obviously unintended interaction." I might not agree with him, but I'd understand.

But claiming that he has no idea what manic laughter is or why doing so would create difficulty in holding your breath is just a level of complete disassociation from reality that it has to be either trolling, or someone who should not under any circumstances be taken seriously.

Deophaun

2014-06-21, 12:32 AM

Well ''gales of manic laughter'' is vague.
Is it? A gale is a very strong wind, capable of knocking someone down, and manic laughter, well, go onto youtube and look it up. So look at that video of the Joker laughing, and pick out the ones that can be described as producing laughter of such force it can support being compared to a gale. If it's vague at all, it certainly isn't vague in the sense of "is it possible to hold your breath while doing this?"

But more impotantly ''laughing'' has no game effect, other then the ones listed in the spell.
PC: I laugh
DM: The guards hear you.
PC: Impossible! Laughter has no in-game effect!

It's as ridiculous to say you can hold your breath while laughing manically as it is to say you can be silent while laughing maniacally (at least outside any magical intervention), simply because neither holding your breath nor being quiet require an action.

If you would rule this spell combo is auto death, then that is your rule. I don't want to play in a game of just random on the spot random vague rulings, but maybe you do...
It's the game's rule, actually. The game says you laugh manically, you laugh manically. It doesn't give us a unique definition for manic laughter, so we have to resort to the English definition of the term. And that is pretty darn clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_laughter). And the further descriptive "gales" certainly doesn't lend an interpretation for an understated variety.

But hey, if the mixture of fluff and mechanics is problematic for you, check out 4e.

Killer Angel

2014-06-21, 02:12 AM

Thanatosia

2014-06-21, 04:49 AM

If you would rule this spell combo is auto death, then that is your rule. I don't want to play in a game of just random on the spot random vague rulings, but maybe you do...
This coming from the guy who has a top secret (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17612732&postcount=106) list of spell components he's house-ruled are not in a spell component pouch or affected by eschew materials, that he won't even post for fear of his players knowing which spells they can actually cast or not. Then again, perhaps Psychoalpha is right about him.

Killer Angel

2014-06-21, 04:58 AM

The boss would be entangled and/or take damage, unless he made his save. He can hold his breath just fine. Both making a save and holding ones breath are not actions, so a character can do both even when they can't take actions(and they are not helpless)

Well ''gales of manic laughter'' is vague. I for one am not sure what they are talking about. But more impotantly ''laughing'' has no game effect, other then the ones listed in the spell.

who's the one that now is abusing RAW? :smallamused:

nedz

2014-06-21, 05:04 AM

You also have to bear in mind that this combo requires 3 failed saves.

Except that you are forced to make the second and third saves multiple times, so you are going to fail them at some point. Still I guess that this would add some tension: will the boss be rescued before he drowns ?
THL is the main spell here, and that's a SoL in any event: so the Sorcerer probably has better things to do with his actions than try to drown the boss in this manner.

Boci

2014-06-21, 05:12 AM

Except that you are forced to make the second and third saves multiple times, so you are going to fail them at some point.

Yes, but they need to fail the second and third save in the same round. Plus once they do, they also get a new save every round to avoid being engulfed and thus needing to hold their breathe, so unless they start drowning instantly the also get a chance to escape.

Deophaun

2014-06-21, 09:54 AM

Realistically, /if/ this combo results in drowning, then it means that you have round/level to not fail constitution checks. If you do fail a check, you then will start dying.
There are no Constitution checks. The Constitution checks are for holding your breath, which, since you're laughing, you can't do. Once you can no longer hold your breath, you start drowning, which means you fall unconscious in the first round, start dying the next, and then die the round after that.

jedipotter

2014-06-21, 01:22 PM

So what is everyone ruling on the spell combo? I gave mine. So how do others rule?

Kazudo

2014-06-21, 01:25 PM

I'd rule that per the rules laughing doesn't necessarily require breathing in much the same way that talking doesn't require breathing (See: Constructs, Undead, etc.), so the boss would have to hold his breath per the rules in the handbook until he was no longer able to, then begin the drowning process. It might be a crazy efficient way to drop someone to 0, but kudos for originality.

nedz

2014-06-21, 02:24 PM

The Boss gets a save to hold his breath whilst laughing, this is pretty much a given in D&D. Probably a Fort save.

Thanatosia

2014-06-21, 03:06 PM

What Deophaun said - normal drowning rules without the allowance of holding breath due to the laughter. Claiming you can hold your breath through gales of forced laughter is very much in the domain of 'silly raw' like drowning healing someone at negative hps. Silly raw may need to be enforced under very limited conditions like a Tournament where perfectly fair rulings are an absolute, but the DM exists to adjucate these kind of things, and I don't view this as unfair or arbitrary ruling.

From a balance perspective, it's a spell combo that allows a save - and requiring multiple spell slots and rounds (unless quickened, in which case you're using a spell slot high enough where you could just use a strait up save or die spell instead). In just a few more spell levels you'll get outright save or dies, and a lv2 spell is easier to save vs then those unless hightened to their spell levels. Futhermore the guy who's drowning would have been effectively eliminated from the fight due to the laughter anyways. I just dont see it as a gamebreaking ruling. Finally it's a combo that can be defeated by any number of powers or abilities, as a mind affecting enchantment Tasha's is pretty easy to circumvent. If you have a Boss that can be reliably defeated by failing a low level will save vs a mind affecting effect, you got a pretty fragile boss to begin with - he could have been just as easily circumvented (if probably not outright killed) with a Suggestion cast - and wasting multiple rounds and spell slots on eliminating a non boss mook is rarely an effective use of resources.

Deophaun

2014-06-21, 03:28 PM

Thanatosia

2014-06-21, 03:36 PM

No problem with the spell combo. I dislike the "three rounds of drowning and you're dead" rule, but my replacement wouldn't tone down the power of the combo much at all (First round, you are drowning. You may attempt to remove yourself from the drowning environment, becoming nauseated for one round, to end the drowning condition. If you are still in the drowning environment at the start of your next round, you are rendered unconscious, and remain so for Con Score -10 minutes, minimum 1 minute, before dying. A DC 20 Heal check performed outside the drowning environment before death restores consciousness and prevents death by drowning.)
This is a valid point, the RAW implimentation of drowning rules is pretty bad. A round is only 6 seconds.... you don't die in 18 seconds if you jump in a pool of water on an exhale with emptied lungs - you'd probably be close to unconsciousness tho. I wouldn't change the rules on the spot and let the caster get his combo off this one time, but after the session I'd probably discuss with the players, given that it is now a tactical balance issue and not just obscure rule esoterica, on agreeing on more reasonable drowning/suffocation rules for the campaign.

EDIT: some quick googling came up with this "You have 4 seconds of oxygenated blood in your brain...at least that's what I've always been told, which matches the 4 seconds if you blood choke someone to unconsciousness. So I'd go with 4 seconds before you pass out.

Dieing is a longer time - 7 or 8 minutes I think is what a medic once told me...."

So I guess 1 round till unconsciousness, then maybe CON * 5 rounds (30sec) till Death, with a heal check to empty the lungs of water, restore breathing, and revive a character in the dying process.

jedipotter

2014-06-21, 03:40 PM

I wonder if a sorcerer with Eschew Materials, can learn fireball if she grew up on an island where bats are not native...

Nope, and it is one of the great things about my game. Not every spellcaster in the whole multiverse uses the same handfulls of spells like brain dead robots. Each location has it's own flavor of spells, and much of it is based on what materals can be found in that location.

To give an easy example, drow spellcasters don't use very many spells that require surface animals as components. So Jump is not a spell often used by drow as they don't have easy ways to get grasshoppers.

PC: I laugh
DM: The guards hear you.
PC: Impossible! Laughter has no in-game effect!

It's as ridiculous to say you can hold your breath while laughing manically as it is to say you can be silent while laughing maniacally (at least outside any magical intervention), simply because neither holding your breath nor being quiet require an action.

There is a game effect, lets call it a rule effect so as not to confuse, and the role play effect. Everything has a role play effect, but not everything has a rule effect.

Svata

2014-06-21, 03:46 PM

Nope, and it is one of the great things about my game. Not every spellcaster in the whole multiverse uses the same handfulls of spells like brain dead robots. Each location has it's own flavor of spells, and much of it is based on what materals can be found in that location.

Yes, because imposing limitations on your players because of lack of access to a bunch of bad puns (i.e. material components) is just wonderful. Absolutely amazing.

jedipotter

2014-06-21, 03:54 PM

Yes, because imposing limitations on your players because of lack of access to a bunch of bad puns (i.e. material components) is just wonderful. Absolutely amazing.

It's true that optimizing players who just want to cheat thier way through the game and auto win, don't like being told ''sorry your wizard can't find a frog in the desert''. But other players are fine with it.

Kazudo

2014-06-21, 03:56 PM

Which is pretty much why Eschew Materials is almost a feat tax in most cases.

Aegis013

2014-06-21, 04:04 PM

It's true that optimizing players who just want to cheat thier way through the game and auto win, don't like being told ''sorry your wizard can't find a frog in the desert''. But other players are fine with it.

Sometimes, you have a case like me, where I want my players to optimize, because I want to optimize. If I do it as a DM, and my players don't, it's constant TPKs. Which, in my experience, and the groups I have played with, are not fun and not conducive to a good time for anyone.

If my players optimize to "cheat thier way through the game and auto win" then I get to actually build interesting foes. They often get pushed back, even when the group is highly optimized. Still there has been the rare TPK, which is unfortunate (even though at that level, they had options to get around death post-mortum, which they didn't take... oh well).

If my players don't want to "cheat thier way though the game and auto win" I get bored and annoyed with the setting and game because it doesn't make sense for me. The same way I'll get frustrated with a TV show or movie where a character has powers but fails to recognize obvious ways to utilize their abilities more effectively.

Edit: For my ruling on the spell combo, I'd reward the player's cleverness. I'd bypass the double constitution score rounds of holding breath and skip straight to the constitution checks vs. drowning.

jedipotter

2014-06-21, 04:25 PM

Sometimes, you have a case like me, where I want my players to optimize, because I want to optimize. If I do it as a DM, and my players don't, it's constant TPKs. Which, in my experience, and the groups I have played with, are not fun and not conducive to a good time for anyone.

I want players to optimize, just not cheat. I'm fine with powerful characters and all, it's the cheating that I' not ok with.

Cheating Example:

Apocalypse from the Sky has this line in the spell: Material Component: An artifact, usually one of good perverted to this corrupt use. And under equipment it says: Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

So by RAW a player can say ''I reach into my pouch and pull out an artifact''. That is misusing the rules to the worst extreme and cheating.

Kazudo

2014-06-21, 04:29 PM

However, playing using strict RAW is stupid and shouldn't ever happen.

This is WHY the DM is here has the right to say "Well actually, it doesn't work that way since most artifacts are priceless and can't simply be bought and yadda yadda yadda".

The only way players cheat is if the DM lets them. That's how D&D is done.

nedz

2014-06-21, 04:31 PM

Apocalypse from the Sky has this line in the spell: Material Component: An artifact, usually one of good perverted to this corrupt use. And under equipment it says: Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

So by RAW a player can say ''I reach into my pouch and pull out an artifact''. That is misusing the rules to the worst extreme and cheating.

But if you give them a Sphere of Annihilation the first time they try this, ..., well they won't do it again now will they :smalltongue: "An artefact" Really !

Aegis013

2014-06-21, 04:38 PM

Svata

2014-06-21, 05:00 PM

It's true that optimizing players who just want to cheat thier way through the game and auto win, don't like being told ''sorry your wizard can't find a frog in the desert''. But other players are fine with it.

Yes, because using your class features is an auto win. Like casting fireball. Wins everything, every time.

I want players to optimize, just not cheat. I'm fine with powerful characters and all, it's the cheating that I' not ok with.

Cheating Example:

Apocalypse from the Sky has this line in the spell: Material Component: An artifact, usually one of good perverted to this corrupt use. And under equipment it says: Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

So by RAW a player can say ''I reach into my pouch and pull out an artifact''. That is misusing the rules to the worst extreme and cheating.

I know it's just an example, but I think it was errataed to be a focus, so that doesn't work.

Kantolin

2014-06-21, 05:12 PM

Well, uh...

For people who don't have this result in problems, would there be issues with the sorceror casting tasha's hideous laughter, then going and coup de gracing the target with a scythe? Or heck, picking him up and shoving his head into a bucket?

The majority of things that would stop or at least restrain him from doing that (other opponents) also would stop the second spell from doing that. If there aren't other opponents, that also means that the rest of the sorcerors party has a full round to coup de grace or even just wail on the downed boss.

I mean yeesh - if this came up in game and the DM/player told me it wouldn't work, I'd just say, "Okay okay, I go coup de grace him with my scythe. Hey party fighter, can you help me coup de grace him?"

I mean, if this is a problem then what you need to do is specifically deal with /tasha's hideous laughter/. :P That's the spell that is making the boss go from a threatening opponent to trivial.

Karnith

2014-06-21, 05:18 PM

I know it's just an example, but I think it was errataed to be a focus, so that doesn't work.
It wasn't errata'd, but it was addressed in the BoVD FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a). Addressed somewhat poorly, granted, but addressed nevertheless.

grarrrg

2014-06-21, 05:21 PM

Cheating Example:

Apocalypse from the Sky has this line in the spell: Material Component: An artifact, usually one of good perverted to this corrupt use. And under equipment it says: Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

So by RAW a player can say ''I reach into my pouch and pull out an artifact''. That is misusing the rules to the worst extreme and cheating.

Using an obviously extreme example as your example does not make for a legitimate example.

You may as well have typed "Hitler liked Eschew Materials" for all the good your example does.

Svata

2014-06-21, 05:28 PM

It wasn't errata'd, but it was addressed in the BoVD FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a).

Ah, my mistake. But still, I know of no situation where a DM wouldn't rule it to be a focus.

Deophaun

2014-06-21, 05:42 PM

It's true that optimizing players who just want to cheat thier way through the game and auto win, don't like being told ''sorry your wizard can't find a frog in the desert''. But other players are fine with it.
Because as we all know, there are no frogs in the desert. (http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_desert_toad.php)

Generally why I dislike DM control over player abilities, because so many DMs know things that just aren't true.

Kazudo

2014-06-21, 05:55 PM

Because as we all know, there are no frogs in the desert. (http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_desert_toad.php)

Generally why I dislike DM control over player abilities, because so many DMs know things that just aren't true.

That's obviously not a frog, it's a toad. You can't use a toad as a material component as a frog. Five lashings!

jedipotter

2014-06-21, 05:55 PM

Using an obviously extreme example as your example does not make for a legitimate example.

You may as well have typed "Hitler liked Eschew Materials" for all the good your example does.

It would be like a whole new Trope: ''when Hitler played D&D he did X'' lol.....

That's not optimization though. That's more akin to munchkinry.
Keeping the terms separate will help other forum goers understand you better.

I said, it was an example of cheating. I never said ''optimization'' or anything else.

Aegis013

2014-06-21, 06:00 PM

I said, it was an example of cheating. I never said ''optimization'' or anything else.

It's true that optimizing players who just want to cheat thier way through the game and auto win...

Keeping the terms distinctly separate will help other forum goers understand you better.

cobaltstarfire

2014-06-21, 06:24 PM

Well on the artifact example, since you like to stick to RAW when it suits you, it specifically says in the DMG that artifacts don't exist in the world unless the "you" (the dm) specifically puts them there. So the player in question shouldn't have an artifact in their spell component pouch without the character first managing to get their hands on an actual artifact I imagine.

It looks like you really like to flip flop between the letter of the rules and the intent based on whether it suits you or not.

I'd rule probably give the character using this spell combo a bit of bonus xp for coming up with a creative way to string their spells together. I'm not going to go "by the RAW" for everything either, the spell causes a character to laugh uncontrollably. If you can't control your laughter, you can't control your breathing, thus the character can't hold their breath, so they would start the process of drowning.

I would then create encounters where it'd be hard to pull off such a combination too easily again.

grarrrg

2014-06-21, 06:33 PM

Because as we all know, there are no frogs in the desert. (http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_desert_toad.php)

Technically he said "can't find a frog in the desert", not that there were no frogs to be found.
You'd need to cast a Divination spell to help you find the frog.
But then you'd need components for the spell, so you need a frog to cast a spell to find a frog....

Coidzor

2014-06-21, 07:04 PM

I'd probably go with that variant on the drowning rules where they get a save for their autonomic nervous system to kick in and have 'em start drowning if they failed or halve or even quarter the amount of time they have before they start drowning if I were to keep the extant drowning rules.

Not sure what about preventing fireballs is supposed to be so great though. Seemed to skip straight to just crowing about that when fireball isn't even that good. It's just iconic.

Raven777

2014-06-21, 07:33 PM

I'd offer one fort save to hold one's breath while laughing, then begin the drowning process, per Deophaun's quote of the rules.

Once you can no longer hold your breath, you start drowning, which means you fall unconscious in the first round, start dying the next, and then die the round after that.

Dimcair

2014-06-21, 08:48 PM

To give an easy example, drow spellcasters don't use very many spells that require surface animals as components. So Jump is not a spell often used by drow as they don't have easy ways to get grasshoppers.

That makes sense. He must be trolling^^ *cookie

On topic:

Let the wizard tell a joke. If you laugh consider the boss drowning.

(I actually know a wizard who always has a joke prepared for this spell.
The last one was: "What is harder than nailing a baby to a tree?")
Answer: My **** while doing it.

jedipotter

2014-06-21, 09:13 PM

Not sure what about preventing fireballs is supposed to be so great though. Seemed to skip straight to just crowing about that when fireball isn't even that good. It's just iconic.

It's not about nitpicking spells, it's just about balance by using what is in the books. It's not about ''picking the awesome alwways optimized cheater spells'' and making them hard to get and use, it's more just a blanket change.

But more then anything, it is about flavor. Go to location X, and you will see spells A, B and C. Go to location Z and they have spells A, D and E. Location ZA has B, E and K. And so on.

It also provides ''real life spellcraft''. So the players don't just roll the dice and automatiacly make the roll due to stacking and have the DM tell them stuff. When a player in my game sees a character in the game cast Firedarts, they can make a good guess as to where that person (might) be from or (might) have gotten the spell.

Boci

2014-06-21, 09:53 PM

You know jedipotter, you've been asked by multiple posters to show the full write up of your magic fix, rather than just assure us how well it works. Are we going to see it?

Raven777

2014-06-21, 10:45 PM

Also, "cheater", you keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.

RolkFlameraven

2014-06-21, 10:49 PM

Do I even want to know what your stance on Psionics is Jedi? Or how you temper the power of Druids or Clerics? Putting the squeeze on Wizards and Sorcerer and not the holy men seems odd...

Svata

2014-06-21, 11:31 PM

Look. I'm going to show you why restricting material components fails as a power limiter.

Fireball- 1d6 fire damage/CL, max 10d6, in a 20' radius. Fire is resisted or an immunity of more creatures than any other energy type. Material component- Yes.

Gate- Calls one extraplanar creature and places it under your command for CL rounds. Can be used for NI Solar army via making one gate in another ad infinitum, each of whom can cast Miracle and Wish. Material component- No.

Deophaun

2014-06-21, 11:37 PM

That makes sense.
It doesn't, once you consider that Drow have humans, elves, halflings, and various other surface-dwelling races as slaves. Kind of ridiculous to say that a people that has the logistical means to raid the surface and return with chattle in tow as part of their normal course of business are somehow unable to get grasshopper legs.

the_other_gm

2014-06-22, 01:01 AM

Wow didn't even see this thread until a bit ago. I have to say, I'm actually curious to know where Jedipotter draws the line at "cheating".

Let's say Jack is playing John Barbarianmann, eldest son of the Barbarianmann tribe of lion totem barbarians. John has weapon focus (greataxe), powerattack, an 18 strength and his big 'ol greataxe. His average damage will vary from 9-20 on a powerattack/charge with a +6 to hit. while raging his damage goes up to 12-23 at +8 to hit. His average damage will kill most CR1 beasties and CR2s will be left hurting, possibly dead/dying on a good roll. Note that he'll probably be landing most of those attacks since at low level natural armor isn't a huge factor and manufactured armor is still non-magical.

Is this "cheating"? Our theoretical barbarian is really just taking feats and weapons that synergize well with what he's normally going to do: punch faces with big, heavy weapons. What if the takes feats like Leap Attack which enhances his power attack even more? Or feats like Combat Brute (even more power attack damage) or Shock Trooper (AC penalty instead of Attack Penalty on power attack)?

As a player in your game, how would I know where "Cheating/making the game too easy" begins?

While I'm at it, might as well pick the jedi's brain a bit more since I'm curious to see how you feel about these spells:

blindness/deafness: no spell components and immediately removes a sense on a single failed save. fighter types, or at least those with good fort saves, have a better chance of ignoring it's effects but most rogue or caster types can quickly find themselves in VERY bad positions. a traditional trap-finder/disabler or scout rogue-type can find themselves effectively out of the game due to the permanent duration of the spell... it's not pretty. if memory serves, casters also suffer a 20% spell failure for being deafened though I would say blinding them is far graver a fate.

alter self: While the spell does grant a few combat buffs (troglodyte form is stupid good for +6 natural AC), it's best uses are for disguises (don't want to be recognized? turn into a generic elf/dwarf/half-human/etc...) or alternate forms of travel (Locathah, for example, grants you a swim speed of 60ft). At level 3 when you get it allows you a half hour of these boons. Going outside of core we get the Avarial race and it's flight speed of 50 we can nab and I wouldn't be surprised if there is one with a burrow speed.

Very potent and no components.

The whole polymorph line is pretty broken, really. But for this exercise I'm keeping it at spells which have no components or things that would be generally trivial to find.

Dispel Magic (area)/Explosive Runes - A very potent spell combination where the trick is to always prepare Explosive Runes as high a level as possible and keep Dispel Magic's caster level as low as possible. Carry around a bunch of these, throw them at your problem and area dispel, choosing to roll to see if the ER is dispelled or not. at level 5 we're looking at a CL5 check VS DC 16. At level 10 a dispel magic cast at CL5 is still CL5 but VS a DC 21 Explosive Runes. At CL15 you can make explosive runes that are undispelable by your CL5 dispel magic.

Again: no special components beyond the page or whatever needed to scribe the explosive rune on and the time/effort to write something on the page. Many of which can be placed in a scroll case for carry and toss.

These are spells, or in the latter case's spell combos that can be done with no material components and allow for quite a bit of versatility.

Killer Angel

2014-06-22, 02:16 AM

I want players to optimize, just not cheat. I'm fine with powerful characters and all, it's the cheating that I' not ok with.

Cheating Example:

Apocalypse from the Sky has this line in the spell: Material Component: An artifact, usually one of good perverted to this corrupt use. And under equipment it says: Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

So by RAW a player can say ''I reach into my pouch and pull out an artifact''. That is misusing the rules to the worst extreme and cheating.

Well, given that in another thread you consider "cheating" the Bag of Holding, your example is a sort of extreme point, isn't it?

And BTW, isn't "my boss can hold its breath while laughing manically, it's RAW", a same sort of misusing the rules to the worst extreme? :smallannoyed:

Wow didn't even see this thread until a bit ago. I have to say, I'm actually curious to know where Jedipotter draws the line at "cheating".

Be careful. You will have what you asked for (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?356196-Balancing-bad-mechanics).

Judge by yourself. I'm starting to believe that is "cheating" everything he doesn't like, but who knows? maybe I've got preconceptions.

Keneth

2014-06-22, 03:14 AM

[laughs internally]

Killer Angel

2014-06-22, 03:26 AM

jedi, I want to give you a honest chance, maybe I'm wrong.

Nope, and it is one of the great things about my game. Not every spellcaster in the whole multiverse uses the same handfulls of spells like brain dead robots. Each location has it's own flavor of spells, and much of it is based on what materals can be found in that location.

To give an easy example, drow spellcasters don't use very many spells that require surface animals as components. So Jump is not a spell often used by drow as they don't have easy ways to get grasshoppers.

Let's make an example.
A wizard (with eschew material) lives in a part of the world where bat guano is common, but sulfur (while known) is not.
Fireball is a well known, but rarely used spell, because the cost of the sulfur is not small (and so doesn't fall in the eschew material area).

Our wizard travels in a part of the continent where those two materials, are very common, and have no cost.
Can our wizard cast fireball using eschew material?

Does that feat adapt to the current market rules of the place you're in?

I'm interested in this, because, form a certain pov, it makes a certain internal consistency, but certainly it creates a lot of other problems.

Thanatosia

2014-06-22, 06:14 AM

Also, "cheater", you keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.

Well, given that in another thread you consider "cheating" the Bag of Holding, your example is a sort of extreme point, isn't it?
JediPotter strikes me as the archtype of the Adversarial DM. They see the game in terms of them vs the players, and the worst measure themselves in trashed character sheets (as bad as JediPotter seems to be, I at least have yet to see any overt evidence of taking it to that extreme). Even the ones who don't make a point of pride in TPKs however, nonetheless fall into a me vs them mentality. And that's where all the "Cheating" comes in. When the focus of the game is just for everyone to have fun, then there pretty much is no such thing as Cheating in D&D. But when you are trying to 'beat' the players, and they resist with 'Overpowered' abilities, then it's 'cheating'. Cheating is something that exists in competative activities..... and seeing cheating everywhere is a pretty damn good sign IMO that he plays D&D as a competative event.

Also, on the point of 'realistic' regional lacks of specific spell components.... for example, no frogs in a desert or grasshoppers for drow in the underdark.... those things are not rare commodities or hard to come by. Yes, they are not natively found in certain environments.... but the only reason you won't find them in shops even where they do not naturally occur is because there is no DEMAND for them. You can bet in an underground cavern world full of chasms and rough terrain, that Drow would find a way to get Grasshopper legs if they could be used to fuel 30feet leaps. There may not be a lot of grasshoppers in the underdark, but you're being deliberately obtuse if you don't think they will be readily available if there was a demand for them, that's kind of what economies are for... Turnips don't grow in town squares, but that does'nt mean you have a hard time finding them there if people like eating turnips.

Dimcair

2014-06-22, 07:16 AM

It doesn't, once you consider that Drow have humans, elves, halflings, and various other surface-dwelling races as slaves. Kind of ridiculous to say that a people that has the logistical means to raid the surface and return with chattle in tow as part of their normal course of business are somehow unable to get grasshopper legs.

You Sir, did not find the cookie =P.

Deophaun

2014-06-22, 08:33 AM

You Sir, did not find the cookie =P.

[Darth Vader Voice]NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO![/Darth Vader Voice]

Mellack

2014-06-22, 01:50 PM

I think Thanatosia hits the nail on the head. Any good of sufficient usefulness will be traded, even over long distances. To look at history, obsidian was traded over hundreds of miles, even tens of thousands of years ago. If there were an use for frogs or grasshoppers like magic has, they would be traded as well. Unless your wizard is on a deserted island, cut off from everyone, I would expect them to be able to find most any component for sale.

Killer Angel

2014-06-22, 03:00 PM

jedipotter

2014-06-22, 03:10 PM

You know jedipotter, you've been asked by multiple posters to show the full write up of your magic fix, rather than just assure us how well it works. Are we going to see it?

You want everything, or just the components part?

Do I even want to know what your stance on Psionics is Jedi? Or how you temper the power of Druids or Clerics? Putting the squeeze on Wizards and Sorcerer and not the holy men seems odd...

Divine casters must have a god, and the god actively judges each and every spell they cast and determines it's effects. And I must say this system works spectacularly well. You can't just be a divine caster and ''just do whatever cool stuff you want'', you have to role play being a representative of the god you chose to follow. It adds tons of role play to a divine caster, and prevents the cheating optimizers who just pick a god for a domain as part of a build.

Look. I'm going to show you why restricting material components fails as a power limiter.

I know I did not say the material component rules were ''part of a balanced magic fix'', but they are... But come on, comparing a 3rd and 9th level spell? My gate fix(2hd a class level max, wil save for the target, the target is uncontrolled by the gate spell and you must have a small bit of a creature gated in as a material component.) works great.

It doesn't, once you consider that Drow have humans, elves, halflings, and various other surface-dwelling races as slaves. Kind of ridiculous to say that a people that has the logistical means to raid the surface and return with chattle in tow as part of their normal course of business are somehow unable to get grasshopper legs.

Sure, you could say Drow Walton started a massive merchant company and now has a Wal-Magic Mart everywhere in the world....but not in my game. Is it utterly impossible for a drow wizard to get his hands on a grasshopper, no. Is it common to find drow with out spells that need surface components, yes.

kellbyb

2014-06-22, 03:50 PM

You want everything, or just the components part?

I want ALL of it.

Thanatosia

2014-06-22, 03:54 PM

Just to play the devil's advocate, trade can be a resouce, but it's not sure that what you trade will mantain low prices. Think to the various spices (as the pepper) in the late middle age
At this point, I think it's a good time to define what cheap is. A spell component pouch costs 5 gold. That's trivial and nothing to the average adventurer, but 5 gold is a fair chunk of wealth to an average unskilled laberor who's capable of collecting bat guano and grasshopper parts. A 'good' meal costs 5 silver. You can buy an entire waggon for 35 gold.

The non-costly components can cost several silver each, and still be well worth the effort to collect and transport them wherever there is a demand. By the goods and services table, a messanger only gets paid 2 COPPER per mile. If it takes someone several miles to get you your grasshopper leg, he can still make more money charging you a few Silver for the leg then he'd make acting as a courier over those distances. And most material components are very light weight, do not give any standard by which they need to be preserved to function, and can be collected in areas where they are found in massive quantities fairly easily - unlike spices they tend not to need to be cultivated, and they don't need to be carefully preserved for the transport. One guy can move 1,000 grasshopper legs without much effort, so he does not need to charge a lot for it to be worth his time, esp if it's just an addition to more valuable commodities he's carrying anyways.

Thanatosia

2014-06-22, 04:01 PM

Wal-Magic Mart everywhere in the world....but not in my game. Is it utterly impossible for a drow wizard to get his hands on a grasshopper, no. Is it common to find drow with out spells that need surface components, yes.
No, it's not going to be the Wall-mart mass chain store model you find in modern societies, but magic component merchants will clearly exist in a world where magic users need to get materials.... and you are being very unrealistic and unreasonable if you don't think they'll find a way to stock usable exotic components that are not found locally.

To use a real world example, Gunpowder requires a lot of exotic materials to be made that could not be found just anywhere in the world, but because it was useful you could obtain it almost anywhere in the world after the widespread use of Firearms caught on, and for reasonably cheap - and it didn't require wall-mart style mega-marts to make it happen. Where there is demand, supply finds a way.

Deophaun

2014-06-22, 04:03 PM

Sure, you could say Drow Walton started a massive merchant company and now has a Wal-Magic Mart everywhere in the world....but not in my game. Is it utterly impossible for a drow wizard to get his hands on a grasshopper, no. Is it common to find drow with out spells that need surface components, yes.
Why do you think that the only options are no components available, or massive retail empire? The question is, is the spell useful in that environment? If it is, logic dictates the drow will get it, especially as the surface ain't exactly difficult for the drow to get to, and the items we're talking about transporting can literally be transported by the thousands on a single person. Otherwise, if the drow only use things found in the underdark, then why the heck are they raiding the surface at all? Why is there any conflict with this race of shut-ins?

jedipotter

2014-06-22, 04:14 PM

.... and you are being very unrealistic and unreasonable if you don't think they'll find a way to stock usable exotic components that are not found locally.

Where there is demand, supply finds a way.

I'll agree. And this is even true in some parts of my game world, but I don't do the idea that ''if it's a good idea it would automatically be done everywhere''. There are dozens of reasons trade might not exist, or be difficult or be blocked or lots of other things.

Why do you think that the only options are no components available, or massive retail empire? The question is, is the spell useful in that environment? If it is, logic dictates the drow will get it, especially as the surface ain't exactly difficult for the drow to get to, and the items we're talking about transporting can literally be transported by the thousands on a single person. Otherwise, if the drow only use things found in the underdark, then why the heck are they raiding the surface at all? Why is there any conflict with this race of shut-ins?

So, why did you think I said: No components are available and there is no Wal Magic Mart? are the only two options? I scrolled up and did not see where I said that. So how did you jump to the conclusion?

Boci

2014-06-22, 04:19 PM

I'll agree. And this is even true in some parts of my game world, but I don't do the idea that ''if it's a good idea it would automatically be done everywhere''. There are dozens of reasons trade might not exist, or be difficult or be blocked or lots of other things.

Okay, but here's another thing: unlike pepper or gunpowder, grasshoppers are self replicating. A drow merchant or wizard who buys a box can soon have plenty. In fact he's probably gona have to have a pet to feed the excess too. So it only takes 1 trader and suddenly grasshopper legs are available in a drow city state pretty much forever. And since the drow use wood, there is presumably some trade between them and the surface.

You want everything, or just the components part?

I am mostly interested in the components, but if you have other house rules for balancing magic I would happily check them out as well.

jedipotter

2014-06-22, 04:32 PM

Okay, but here's another thing: unlike pepper or gunpowder, grasshoppers are self replicating. A drow merchant or wizard who buys a box can soon have plenty. In fact he's probably gona have to have a pet to feed the excess too. So it only takes 1 trader and suddenly grasshopper legs are available in a drow city state pretty much forever. And since the drow use wood, there is presumably some trade between them and the surface.

I don't go for the idea that ''100 years ago Drow Jones got a grasshopper and now: the entire Underdark of the whole world is filled with grasshoppers in captivity , so all Underdark spellcaster have access to them.''

But we might just be disagreeing on the size of the campaign. My campaign is the size of the planet Earth. I hate the ''Middle Earth'' postage stamp size world.

And we might disagree on a ''living'' campaign or not. It sounds like your more ''thing that are good just happen automatically forever'' while I'm more of a living campaign with ''The Drow trade group known as the Green Hands, trades and raided for green surface components in the drown city of Shurk'lit from DR 1004 to 1234, as in 1234 they got in the middle of the Dark Fire Trade war and were wiped out. No one has yet stepped up to replace them...''

Boci

2014-06-22, 04:41 PM

I don't go for the idea that ''100 years ago Drow Jones got a grasshopper and now: the entire Underdark of the whole world is filled with grasshoppers in captivity , so all Underdark spellcaster have access to them.''

Notice I was talking about a single city state. I'm not saying every drow city state should have a grass hopper merchant, but I really think you are overplaying how difficult it would be. Deciding that jump may be a spell they are interested in, a drow wizards asks some questions, travels to a nearby city state, makes some gather information rolls, then pays 20 gold pieces for a box of crickets. He payed a trivial amount of money and spent a couple of days searching, and now he has a lifetime's supply of cricket legs, ad the supplier got a pretty good deal on them too.

Why don't you like this idea? Why didn't happen? What about the drow makes this not make sense?

while I'm more of a living campaign with ''The Drow trade group known as the Green Hands, trades and raided for green surface components in the drown city of Shurk'lit from DR 1004 to 1234, as in 1234 they got in the middle of the Dark Fire Trade war and were wiped out. No one has yet stepped up to replace them...''

Okay, in a living campaign, why did they have a monopoly on this? If the trade item is rare and hard to come by, fair enough. But for stuff like grass hopper legs or wood, it really doesn't make sense that an entire city state is dependent on one trading company that takes ages to be replaced.

Wizards are usually going to be intelligent and resourceful when it comes to their studies of magic. In a living world I struggle to see how an intelligent and resourceful individual is gonna find it hard to acquire grasshopper legs.

And then this also raises the question why is almost every spell surface's MC available easiest on the surface.

Deophaun

2014-06-22, 05:20 PM

So, why did you think I said: No components are available and there is no Wal Magic Mart? are the only two options? I scrolled up and did not see where I said that. So how did you jump to the conclusion?
Because you immediately jumped to "YOU WANT THERE TO BE WAL MAGIC MART!" Which is funny, because straw is something you find on the surface, so I'm not sure how the drow got that for you.

grarrrg

2014-06-22, 07:16 PM

elonin

2014-06-22, 07:33 PM

I haven't read past the first page so my comment may have already been made. This seems to be another argument along lines of Rules of the game and unwritten conditions of life. To the point that there is no ingame effect of drowning. For the Hideous laughter part I've been struck with uncontrollable laughter but stifled it keeping my mouth closed and covering my mouth and nose. I'm not familiar with the other spell but does it allow another save when you reenter the area? I'd personally rule that if both spells were active with failed saves I'd count that as using d4 rounds of "held breath".

kellbyb

2014-06-22, 08:02 PM

Don't make me quote The Princess Bride

I'm confused. You don't want to quote The Princess Bride?

Boci

2014-06-22, 08:03 PM

I'm confused. You don't want to quote The Princess Bride?

"That word you keep using, I don't think it means what you think it does."

jedipotter

2014-06-22, 08:11 PM

Because you immediately jumped to "YOU WANT THERE TO BE WAL MAGIC MART!" Which is funny, because straw is something you find on the surface, so I'm not sure how the drow got that for you.

You might want to note that is exactly what Boci did:

Notice I was talking about a single city state. I'm not saying every drow city state should have a grass hopper merchant, but I really think you are overplaying how difficult it would be. Deciding that jump may be a spell they are interested in, a drow wizards asks some questions, travels to a nearby city state, makes some gather information rolls, then pays 20 gold pieces for a box of crickets. He payed a trivial amount of money and spent a couple of days searching, and now he has a lifetime's supply of cricket legs, ad the supplier got a pretty good deal on them too.

He is the one saying ''there would be magic components trade'' and ''everyone can get every material component everywhere''. I'm the one that says that would not happen.

Boci

2014-06-22, 08:16 PM

He is the one saying ''there would be magic components trade'' and ''everyone can get every material component everywhere''. I'm the one that says that would not happen.

Yes, but that's hardly a magic mart. The two extremes are "its practically impossibly to get the component" and "component is available on every street corner". My idea was a drow could get the components, but since they involved potentially traveling to another city state and several days, you can hardly say I was advocating free access.

You seem to have a problem whereby you lay out two relatively extremist views: yours and the polar opposite of yours, and then assume anyone who doesn't follow yours must be advocating the polar opposite, rather than something between those two.

I'm not saying cricket legs should be freely available in drow cities, but at the same time it should not be a massive trial for a wizard, an intelligent and likely resources individual, to acquire them.

137beth

2014-06-22, 08:23 PM

This coming from the guy who has a top secret (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17612732&postcount=106) list of spell components he's house-ruled are not in a spell component pouch or affected by eschew materials, that he won't even post for fear of his players knowing which spells they can actually cast or not. Then again, perhaps Psychoalpha is right about him.
Didn't GoddessSune have a couple long threads about secret house rules?

Do I even want to know what your stance on Psionics is Jedi? Or how you temper the power of Druids or Clerics? Putting the squeeze on Wizards and Sorcerer and not the holy men seems odd...
These are not the house rules you are looking for!

Mellack

2014-06-22, 08:33 PM

jedipotter

2014-06-22, 09:04 PM

If the god of a cleric has to approve every use of every spell, wouldn't that make a great way to detect motives and alignments? You could certainly use that to find people who are trying to infiltrate or disguise their way into a good group. Certainly a good god would not approve use of a power to bless a villain. So you now know they are a villain! But I suppose that would be me "cheating" to use the rules Jed made logically.

I've had players do this often enough, but you can also do it in the core rules, so it is not much of a change. There are tons of spells you can use to ''detect'' things that are not divinations. For example, speak a holy word and if someone with you is suddenly paralyzed, deaf and blind....well you know they are not good.

Motives are a bit more complex, but a divine caster can still discern some information from the spells they cast on someone..if they are careful and pay attention.

RolkFlameraven

2014-06-22, 10:50 PM

Oddman80

2014-06-22, 11:07 PM

Divine casters must have a god, and the god actively judges each and every spell they cast and determines it's effects. And I must say this system works spectacularly well. You can't just be a divine caster and ''just do whatever cool stuff you want'', you have to role play being a representative of the god you chose to follow. It adds tons of role play to a divine caster, and prevents the cheating optimizers who just pick a god for a domain as part of a build.

A player has spent his campaign thus far without a god. He happens to realize that he has a glaring weak spot in his abilities. And, that from what he could tell, this weakness could best be fixed by learning the ways of a specific sect of clerics. He pursues this, and having previously been agnostic, crosses fingers and starts praising (insert god name here with the appropriate domain needed). In your game, this is not doable? Are you anti dips? Are you anti multiclassing?

If the deities themselves must authorize the use and control the power of each spell cast by the cleric, how would the cleric be able to cast the standard cleric class spells that fall outside of their deity's domain? There was a recent oots comic that laid out specifically the problem with the clerics powers being limited to their deity's whims and abilities.

What if a dishonest, disingenuine character (yes - character, not player) really just wanted to cash in the domain for the respective devotion feat? This is a function specifically explained in 3.5 WotC materials. Not a manipulation of raw, just doing something d&d says you could do... Are the devotional abilities (which are not spells and can be taken by any character as a feat) to be done without the deity's daily blessing? How deep do your house rules go into the d&d 3.5 player dynamics?

I am beginning to wonder if given the degree to which you change the game when you play, if you should continue commenting within the 3.5/PF subforums. I think you would spark far less tangential bickering if you reserved your comments to the home brew section or general role playing sections.... Since that's really what your games are.

If you are going to continue inserting your opinions on how rules and spells, and how clearly defined ranger ex abilities should all be interpretted, at least have the decency to preface your comments with a "Granted, I only play in a highly customized, modified and house rules heavy version of 3.5, but within those games I would think......"

Oh, and stop calling 90% of the members of the forum "cheaters"

Oddman80

2014-06-22, 11:12 PM

Um.. if your Gods are Rubber Stamping EVERY spell every priest gets in the morning/dusk/midnight/whatever, why do they even needs to ask for Spell ABXYS&N when my God should know that I WILL needs Spells EFGIJ&M and just give me those? If the God is going to take the time to look over every single spell and go, yep, yep, NO! You can't do THAT! Why not just screw the middle man and shove the "right" spell list in your head?

And seeing as you didn't touch on Psionics I'm guessing you just don't use them?

That's actually a really good point. It sounds more like your just praying for the deity to do the spell more than allowing the cleric to tap their own divine power and do the spell. If the deity is able to choose what spells are ok, and how hard they hit, what is keeping an extremely pious level 1 cleric from praying to his god to allow a level 9 spell because, hey, it would solve the problem, against these totally evil villains. It should be no skin off the deity's back to send the spell down through the cleric... Why have levels?

jedipotter

2014-06-23, 01:09 AM

A player has spent his campaign thus far without a god. He happens to realize that he has a glaring weak spot in his abilities. And, that from what he could tell, this weakness could best be fixed by learning the ways of a specific sect of clerics. He pursues this, and having previously been agnostic, crosses fingers and starts praising (insert god name here with the appropriate domain needed). In your game, this is not doable? Are you anti dips? Are you anti multiclassing?

All divine casters must pick a god to serve, I don't do the vague ''you can serve nothing'' in my game.

If the deities themselves must authorize the use and control the power of each spell cast by the cleric, how would the cleric be able to cast the standard cleric class spells that fall outside of their deity's domain? There was a recent oots comic that laid out specifically the problem with the clerics powers being limited to their deity's whims and abilities.

All of a cleric's spellcasting power comes from the deity, so they get to say how that power is used.

What if a dishonest, disingenuine character (yes - character, not player) really just wanted to cash in the domain for the respective devotion feat? This is a function specifically explained in 3.5 WotC materials. Not a manipulation of raw, just doing something d&d says you could do... Are the devotional abilities (which are not spells and can be taken by any character as a feat) to be done without the deity's daily blessing? How deep do your house rules go into the d&d 3.5 player dynamics?

A devotion feat? Don't think I've heard of them. But a god would not nitpick what feats a character picks, as feats don't call upon divine power to work.

Um.. if your Gods are Rubber Stamping EVERY spell every priest gets in the morning/dusk/midnight/whatever, why do they even needs to ask for Spell ABXYS&N when my God should know that I WILL needs Spells EFGIJ&M and just give me those? If the God is going to take the time to look over every single spell and go, yep, yep, NO! You can't do THAT! Why not just screw the middle man and shove the "right" spell list in your head?

And seeing as you didn't touch on Psionics I'm guessing you just don't use them?

No, no, a priest can pray for any spell on the list per normal, it is when the priest goes to cast the spell the god is watching and judging. What happens on the god, but most ''give the cleric enough rope to hang themselves''. In general, a priest is free to act, as a god only cares about some things and not others. But every god wants their priest to promote the faith and follow the gods lead. So if the priest just wants to be an insane murdering loot thief adventurer, the god most likely won't be happy.

Oh, and stop calling 90% of the members of the forum "cheaters"

I'm not sure I ever did? Where did I say that?

eggynack

2014-06-23, 01:16 AM

A devotion feat? Don't think I've heard of them. But a god would not nitpick what feats a character picks, as feats don't call upon divine power to work.
You may find them on page 52 of complete champion. They're pretty sweet, especially on a dip, and they sort of do call upon divine power, as they can be fueled by turn undead.

I'm not sure I ever did? Where did I say that?
Not directly, but it's implied. You consider things like bags of holding, spell component pouches, and high quantities of self buffing "cheating", among other things, and so the total list of things you consider "cheating" likely covers 90% of the forum members hereabouts. Might be off by some percentage points, but probably not by all that much. The things on your odd list are pretty common, after all.

jedipotter

2014-06-23, 01:37 AM

You may find them on page 52 of complete champion. They're pretty sweet, especially on a dip, and they sort of do call upon divine power, as they can be fueled by turn undead.

Ah, I use little more then the spells out of that book.

Not directly, but it's implied. You consider things like bags of holding, spell component pouches, and high quantities of self buffing "cheating", among other things, and so the total list of things you consider "cheating" likely covers 90% of the forum members hereabouts. Might be off by some percentage points, but probably not by all that much. The things on your odd list are pretty common, after all.

I say they are cheating in my game yes. But that is just my view. Anyone can play the game however they want, it does not bother me at all. And you can't really compare games. One of my famous games was the Green Hunt, where the group took a whole game of six hours to hunt down and kill a single green dragon in a forest very ''Peredtor-like'' style(with even half the PC's dying). Another local game had the ''dozen dragons killed by the over optimized kill squad in like three rounds''. So one of my players would talk about the role playing adventure of trying to kill the dragon, and the player of the other game would talk about how much damage he did with a feat/skill/spell/item combo. It is just different ways to play the game...and does not matter if everyone had fun.

enderlord99

2014-06-23, 02:25 AM

I say they are cheating in my game yes. But that is just my view. Anyone can play the game however they want, it does not bother me at all. And you can't really compare games. One of my famous games was the Green Hunt, where the group took a whole game of six hours to hunt down and kill a single green dragon in a forest very ''Peredtor-like'' style(with even half the PC's dying). Another local game had the ''dozen dragons killed by the over optimized kill squad in like three rounds''. So one of my players would talk about the role playing adventure of trying to kill the dragon, and the player of the other game would talk about how much damage he did with a feat/skill/spell/item combo. It is just different ways to play the game...and does not matter if everyone had fun.

So, at first you say a bunch of bigoted, accusatory things (prior posts)...

...Then you suddenly and spontaneously become a reasonable person (quoted post)...

...Are you SKR?!

:smalltongue:

13ones

2014-06-23, 10:27 AM

They way I'd rule this would be that Enchantments generally don't force you to commit an action so egregious to your personal beliefs/nature without a bonus to the save "...and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus". So I'd rule that willingly drowning themselves by continuing to laugh would give them an instant reroll on their will save with a +2 to stop laughing, and continue to do so every turn.

Synar

2014-06-23, 10:39 AM

Notice how he still used extreme exemples, and how he still sort of implied optimizers kill dozens a dragon every three round (either they are using TO and loopholes in the rules, the dragons are newborns, or the dragons are played really, really stupidly, or this is a silly hyperbole [probably all of them]) and can not roleplay.

I would like to call Stromwind fallacy: optimizing does not in anyway hinder roleplaying. One can even optimizes just in roleplaying ends, to be able to be effective at what his character should be effective at, do what he should be able to do, and make an otherwise weak concept viable (so as not to be limited in character concept to those that are powerful from the start).

Also, being able to optimize to different degrees make it unnecessary to use "hardcounters" like the ones jedipotter believes should be used, which actually transform 'roleplaying a bearer of magical might or a cunning trisckter, master of illusions' into 'accounting, the game'.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-23, 11:26 AM

So, at first you say a bunch of bigoted, accusatory things (prior posts)...

...Then you suddenly and spontaneously become a reasonable person (quoted post)...

...Are you SKR?!

:smalltongue:

Shhhhhh

SKR has recently done a 180 with regard to Fighters, please don't jinx it! (I kid you not, SKR is quite different since leaving Paizo).

Also...

Jedipotter,

As a person who plays athiest Clerics in D&D (tons of fun) I really need to know why you believe you should have such dominating control over a player's fluff/PC? You conaider optimizing as cheating... I don't get that. You even seem to think that fluff will break things, fluff that the core system is based around.

Are you afraid that your players may "beat" your schemes or be to crafty for you? Do you see the game all about you and YOUR story?

Heck, do you even have players at all?

Please whenever a new player comes to your game point them to your giantitp posts. This way that can see if they want someone like you as a DM, can see what they are really getting into. Cause at some point that could be me thinking about playing in your game, and I would rather give up the hobby than feed your ego in such a miserable game.

Sincerely,

SpawnOfMorbo

mashlagoo1982

2014-06-23, 12:02 PM

My house ruling...

The two spells should interact with one another.

However, since the laughing is uncontrollable, I feel there should be some randomness involved.

So, for my solution, the victim should take their Con modifier and roll a die that is double it (so a +4 Con = 1d8).

Odds start at 50-50. So a lower roll is a fail and higher roll is a success.
If the victim rolls 1-4, they start drowning... if 5-8, they do not start drowning (no modifiers).
This would be to represent forcing air out of the lung (though laughing with 5-8 roll), and inhaling (1-4 roll).

A success in not drowning increases the DC of the roll by 1. So a success on the first roll in the example above would increase the fail to 1-5 and decrease the success to 6-8. Eventually, the victim would be forced to breath in uncontrolled (and thus start drowning) after a max of 4 rounds of successes (based on Con).

Not perfect, but I feel it has the appropriate randomness for uncontrolled laughter that also takes into account Con.

Killer Angel

2014-06-23, 12:46 PM

jedi, I know that probably you missed it, but I'm waiting for an answer to this question (wich I'm going to expand).

Nope, and it is one of the great things about my game. Not every spellcaster in the whole multiverse uses the same handfulls of spells like brain dead robots. Each location has it's own flavor of spells, and much of it is based on what materals can be found in that location.

To give an easy example, drow spellcasters don't use very many spells that require surface animals as components. So Jump is not a spell often used by drow as they don't have easy ways to get grasshoppers.

Example 1.
A wizard (with eschew material) lives in a part of the world where bat guano is common, but sulfur (while known) is not.
Fireball is a well known, but rarely used spell, because the cost of the sulfur is not small (and so doesn't fall in the eschew material area).

Our wizard travels in a part of the continent where those two materials, are very common, and have no cost.
Can our wizard cast fireball using eschew material?

Does that feat adapt to the current market rules of the place you're in?

I'm interested in this, because, form a certain pov, it makes a certain internal consistency, but certainly it creates a lot of other problems.

Example 2.
Now, a Sorcerer (with eschew material) lives in a part of the world where there is no bat guano (say, a large Island).
Fireball is a spell unknown by the wizards, but the Player of the sorcerer, says "as my first 3rd lev. spells, I'll pick fireball".
The fluff of the sorcerers is clear: they don't study, magic is raw power that comes out of them naturally; they have no books, no mentor, no theory... they cast spell through innate power, so the "fireball" comes out from nowhere (it flows in the sorc's blood), and the sorcerer doesn't need material component.

If you say "NO, you can't", then why? are you changing the core fluff of the sorcerer? and how?

Kazudo

2014-06-23, 12:55 PM

so the "fireball" comes out from nowhere (it flows in the sorc's blood)

Something about fireballs in one's blood just sounds interesting and painful at the same time, just as a side note.

I still think that I'd love to see a thread in which Jedipotter pens out his entire fix of the magic system. If it's good, I may just have to use it albeit with maybe a handful of changes to make it more palatable to my personal D&D table.

RolkFlameraven

2014-06-23, 01:31 PM

No, no, a priest can pray for any spell on the list per normal, it is when the priest goes to cast the spell the god is watching and judging. What happens on the god, but most ''give the cleric enough rope to hang themselves''. In general, a priest is free to act, as a god only cares about some things and not others. But every god wants their priest to promote the faith and follow the gods lead. So if the priest just wants to be an insane murdering loot thief adventurer, the god most likely won't be happy.

So Clerics of Cyric would be fine to do anything they want to do? But some Good Gods will just go "yoink" and let a Priest die? And if they do somehow make it out of their alive most likely have one hell of a crises of faith and maybe join a different religion?

Hell, in your games Palleys and some Clerics MUST be Lawful stupid as their god is LAW, so if they jaywalk they fall?

13ones

2014-06-23, 01:58 PM

Hoooo boy. I just re-read most of this thread.

Here's the thing about academics, Jedi. If they are researching something, anything, they will order it. It doesn't mater what the material is, what the cost is, what routes they have to take to get it. If an Archmage living on a frozen isle with no natural access to Bat poop and sulfur wants to study how to cast a fireball, he will get in touch with every single contact he knows in order to obtain enough poop and sulfur in order to cast said fireball. What if they don't know that fireball is even a spell? Well that is also the sign of a bad academic. They will import scrolls or spell books in order to study that spell and THEN import the components. Having just spent the better part of 8 years in Post-secondary education I can safely say this holds up everywhere. Professors will order bugs, minerals, texts, tomes, plant life, chemicals, and whatever else just so they can play around with it! And they never just order 'exactly enough for x amount of experiments'. It always seems to be more than they need. I have to agree with other people in that restricting the use of materials in order to try and get some creativity out of your players seems like a surefire way to annoy people.

It also sounds like you once got one of your big bad boss monsters beaten by a 'cheater' (see any decent Arcane or Divine caster) and you're taking it out on anyone who comes after. Here's the thing about Wizards, Clerics, and Druids. With the proper knowledge and spells they are able to fight GODS! This is how the class was designed. They are not Fighters swinging around bits of metal to slash through the air and flesh. They are beings who, on a daily basis, TOY WITH THE FABRIC OF SPACE, TIME, AND REALITY! They are not supposed to be 'fair'. If a wizard wants to stop time to summon a dozen monsters and cast haste and then maybe conjure an illusion of a giant flaming penis (because why not?) he can do that! That is the way his class works. This was how he is designed. Wizards and Sorcerers are supposed to be these clever bastards who constantly find ways to break the laws of reality to better suit their situation. They are supposed to be the ones constantly making life difficult for the GM and require a little more creativity on how to challenge them! If you put as much thought into your encounters as you have into hobbling some of the more enjoyable classes you could almost be a decent DM!

I know your counter argument. "It's my game, and this is how things work." And you know what, kudos to you for finding players willing to subject themselves to it. I, personally, wouldn't get within close range of one of your games.

(sorry if this is a bit ranty. I REALLY love Arcane casters and to see someone destroying them so totally for the sake of their ego/convenience/narrow-mindedness really rubs my rhubarb the wrong way)

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-23, 02:10 PM

I know your counter argument. "It's my game, and this is how things work." And you know what, kudos to you for finding players willing to subject themselves to it. I, personally, wouldn't get within close range of one of your games.

(sorry if this is a bit ranty. I REALLY love Arcane casters and to see someone destroying them so totally for the sake of their ego/convenience/narrow-mindedness really rubs my rhubarb the wrong way)

This quality you point out is the worst quality of any DM. You can have fun with almost any type of DM but this is the worst.

Because everything at the table is about the DM saying "me me me me me" like a spoiled little brat. Well you know what, there are other people at the table and it isn't about the DM or any one player. It is about all the people who sat down to play D&D. I actually hate the term Dungeon Master and Rule 0, they help breed the sense of superiority that infects way to many DMs. There comes a time you need to check your ego, and when running a game as a DM that is before you even decide to be a DM.

I've seen the game lose to many players because of stuff like this. It is a sad day when the hobby looses a player because a DM can't check their ego.

mashlagoo1982

2014-06-23, 03:18 PM

One of the best gauges for determining how "successful" a caster is would be the number of smiles you see on your players.
This isn't always the most accurate (can't give the players everything they want), but it is a good general rule to follow.

I am very fortunate to have a good player for the arcane caster of the game I DM.

He has been able to sense the general mood of the players and act accordingly.

Deophaun

2014-06-23, 03:50 PM

He is the one saying ''there would be magic components trade'' and ''everyone can get every material component everywhere''. I'm the one that says that would not happen.
And see, right here: The options in your universe are "No trade" or "WAL-MAGIC-MART!" Boci didn't do that. You did. It's ridiculous.

Kantolin

2014-06-23, 04:35 PM

Is it utterly impossible for a drow wizard to get his hands on a grasshopper, no. Is it common to find drow with out spells that need surface components, yes.

I'm actually curious now. Do you have a list of regions and then acceptable spells for said region?

As that could be interesting in and of itself. After all, the particular problem-spell listed seems to be fireball, so it's not 'Powerful spells need to be carefully limited'. It then doesn't seem to be split by school or necessarily the difficulty of obtaining said resources. But you are playing with a bunch of horrible monsters that you hate, so they'll probably try to shenanigans out things.

So well... uh, what spells would be acceptable to, say, a drow? Or well, your average half-elven wizard/sorceror from a mostly-elven area?

If it varies a lot, then any one common-for-PCs area will do; I'm really just curious about the list of 'these are the acceptable spells'.

Or is it more that if someone wants to play a sorceror in one of your games, they have to present you a list of spells and their components and you inform them of where they're from or that they cannot do that or sommat? I originally though it was more of, "You prepared fireball? Well surprise - you cannot cast fireball, ever! Mwahaha!" But now it's apparently more of "Your character doesn't know what fireball is." So presumably they can't even have fireball (for eschew materials purposes) if they're not from a fireball-is-common area?

jedipotter

2014-06-23, 04:35 PM

Example 1.
A wizard (with eschew material) lives in a part of the world where bat guano is common, but sulfur (while known) is not.
Fireball is a well known, but rarely used spell, because the cost of the sulfur is not small (and so doesn't fall in the eschew material area).

Our wizard travels in a part of the continent where those two materials, are very common, and have no cost.
Can our wizard cast fireball using eschew material?

Does that feat adapt to the current market rules of the place you're in?

I'm interested in this, because, form a certain pov, it makes a certain internal consistency, but certainly it creates a lot of other problems.

Well, eschew materials lets the wizard cast fireball with no materal componets needed. So a wizard with that feat can cast fireball even if they have no sulfur. That is what the feat does. No matter where the wizard travels, the feat still works.

Note my house rule is ''all creature parts except thoes of the animal type have a cost of more then one gold''. Bats are animals.

Example 2.
Now, a Sorcerer (with eschew material) lives in a part of the world where there is no bat guano (say, a large Island).
Fireball is a spell unknown by the wizards, but the Player of the sorcerer, says "as my first 3rd lev. spells, I'll pick fireball".
The fluff of the sorcerers is clear: they don't study, magic is raw power that comes out of them naturally; they have no books, no mentor, no theory... they cast spell through innate power, so the "fireball" comes out from nowhere (it flows in the sorc's blood), and the sorcerer doesn't need material component.

If you say "NO, you can't", then why? are you changing the core fluff of the sorcerer? and how?

I know we would not agree on the sorcerer fluff and the PH is a mess anyway, but it does not matter much. A sorcerer can pick a spell just fine, and if they have eschew materials, and it has common components, they can just cast away.

Now a sorcerer that does not have eschew materials, has to have the needed materal components. So, no, a sorcerer living in the land of no bats, could not pick or cast fireball....at least not by the ''level pick rule''. The character could still learn the spell in other ways, but they would still need the materal components to cast the spell.

This is not any change to the rules as a sorcerer, even with ''magic blood'' can't cast a spell like secret chest or any spell that has an expensive component. I just expand the rule.

papr_weezl8472

2014-06-23, 04:47 PM

Also, "cheater", you keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.

You seem to have a problem whereby you lay out two relatively extremist views: yours and the polar opposite of yours, and then assume anyone who doesn't follow yours must be advocating the polar opposite, rather than something between those two.

This seems to sum up pretty much the entire thread.

Boci

2014-06-23, 04:52 PM

I know we would not agree on the sorcerer fluff and the PH is a mess anyway, but it does not matter much. A sorcerer can pick a spell just fine, and if they have eschew materials, and it has common components, they can just cast away.

Now a sorcerer that does not have eschew materials, has to have the needed materal components. So, no, a sorcerer living in the land of no bats, could not pick or cast fireball....at least not by the ''level pick rule''. The character could still learn the spell in other ways, but they would still need the materal components to cast the spell.

This is not any change to the rules as a sorcerer, even with ''magic blood'' can't cast a spell like secret chest or any spell that has an expensive component. I just expand the rule.

And yet the sorcerer can cast burning hands and scorching ray, as well as potentially flaming sphere, energy subed cone of cold (fire), wall of fire and fire shield to name but a few.

By focusing more attention on material components, it just seems you are just highlighting how arbitrary and naff they are.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-23, 05:14 PM

137beth

2014-06-23, 05:19 PM

Shhhhhh

SKR has recently done a 180 with regard to Fighters, please don't jinx it! (I kid you not, SKR is quite different since leaving Paizo).

Jedipotter is...TIME TRAVELING SKR!

He's traveled several months into the future, to confuse supporters of post-epiphany SKR! But wait, going by the epic spell rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/transport.htm), time traveling more than five rounds is...cheating:smalleek:

Kazudo

2014-06-23, 05:24 PM

I have in one instance or other ruled that Eschew Materials doesn't simply negate the material component outright, but that your character has learned how to MacGuyver things into working anyway. If your character doesn't have sulphur for example, he takes a bit of the lining from his padded shirt (no real mechanical difference made, maybe 1 point of HP from his clothing if we even track object hardness/HP per thickness rules) and uses that instead. He's just that good. Basically it takes this sentence:

To cast a spell with a material (M), focus (F), or divine focus (DF) component, you have to have the proper materials, as described by the spell. Unless these materials are elaborate preparing these materials is a free action. For material components and focuses whose costs are not listed, you can assume that you have them if you have your spell component pouch.

And removes the phrase "If you have your spell component pouch". So it's not that there's no spell component needed, it's that you've always got something nearby that you can, as a free action while casting, pull. Maybe a hair from your head, a thread from your shirt, a bit of metal dust from your chainmail, some mud on your shoe, whatever. You've got something you can use for it.

Mechanically it doesn't really make a difference in-game, it's all about the fluff of the feat. I haven't done it in a while, and in most games Eschew works exactly as you'd think: Your character has learned how to cast spells in such a way that most forms of material component just aren't necessary.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-23, 05:28 PM

Jedipotter is...TIME TRAVELING SKR!

He's traveled several months into the future, to confuse supporters of post-epiphany SKR! But wait, going by the epic spell rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/transport.htm), time traveling more than five rounds is...cheating:smalleek:

But since it is the DM Jedipotter using this it isn't cheating, only when the players use it would it be cheating.

Deophaun

2014-06-23, 07:15 PM

Has there been any explanation on why a Wizard couldn't just find a new way to cast the same spell? There are spell creation rules after all, you could make a Fireball Spell that needs only a blade of grass (for ignition fuel) as a material component.
That's basically what would happen. The game was designed on the assumption that spell components were generally trivial to acquire. Knock that assumption out, and everything else regarding material components needs to logically be revisited. If bat guano is difficult to find, then you could easily have dozens of versions of fireball using regionally available substitutes. Or maybe you'd have spells that were less picky about their material components: bat guano, pig dung, saltpeter, use whatever's available that's appropriate to the effect.

Killer Angel

2014-06-24, 12:50 AM

Has there been any explanation on why a Wizard couldn't just find a new way to cast the same spell? There are spell creation rules after all, you could make a Fireball Spell that needs only a blade of grass (for ignition fuel) as a material component.

If I recall correctly (from another thread), the wizard can, but the spell would be less potent, or equally potent but with a chance to mishap. Because bat guano and sulphur are the true and best components.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-24, 05:38 AM

If I recall correctly (from another thread), the wizard can, but the spell would be less potent, or equally potent but with a chance to mishap. Because bat guano and sulphur are the true and best components.

Soooo

2+3=5

But

4+1=/= 5

And there is no way that 4+1 will ever equal 5...

That seems a bit silly, being beyond genius and yet you can't rig up new spell components to do the same thing as another set.

Maybe a Lego analogy would have been a better choice...

Killer Angel

2014-06-24, 06:08 AM

Dimcair

2014-06-24, 09:04 AM

Are you still trying to find a logical basis? :smallamused:

You can certainly have some interesting adventure around it, for example, if the wizard wants some basilisk eyelash for Sequester, you can set a series of missions, with the group that will look for generic loot, and the wizard that will look for components.
But you must know that this adds a new set of problems to a system that already is full of them.

That is true.

However there are plenty of components that you will need to find in every 'normal' game anyways.
A much easier way would also be to just restrict easy access to scrolls. My bet would be that players are much more likely to enjoy tracking down a long lost spellbook than chasing after bat****....

Of course this is assuming you keep the Wealth average low and magic-marts out of the game.

My point is, using the material components as the restriction is still messy. Plus you need to have this secret list with locations and information about whether there are bats or grasshoppers around or not... Which, I am sure, is much MORE messy than the book he talked about earlier^^.

Cheers

edit: Bat familiar OP lol.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-24, 10:14 AM

Are you still trying to find a logical basis? :smallamused:

The way i see it, Jedipotter's campaings are more focused on an element that, usually, is a folcloristic background: the material components. All the rest comes after this starting point.

Leaving aside that his main purpose, is to screw all those cheating optimizers (:smallsigh:), it's not bad per se. You can certainly have some interesting adventure around it, for example, if the wizard wants some basilisk eyelash for Sequester, you can set a series of missions, with the group that will look for generic loot, and the wizard that will look for components.
But you must know that this adds a new set of problems to a system that already is full of them.

Oh No no no no! I'm not trying to understand him but trying to work out why he thinks this way and to make sure I'm clear on his thinking.

Like looking into Pandoras box though, never know what you going to get.

I would say if you are screwing this much with the game, and you think optimization is cheating, why the hell are you playing 3.5/PF? Make tour own system or find one that already supports this, tacking in crazy rules didn't work for UA and it won't work like this.

jedipotter

2014-06-24, 01:13 PM

That's basically what would happen. The game was designed on the assumption that spell components were generally trivial to acquire. Knock that assumption out, and everything else regarding material components needs to logically be revisited. If bat guano is difficult to find, then you could easily have dozens of versions of fireball using regionally available substitutes. Or maybe you'd have spells that were less picky about their material components: bat guano, pig dung, saltpeter, use whatever's available that's appropriate to the effect.

Well, the way it works most of the time is: If you can't cast spell A as you don't have the component, then you just cast spell B, C, D, E, or F. There are 2,000 plus some spells to pick from.

Boci

2014-06-24, 01:27 PM

Well, the way it works most of the time is: If you can't cast spell A as you don't have the component, then you just cast spell B, C, D, E, or F. There are 2,000 plus some spells to pick from.

And isn't that a bit silly? Why can a tribal sorcerer cast all kinds of fire spells, but not fireball? What's so special about fireball that is alone seems to require bat guano, even amongst other fire spells.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-24, 02:04 PM

And isn't that a bit silly? Why can a tribal sorcerer cast all kinds of fire spells, but not fireball? What's so special about fireball that is alone seems to require bat guano, even amongst other fire spells.

And why can't I change my diet, crap in my hand as I'm casting, then cast fireball....

Good thing the material component will be gone when the spell goes off...

Lord of Shadows

2014-06-24, 03:20 PM

Well, the way it works most of the time is: If you can't cast spell A as you don't have the component, then you just cast spell B, C, D, E, or F. There are 2,000 plus some spells to pick from.

And we are to understand that you have researched, dissected, examined and quantified the minute details of each and every spell, just to make sure your players "keep it legal'? You, sir, have got way too much time on your hands. Or perhaps you need a hobby...
.

137beth

2014-06-24, 07:50 PM

And we are to understand that you have researched, dissected, examined and quantified the minute details of each and every spell, just to make sure your players "keep it legal'? You, sir, have got way too much time on your hands. Or perhaps you need a hobby...
.

Pretty sure DMing/house ruling is his hobby.
However, suggesting he get another hobby is cheating.

jedipotter

2014-06-25, 12:42 AM

And isn't that a bit silly? Why can a tribal sorcerer cast all kinds of fire spells, but not fireball? What's so special about fireball that is alone seems to require bat guano, even amongst other fire spells.

A bit silly? If you think so. I think the Tome of Battle is silly, do you agree? Guess everyone has their own version of silly.

I know that Default D&D is ''no matter where you go, there you are'', but I find that boring. So people use different spells world wide.

But most of all, the type of problem player that would complain ''everyone worldwide must use fireball, wraithstrike or whatever spell is ''optimizer awesome'', take one look at the house rule and head for the hills...and don't play in my game. House rule:mission accomplished.

Svata

2014-06-25, 01:08 AM

How is giving martial melêe more to do than "move and attack" or "full attack" silly?

Alent

2014-06-25, 01:52 AM

I know that Default D&D is ''no matter where you go, there you are'', but I find that boring. So people use different spells world wide.

But... There are far, far, far better ways to do this without tying it to reagents. The campaign setting I've been working on uses thematic magic libraries based not on optimization but on cultural thematics and national secrecy. (although there is SOME PO-fu to maintain the balance of power at a practical level)

It's far more interesting to say "Are you sure you want to ask about that spell?" then run players around from black market lead to black market lead about acquiring a smuggled scroll or researching smuggled torn pages to recreate it and get them in trouble than say "No, you can't have that basic spell without abandoning your quest to travel to buy a grasshopper because the albino cave grasshopper native to this region has been extinct for five hundred years."

Even in the event of extinct animals like that, my campaign has a special mechanism for obtaining such things, being post apocalypse where most natural resources are rare and precious because the land is a barren lunascape. It's called using Baelful Polymorph as capitol punishment.

But most of all, the type of problem player that would complain ''everyone worldwide must use fireball, wraithstrike or whatever spell is ''optimizer awesome'', take one look at the house rule and head for the hills...and don't play in my game. House rule:mission accomplished.

IIRC, the most likely to be encountered "optimizer awesome" spell at low levels is grease. Does this mean butter sells for as much as a villager's house?

Thanatosia

2014-06-25, 01:55 AM

How is giving martial melêe more to do than "move and attack" or "full attack" silly?
Because those are the only two actions that are not cheating.

Juntao112

2014-06-25, 02:06 AM

I know that Default D&D is ''no matter where you go, there you are'', but I find that boring. So people use different spells world wide.
The PHB notes that Clerics of different religions will call Bigby's Grasping Hand different names depending on their deity (ie, the Crushing Grip of Kord), but the spell itself functions the same.

But most of all, the type of problem player that would complain ''everyone worldwide must use fireball, wraithstrike or whatever spell is ''optimizer awesome'', take one look at the house rule and head for the hills...and don't play in my game. House rule:mission accomplished.
Why do you play this game, again? You don't like your players, you don't like the rules, you don't like the experience...

Sir Chuckles

2014-06-25, 02:34 AM

How is giving martial melêe more to do than "move and attack" or "full attack" silly?

Because he really is an SKR-lite.

There will never be any reasoning with Jedipotter. All of is actions support him having a minor god complex that's expressed and exacerbated via tabletop gaming and a personality that denies changing of his position, or even learning better approaches.

A combination of his insistence on using only extremes, vast generalizations, and the idea that a DM is a special "chosen" person with absolute authority over even player actions leads me to believe that he is either a top-tier, Grade A troll or a 0.1% outlier that just so happens to very vocal in an opinionated forum.

the_other_gm

2014-06-25, 02:37 AM

Because those are the only two actions that are not cheating.

It could just be that he missed my post on page 3, but he seems to be fine with powerattack shenanigans and the rather debilitating effects of component-less spells like alter self & blindness/deafness. Or the ludicrousness that the explosive runes bomb.

Killer Angel

2014-06-25, 06:46 AM

It could just be that he missed my post on page 3, but he seems to be fine with powerattack shenanigans and the rather debilitating effects of component-less spells like alter self & blindness/deafness. Or the ludicrousness that the explosive runes bomb.

it's cheating only when you try things he doesn't like (which includes to act smart, trying to bypass problems).

And you cannot negate that, jedi... to find easy (or easier than you think) solutions to problems in your campaign, it's pretty much your main definition of "cheating".

Well, to each one its own, I suppose...

137beth

2014-06-25, 08:50 AM

''everyone worldwide must use fireball, wraithstrike or whatever spell is ''optimizer awesome'',
What kind of an optimizer uses fireball:smallconfused:? It's a horrible spell.

Because he really is an SKR-lite.

SKR no longer acts or thinks this way, he's reversed his longest held stances since leaving Paizo.

Trundlebug

2014-06-25, 09:25 AM

(Scrubbed.)

Amphetryon

2014-06-25, 10:41 AM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-25, 10:52 AM

Boci

2014-06-25, 10:52 AM

A bit silly? If you think so. I think the Tome of Battle is silly, do you agree? Guess everyone has their own version of silly.

So what is your explanation for the tribal sorcerer being unable to cast fireball, but having no problem with burning hands or energy subbed cone of cold? They can clearly cast fire spells, what exactly does bat guano play in the specifics of fireball?

Deophaun

2014-06-25, 11:16 AM

Well, the way it works most of the time is: If you can't cast spell A as you don't have the component, then you just cast spell B, C, D, E, or F. There are 2,000 plus some spells to pick from.
There would be thousands more, because logically you would be able to choose between fireball (bat guano) and fireball (saltpeter) and fireball (petroleum) and fireball (pine resin) and...

Really, though, the spells that are people cast only makes sense based on utility, and utility will change based on environment. Junglerazer isn't being cast in a desert not because of a shortage of burnt plant, but because of a shortage of dense foliage to target.

And if you are having a problem with everyone across the world casting the same spell, then that's entirely on you, not the players, because you are the DM, and all those NPCs you accuse of being samey same are your own creation.

137beth

2014-06-25, 12:43 PM

And if you are having a problem with everyone across the world casting the same spell, then that's entirely on you, not the players, because you are the DM, and all those NPCs you accuse of being samey same are your own creation.

So all the NPCs are cheating?:smalltongue:

More seriously, I have no objection to a game which bans fireball. I've enjoyed games in which all PHB spells are banned.

I do find it somewhat strange that someone wants to arbitrarily restrict fireball but places no limitations on ultimate planar binding greater wish gate, just because gate lasts fluffy material components.

jedipotter

2014-06-25, 01:15 PM

I'm just checking to see if I've got this straight:

Jedipotter believes that any given Character should have a 50/50 chance of dying per Round (perhaps it was intended as 'any given Round'), and thinks that Players using a 2 Spell combo that requires 3 Rounds and 3 failed Saves to kill an adversary is brokenly overpowered.

Have I got that right?

50/50 chance of dying per round in combat or a dangerous action, not just ''a character might die every ten seconds walking down the street.''

I don't think laughter/orb is even close to broken. I think it's quite a bad combo, as you could just...oh blast the foe and kill them, instead of waiting for them to drown. You could cast Scorching Ray three times(maybe only two) and kill the foe or such.

So what is your explanation for the tribal sorcerer being unable to cast fireball, but having no problem with burning hands or energy subbed cone of cold? They can clearly cast fire spells, what exactly does bat guano play in the specifics of fireball?

By the rules, sorcerers need and must use material components. No material component, then the sorcerer can't cast the spell. A sorcerer can cast dozens of Force spells, but still needs that malteral component for Forcecage.

Dimcair

2014-06-25, 01:29 PM

I think you might be in the wrong game jedipotter.

I recommend the classic warhammer fantasy. Seems more your style. Little magic and people do die rather fast.

Boci

2014-06-25, 01:50 PM

I don't think laughter/orb is even close to broken. I think it's quite a bad combo, as you could just...oh blast the foe and kill them, instead of waiting for them to drown. You could cast Scorching Ray three times(maybe only two) and kill the foe or such.

Yes that was what other people thought as well, and we were confused why you brought up the idea that anyone was advocating "instant kill" as a result of the combo.

By the rules, sorcerers need and must use material components. No material component, then the sorcerer can't cast the spell. A sorcerer can cast dozens of Force spells, but still needs that malteral component for Forcecage.

Yes those are the rules. But you and me are interested in a living, breathing setting. So how do you explain the reliance of bat guano in a living breathing setting?

Also if you are going for a strictly by the rules approach, a sorcerer can cast fireball without bat guano, either by taking the escew material feat or by researching a custom spell of "Firebuall" a 3rd level evocation spell that deals 1d6 damage/level (max 10d6) in a 20ft radius spread, and has the material component of swamp mud and monkey guano.

Synar

2014-06-25, 02:26 PM

50/50 chance of dying per round in combat or a dangerous action, not just ''a character might die every ten seconds walking down the street.''

So a 98,4% chance of being dead after six rounds of combat (not necessarily in the same combat) and 99,9% chance of being dead by round ten? (Not even speaking of the 99,9999% chance of being dead by round only twenty...With such numbers you would probably never have a character surviving past round twenty, and even less surviving to level two [13 encounters? so at least 30 "dangerous" rounds? only less than one character in ten billions would survive that, no kidding])

I know this is probably only a silly hyperbole, but some people here have a tendency to take everything literally, and if you even start backing it up, everyone start having doubts. Please avoid resorting to silly hyperboles in the future when asked for factual precisions or examples because some people here will take things litterally and honestly it is starting to become tiring.

Hand_of_Vecna

2014-06-25, 02:42 PM

There would be thousands more, because logically you would be able to choose between fireball (bat guano) and fireball (saltpeter) and fireball (petroleum) and fireball (pine resin) and...

I find this strange too. Jedi claims to come from a classic previous edition world as do I. I sometimes jokingly call myself "The world's youngest greybeard" because due to picking up D&D at age 7 and buying used books I started with red box and worked my way forward through gazetteers and back issues of Dragon.

I remember restrictions, but I also remember lots of official refluffing especially with spell components. I recall an article about ship-mages that changed all their components to nautical ones and this certainly wasn't a unique phenomenon. This leads me to find restricting spell access by saying that something worth copper in one place can't be aquired for gold in another completely bonkers especially when someone could should have researched an alternative spell generations ago.

An odd spell here and there would make sense like if fish scales were hard to aquire in the desert and you needed them to cast an essential spell for a water dungeon. The spell is generally useless in that region, so there wouldn't be a market for the spell component. Barring an illogical magic mart you'd need to either travel or send for the component, try and see in maybe 1 rich household imports fish for their own use, or do without. But this is a interesting corner case. Everybody has a use for fiery death, flying and othe staples so there should either be a market for these components at prices appropriatly raises for transport costs or, more flavorfully, local components will have been researched.

Amphetryon

2014-06-25, 03:22 PM

Compare
I don't see this as clever at all, but I guess I just set my bar high. This is just a lazy trick at best, and cheating at worst
against
I don't think laughter/orb is even close to broken.

So, it's not broken, but it's 'lazy' (as opposed to casting a single spell?) and/or 'cheating' (because. . . .)?

137beth

2014-06-25, 04:40 PM

Compare
against

So, it's not broken, but it's 'lazy' (as opposed to casting a single spell?) and/or 'cheating' (because. . . .)?

You just quoted two posts from different pages. That obviously wasn't intended (otherwise there would be a single button to do it), so it is cheating.

grarrrg

2014-06-25, 09:56 PM

You just quoted two posts from different pages. That obviously wasn't intended (otherwise there would be a single button to do it), so it is cheating.

Single button? No.
But hit the "Multi-quote" button, click to the next page, hit "Multi-quote" again, then hit "reply with quote".
It's allowed by forum rules so I'm going to *banned by mods for cheating*

jedipotter

2014-06-26, 01:15 AM

Yes those are the rules. But you and me are interested in a living, breathing setting. So how do you explain the reliance of bat guano in a living breathing setting? Also if you are going for a strictly by the rules approach, a sorcerer can cast fireball without bat guano, either by taking the escew material feat or by researching a custom spell of "Firebuall"

A sorcerer casts the exact same spells the wizard does. In the exact same way. But while the wizard has a teacher and lots of schooling to know how to chanel and form magic, the sorcerer just has to guess. So a wizard could be told, ''to cast mount you take a bit of horse hair and rub it between your fingers and say 'sellos serre sawwer sam' '' as one tried and true and tested way of casting mount. Then the wizard can practice what they were told to do until they get it right and cast the spell. A sorcerer just guesses. He picks up all sorts of materials, says all sorts of words and tries all sorts of gestures. And by trial and error he will come up with the correct way to cast the spell. Maybe he even gets a tingle when he finds the right component or gets to see a half formed spell. Some sorcerer do share spell knowledge, so some would spread the same casting ways, but most would have something close, but unique to the ''official by the book wizard casting way''.

I know this is probably only a silly hyperbole, but some people here have a tendency to take everything literally, and if you even start backing it up, everyone start having doubts. Please avoid resorting to silly hyperboles in the future when asked for factual precisions or examples because some people here will take things litterally and honestly it is starting to become tiring.

As an Unfair Meatgrinder Killer DM....that sounds about right. Several characters die per game. It is what I call normal.

So, it's not broken, but it's 'lazy' (as opposed to casting a single spell?) and/or 'cheating' (because. . . .)?

1. Not Broken. 2. Lazy. Again you could just blast the foe to death instead of lazily waiting around ''did he drown yet?'' 3.Worst case, sure it's cheating to take out a foe in such a way. To just lazily sit there and do ''oh, foe #19..I cast laugh and roll the orb on him and wait for him to die'' is an experience mill. Just going along and killing foes with no chance of them striking back is boring and no fun. You'd sure get less XP here. It's like having a 20 year old arm wrestle a bunch of six year olds: When the 20 year old wins he would ''technically'' be the arm wrestling champion.....not not really as the odds were way in his favor and the kids never stood a chance.

Mellack

2014-06-26, 01:46 AM

Some sorcerer do share spell knowledge, so some would spread the same casting ways, but most would have something close, but unique to the ''official by the book wizard casting way''.

That argument would support having a sorcerer on the desert island with no bats coming up with a fireball spell that uses some other components. Then that sorcerer could teach that to wizards who could also cast it that way. So different regions should just have people casting SLIGHTLY different versions of the same fireball. Your Drow would learn Jump with maybe frog legs instead. But I guess they are all just cheaters.

Juntao112

2014-06-26, 01:51 AM

As an Unfair Meatgrinder Killer DM....that sounds about right. Several characters die per game. It is what I call normal.
Seems like it would be hard to invest in a character and flesh him out if he has the life expectancy of a Frenchman at the Somme.

But I guess that's what separates me from true roleplayers. I just can't come up with a new character concept and play it out well every few sessions.

1. Not Broken. 2. Lazy. Again you could just blast the foe to death instead of lazily waiting around ''did he drown yet?''
Is it lazy to try and use fewer spells to kill an enemy, or efficient?

3.Worst case, sure it's cheating to take out a foe in such a way. To just lazily sit there and do ''oh, foe #19..I cast laugh and roll the orb on him and wait for him to die'' is an experience mill. Just going along and killing foes with no chance of them striking back is boring and no fun. You'd sure get less XP here. It's like having a 20 year old arm wrestle a bunch of six year olds: When the 20 year old wins he would ''technically'' be the arm wrestling champion.....not not really as the odds were way in his favor and the kids never stood a chance.
Am I to understand that going about things in a less effective way yields more XP?

jedipotter

2014-06-26, 02:51 AM

That argument would support having a sorcerer on the desert island with no bats coming up with a fireball spell that uses some other components. Then that sorcerer could teach that to wizards who could also cast it that way. So different regions should just have people casting SLIGHTLY different versions of the same fireball. Your Drow would learn Jump with maybe frog legs instead. But I guess they are all just cheaters.

Well, see the sorcerer on the desert island would just have sand and wind based spells and not 'fireball'. Or take the feat Eschew Components. And drow use wraithform to 'jump' or take Eschew Components.

Seems like it would be hard to invest in a character and flesh him out if he has the life expectancy of a Frenchman at the Somme. But I guess that's what separates me from true roleplayers. I just can't come up with a new character concept and play it out well every few sessions.

While some players go the depression route ''why should I role play at all, if my character is just gonna die'' , a lot more do the ''lets role play like it is the last day''.

And the more ''roll'' players have a hard time coming up with a new character as they can only ''roll'' so much, and often copy characters. But for role players the sky is the limit.

Is it lazy to try and use fewer spells to kill an enemy, or efficient?
Am I to understand that going about things in a less effective way yields more XP?

It's lazy to kill a foe with two spells that takes several rounds...and that is not efficient. A single lightning bolt could kill the foe in one round...one spell, efficient. The orb one is the less efficient way.

Trundlebug

2014-06-26, 02:55 AM

I find this strange too. Jedi claims to come from a classic previous edition world as do I. I sometimes jokingly call myself "The world's youngest greybeard" because due to picking up D&D at age 7 and buying used books I started with red box and worked my way forward through gazetteers and back issues of Dragon.

He's a fraud. Simple as that.

grarrrg

2014-06-26, 03:00 AM

2. Lazy. Again you could just blast the foe to death instead of lazily waiting around ''did he drown yet?'' 3.Worst case, sure it's cheating to take out a foe in such a way. To just lazily sit there and do ''oh, foe #19..I cast laugh and roll the orb on him and wait for him to die'' is an experience mill. Just going along and killing foes with no chance of them striking back is boring and no fun.

It's lazy to kill a foe with two spells that takes several rounds...and that is not efficient. A single lightning bolt could kill the foe in one round...one spell, efficient. The orb one is the less efficient way.

Seriously.
GO BUY A FREAK'N DICTIONARY.

"Cheating" does not mean what you think it means.
"Lazy" does not mean what you think it means.

Comparing a 2 spell, slow-death combination to an 'experience mill', and threatening lower XP, and then going on to say 'just lightning bolt them'...I...I'm done.

At this point I'm convinced he is either a troll, or has a loose grasp on the English language. And it doesn't much look like the second option...

Trundlebug

2014-06-26, 03:09 AM

Well, see the sorcerer on the desert island would just have sand and wind based spells and not 'fireball'. Or take the feat Eschew Components. And drow use wraithform to 'jump' or take Eschew Components.

While some players go the depression route ''why should I role play at all, if my character is just gonna die'' , a lot more do the ''lets role play like it is the last day''.

And the more ''roll'' players have a hard time coming up with a new character as they can only ''roll'' so much, and often copy characters. But for role players the sky is the limit.

It's lazy to kill a foe with two spells that takes several rounds...and that is not efficient. A single lightning bolt could kill the foe in one round...one spell, efficient. The orb one is the less efficient way.

Reported. Mindless troll.

kardar233

2014-06-26, 03:12 AM

And the more ''roll'' players have a hard time coming up with a new character as they can only ''roll'' so much, and often copy characters. But for role players the sky is the limit.

That's... really hard to swallow.

I am a pretty damn good roleplayer, if I do say so myself. I've played dozens of different characters with different thinking processes (including a psychopath, a couple of sociopaths and more than one autistic character) and every single one is an hours-long labour of love. I'm not willing to play a character who I can't feel, and that's a process that takes research, questioning and a lot of mood music.

And many of these have been for games that were the literal opposites of "roll" playing like forum play-by-post games, and many of my home games are dice-less and system-less.

The concept that someone could churn out credible, believable characters on an industrial scale is mind-boggling. I don't know how often you play, Jedipotter, and I don't know your character mortality rate (though judging by your posts it seems like at least one character per player per session) but it seems nearly impossible that a player could have enough realized, fleshed-out character concepts to keep up with the rate at which those characters kick the bucket. Unless you happen to be playing with a professional improv club, I just don't see it happening.

If I were in such a game, I would likely come in with one character built for that game, and once they die I'd have to reactivate some of my mothballed characters, but I'd quickly burn through those and so I'd be left with having concepts like "This is Dunkir the dwarf, he hates beer, and was kicked out of the Dwarf Lands because of it". That's not a character, that's a hook.

This seems like it would be exacerbated as it seems that Jedipotter doesn't approve of any significant level of competency from characters. Having to start with "this character is just barely average at their chosen trade" severely limits possible character concepts, as well.

Synar

2014-06-26, 04:40 AM

No, no, you did not understand the math.
What I am saying is that with such probability, you never, never, NEVER could have had a player leveling up. Like, it would be a one chance in a million. So giving experience would amount to nothing since surviviving two combats is as likely as winning at loto. So I sincerely hope this is a silly hyperbole, or every session would be several TPK.

Amphetryon

2014-06-26, 04:42 AM

Is it lazy to try and use fewer spells to kill an enemy, or efficient?

This combo isn't fewer spells, though. 2nd-level Save-or-Die and Save-or-Suck spells already exist. Apparently it's lazy to use two spells in an unusual and (possibly) unintended way, rather than using one spell. Because reasons.

Synar

2014-06-26, 04:43 AM

Well, see the sorcerer on the desert island would just have sand and wind based spells and not 'fireball'.

Actually 'fireball' would be the only fire spell he could not have. All other fire spells would be fine. For some reason.

dehro

2014-06-26, 05:15 AM

I'm morbidly curious to see who Jedi's players are..how long they stick to his games and how many sessions in a row he manages without arguments, tableflips or defections.

Killer Angel

2014-06-26, 06:10 AM

jedipotter,
the problem with your "setting", is that there are really very little reasons why you shoudn't see the usual spells, and this is not only from a NPC's pov, but it's even more valid for PCs.

Let's pick, for example, the case of Jump and subterranean world, where grasshopers are almost impossible to find.

As already noted, it's not that hard (for an enterprising wizard) to have its own little reserve of insect's legs (commerce, and so on).
But the wizards that don't have such resource, will see that it's very valuable, to have a spell that is very unusual in their "world". So, some of them will pick Eschew Material, just to cast those spells with "unfindable" material components.
This won't include the majority of the NPCs casters, but it's a reasoning that a PC could easily do.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-26, 08:06 AM

Wait... I wonder what jedipotter thinks of the Witch's slumber hex? Is that cheating? Lazy? Broken (ok maybe :smalltongue:)?

Slumber + Coup de Grace = 1 round death

13ones

2014-06-26, 08:29 AM

1. Not Broken. 2. Lazy. Again you could just blast the foe to death instead of lazily waiting around ''did he drown yet?'' 3.Worst case, sure it's cheating to take out a foe in such a way. To just lazily sit there and do ''oh, foe #19..I cast laugh and roll the orb on him and wait for him to die'' is an experience mill. Just going along and killing foes with no chance of them striking back is boring and no fun. You'd sure get less XP here. It's like having a 20 year old arm wrestle a bunch of six year olds: When the 20 year old wins he would ''technically'' be the arm wrestling champion.....not not really as the odds were way in his favor and the kids never stood a chance.

Oh. It all makes sense now. Like it actually all makes sense. You're not a bad GM. You're just ungodly lazy and uncreative.

If you, as a GM, see creative spell use as cheating and have no way to counter it, you have failed a as GM.

If you, as a GM, ALLOW your casters to use the same trick over and over and it has super effective results you have failed as a GM.

You're not a bad GM, per say. You're just too lazy and uncreative to come up with a proper challenge for your casters.

Segev

2014-06-26, 08:44 AM

Regarding the OP topic, I would not have much difficulty accepting that a heroic character, or a monster cool enough to be a serious challenge to the same, can hold his breath while laughing manically, at least in the face of certain drowning. I imagine him rocking back and forth, hands pressed desperately to his nose and mouth, his diaphragm pulsing violently as he keeps his airways shut so it can't force the air out.

The same Con-based timer applies as if he were trying to willfully hold his breath.

Used on mooks, I'd probably rule-zero their instant drowning. It's dramatic and a mook is meant to die without being something more than a bag of exp wrapped up in some hp.

Kazudo

2014-06-26, 10:32 AM

And actually, Segev, on the subject of mooks, if the group has gotten to the point where they're having face-to-face one-on-X confrontations with the BBEG where killing him is a legitimate outcome to the scenario, I'll typically have a bunch of AC 10, 1hp mooks running around. No, they don't even really have a CR. I might give out a few points of XP and a couple of GP depending on how many there are and how they're dispatched. If we're talking "Level 15s going up against the level 20 BBEG one-on-four in a chamber of his choosing, there might be a few hundred mooks around his complex. They probably won't do any damage to the players and are really there for dramatic purposes. The players might get 1-10 XP per mook if they fight them head on or none if they do something particularly clever (though then they'd probably receive some kind of problem-solving XP bonus) like deciding to pour a well placed cauldron of hot wax or oil or boiling water on a lot of a hundred, netting them MAYBE a thousand problem solving XP.

If they took out what I'd planned to be the BBEG in this fashion with this spell combo, they'd probably receive a pretty decent amount of problem solving XP. Probably a third of the normal calculated amount for the CR apiece for outsmarting me, then that's the point where the BBEG's contingent teleport goes off and he activates a ghost sound and alarm trap which cackles and leaves an "I knew you were good but this is too much. I look forward to fighting you in person with the gloves off. Have fun!" message, then the Bosses in Mook's Clothing appear. Maybe his "Big Bad Evil Gang" full of elite mooks come out which are all immune to nonlethal damage in some way, thus making suffocation not really a problem anymore.

Juntao112

2014-06-26, 01:00 PM

While some players go the depression route ''why should I role play at all, if my character is just gonna die'' , a lot more do the ''lets role play like it is the last day''.
And do they bother to compose a rich and interesting backstory for each of their characters as well?

And the more ''roll'' players have a hard time coming up with a new character as they can only ''roll'' so much, and often copy characters. But for role players the sky is the limit.
The vast amount of mechanically different characters I build in my spare time for fun would seem to disprove your point.

It's lazy to kill a foe with two spells that takes several rounds...and that is not efficient. A single lightning bolt could kill the foe in one round...one spell, efficient. The orb one is the less efficient way.
Lightning Bolt also offers a reflex save for half damage, is of a commonly resisted energy type, sets things on fire (a major no-no in cities), and could incur friendly fire if the enemy has closed into melee.

Also, isn't using a spell exactly as intended terribly uncreative?

RolkFlameraven

2014-06-26, 01:15 PM

Well, see the sorcerer on the desert island would just have sand and wind based spells and not 'fireball'. Or take the feat Eschew Components. And drow use wraithform to 'jump' or take Eschew Components.

OK... but

I wonder if a sorcerer with Eschew Materials, can learn fireball if she grew up on an island where bats are not native...

and you said
Nope, and it is one of the great things about my game. Not every spellcaster in the whole multiverse uses the same handfulls of spells like brain dead robots. Each location has it's own flavor of spells, and much of it is based on what materals can be found in that location.

So... what is it?!? Can they or can't they? Because as of now its both!

Kantolin

2014-06-26, 01:19 PM

Maybe his "Big Bad Evil Gang" full of elite mooks come out which are all immune to nonlethal damage in some way, thus making suffocation not really a problem anymore.

You're concerned about the wrong effect. Tasha's hideous laughter makes the target pretty bloody useless - using another spell to spend more resources and spend extra actions for a multiple-round effect is probably not as useful as just stabbing the laughing guy to death once they've failed their save against Hideous laughter. I mean, you're better off having the party fighter/cleric just violently /beat/ the now-useless bad guy to death.

And if it's not Tasha's, as a note similarity can be achieved with hold person, or an array of other effects. Heck, even sleep can do it at low levels. Lots of things can result in 'If you fail a save, you are gonna sit around being useless'.

eggynack

2014-06-26, 01:24 PM

It's lazy to kill a foe with two spells that takes several rounds...and that is not efficient. A single lightning bolt could kill the foe in one round...one spell, efficient. The orb one is the less efficient way.
What? What the hell do these words even mean? So... casting two spells is lazy, because you have to wait for them to work, and casting one is super not-lazy, because it works immediately, and because it's... more efficient. And, as you mention in that other post, doing things in the longer and less efficient way is an experience mill, somehow, and therefore maybe cheating. And maybe requiring of less XP. Even though both of your issues with orb+laughter make it out to be strictly worse. I just don't understand. My current suspicion, and it is a strong one, is less that you don't know how the words cheating and lazy work, and more that you just don't know how words work in general.

Elderand

2014-06-26, 01:24 PM

Also, isn't using a spell exactly as intended terribly uncreative?

Therefore it's not cheating !

Kazudo

2014-06-26, 01:36 PM

You're concerned about the wrong effect. Tasha's hideous laughter makes the target pretty bloody useless - using another spell to spend more resources and spend extra actions for a multiple-round effect is probably not as useful as just stabbing the laughing guy to death once they've failed their save against Hideous laughter. I mean, you're better off having the party fighter/cleric just violently /beat/ the now-useless bad guy to death.

And if it's not Tasha's, as a note similarity can be achieved with hold person, or an array of other effects. Heck, even sleep can do it at low levels. Lots of things can result in 'If you fail a save, you are gonna sit around being useless'.

You're probably right. I'm getting a little bogged down with the side discussion regarding Jedipotter.

The point I was making is that a good DM probably wouldn't have their BBEG in such a position where things like that can happen to it, and that a better DM would probably be able to build on that with a "yes, but" response not "No, that's Cheating" response.

A good DM would say "Then the man drowns helplessly laughing to death beneath the orb. Within minutes, the roof of the building collapses as a (describe Bigger Bad Evil Guy/Man Behind the Man/True Big Bad) descends, monologuing for a moment about how you've killed his first in command and how disappointed he is in him and he'll banish him to the space between dimensions and whathaveyou, who then retreats loosing the floodgates of Serious Mooks he had waiting, etc.

One of the traits of a good DM is resourcefulness and adaptability. If your precious story is so reliant on the BBEG being a serious threat, then failing to actually MAKE him a serious threat, in a way you're inviting a clever player to walk all over you.

Svata

2014-06-26, 01:38 PM

You're concerned about the wrong effect. Tasha's hideous laughter makes the target pretty bloody useless - using another spell to spend more resources and spend extra actions for a multiple-round effect is probably not as useful as just stabbing the laughing guy to death once they've failed their save against Hideous laughter. I mean, you're better off having the party fighter/cleric just violently /beat/ the now-useless bad guy to death.

And if it's not Tasha's, as a note similarity can be achieved with hold person, or an array of other effects. Heck, even sleep can do it at low levels. Lots of things can result in 'If you fail a save, you are gonna sit around being useless'.

Seriously. I think Hideous Laughter was the spell that got me to realize how much better save-or-suck spells were than damage ones. It was on my first character, a rogue/bard. Saw that and realized "hey, I could put out that enemy who trounced us last session long enough to take him out with this!" and so my days of optimization began. I took no more levels in rogue, and became the most useful party member. (the others were a duskblade, a warlock, and a straight rogue.) My other first level spell was CLW, as our DMPC Cleric had gotten splattered all over the walls of the dungeon we were in during the previous session, and we needed a way to heal.

Juntao112

2014-06-26, 01:39 PM

One of the traits of a good DM is resourcefulness and adaptability. If your precious story is so reliant on the BBEG being a serious threat, then failing to actually MAKE him a serious threat, in a way you're inviting a clever player to walk all over you.

Surely you're not suggesting that people actually build characters with abilities to match their concept? Because that sounds like cheating to me.

Only a dirty optimizer would even think of such a thing.

jedipotter

2014-06-26, 01:43 PM

That's... really hard to swallow.

Most players come with a folder of characters, all at the right level, and all ''built by a labor of love''.

But you kinda miss the point. The ''anyone can have a character die any time'', makes the game more fun. A player never knows if it might happen. It also makes the players a bit more careful. Players in my games don't often bite off more then they can chew.....as they don't want to risk character death.

Actually 'fireball' would be the only fire spell he could not have. All other fire spells would be fine. For some reason.

Well, except all the fire spells with components no on the desert island. No tallow, then no flaming sphere. No live firefly, no flame shield, etc.

This won't include the majority of the NPCs casters, but it's a reasoning that a PC could easily do.

Guess I could say again that this happens. It's not like no drow in the world has the spell Jump....but most don't. Most use spider climb or wraithform or levitate when they need to move 'up'. And anyone can take eschew materials.

Wait... I wonder what jedipotter thinks of the Witch's slumber hex? Is that cheating? Lazy? Broken (ok maybe :smalltongue:)?

Slumber + Coup de Grace = 1 round death

This the pathfinder witch? I've never read the class, just skimmed. Is slumber like the spell sleep? I'm fine with sleep+ Coup de Grace= 1 round death.

If you, as a GM, see creative spell use as cheating and have no way to counter it, you have failed a as GM.
If you, as a GM, ALLOW your casters to use the same trick over and over and it has super effective results you have failed as a GM.
You're not a bad GM, per say. You're just too lazy and uncreative to come up with a proper challenge for your casters.

The combo does not work so well in my game. After 5th level or so, there are plenty of foes immune to one or both spells. I'm not the type of DM that sends 10th level characters up against normal human commoners. The combo only really works for fodder, and it's not so effective even at that. You could get five goblin war3 laughing away and then roll the orb on them....but talk about a huge waste of time and magic(one fireball could take them out).

Svata

2014-06-26, 01:55 PM

The combo does not work so well in my game. After 5th level or so, there are plenty of foes immune to one or both spells. I'm not the type of DM that sends 10th level characters up against normal human commoners. The combo only really works for fodder, and it's not so effective even at that. You could get five goblin war3 laughing away and then roll the orb on them....but talk about a huge waste of time and magic(one fireball could take them out).

Wait, you think FIREBALL is better than Hideous Laughter? In what universe? Fireball does piddly damge of a commonly resisted type, and allows a refex save for half, which means evasion screws it, and at least one of those goblins is likely to be a rogue (believe its their favored class). Hideous Laughter is a lower level spell, so you get mor castings of it, and if they fail, they're disabled long enough for the BSF and the party rogue to sab them to death.

dehro

2014-06-26, 02:08 PM

seriously though..Jedi.. how many players do you go through on an average campaign? (and yes, I said players, not characters, which I reckon are in the hunderds)

Juntao112

2014-06-26, 02:20 PM

Most players come with a folder of characters, all at the right level, and all ''built by a labor of love''.

Do players in your game hide behind piles of dead bards (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ohk5Swy-04)?

RolkFlameraven

2014-06-26, 02:45 PM

Do players in your game hide behind piles of dead bards (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ohk5Swy-04)?

Gods I love that movie.

I've only ever had one player show up with more then one PC ready to go, and he did it because he dies, ALOT. I didn't believe it when he told me the first time he played with us, I was rather shocked when he was on PC #3 before the day was out while the rest of the party had barely even been scratched. I have never seen a person roll so many ones on saves in my life.

All I can say is that if I was stuck in Jedi's world I might find myself turning into the type of player he seems to be stuck with as a matter of course. After a while I would stop giving a damn about my PC as more then a bunch of numbers that's just going to need to be trashed in 10 minutes anyway and start making all kinds of crazy crap that you could never really role play into but work well as a stat block in a desperate attempt to survive and/or "win".

At that point I'm no longer really playing D&D but something else and it is no longer about having fun but proving something and foolish pride.

Juntao112

2014-06-26, 02:48 PM

That is because you are a cheater.

Killer Angel

2014-06-26, 03:51 PM

Guess I could say again that this happens. It's not like no drow in the world has the spell Jump....but most don't. Most use spider climb or wraithform or levitate when they need to move 'up'. And anyone can take eschew materials.

My point is more that even with "no restrictions" on the availability of material components, most wizards won't have jump (or another spell, for what matters). Because, leaving aside the shroedinger wizards that we see in theoretical debates, wizards in real play (be them PCs or NPCs) usually have only a handful of spells.
So, any caster that wants Jump, will obtain it (through one logical way or another), even with restrictions on components, and the caster not interested in it, won't learn it, even with no restrictions.

So, IMO, all the works to limit the availability of components, can give some additional flavor to a campaign, but most of all, is merely an additional headache for the players. The advantages are (at best) negligible, while the disadvantages are not.

I'm not the type of DM that sends 10th level characters up against normal human commoners.

...because do you think the world is full of DMs that use only low level mooks against 10th lev. adventurers? :smallconfused:

jedipotter

2014-06-26, 04:35 PM

seriously though..Jedi.. how many players do you go through on an average campaign? (and yes, I said players, not characters, which I reckon are in the hunderds)

A couple, maybe five.

Most players that game with me know me and my game style and they are fine with it. They either just want to have fun or would never do anything that my house rules were made to prevent. So when I tell them ''no extra dimensional things'', they just shrug and say ''ok, don't need one anyway''.

But some players are outsiders, and they are the ones likely to drop out. They might like the game....or they might not. It's common for something like this to happen: New Player ''I do a clever attack and shoot my magic missile at the wall! The wall explodes into shrapnel for 10D10 untyped non magical damage with no save to all with in 10 feet.'' DM Me-"That does not happen, your magic missile hits the wall and fades away.'' New Player-"WHAT! No fair! I'm not gonna sit here with a DM that just makes up random spell rules on the fly.'' and they storm out never to be seen again

Kazudo

2014-06-26, 04:40 PM

''I do a clever attack and shoot my magic missile at the wall! The wall explodes into shrapnel for 10D10 untyped non magical damage with no save to all with in 10 feet.''

Jedi, I think the thing is that the example you gave isn't supported by the rules while many if not most forms of optimization explicitly ARE.

Brookshw

2014-06-26, 04:41 PM

something like this to happen: New Player ''I do a clever attack and shoot my magic missile at the wall! The wall explodes into shrapnel for 10D10 untyped non magical damage with no save to all with in 10 feet.''

So this is a hypothetical, yes? Could you provide a few actual examples that have come up in your game of this sort of thing?

RolkFlameraven

2014-06-26, 04:43 PM

A couple, maybe five.

Most players that game with me know me and my game style and they are fine with it. They either just want to have fun or would never do anything that my house rules were made to prevent. So when I tell them ''no extra dimensional things'', they just shrug and say ''ok, don't need one anyway''.

But some players are outsiders, and they are the ones likely to drop out. They might like the game....or they might not. It's common for something like this to happen: New Player ''I do a clever attack and shoot my magic missile at the wall! The wall explodes into shrapnel for 10D10 untyped non magical damage with no save to all with in 10 feet.'' DM Me-"That does not happen, your magic missile hits the wall and fades away.'' New Player-"WHAT! No fair! I'm not gonna sit here with a DM that just makes up random spell rules on the fly.'' and they storm out never to be seen again

Well seeing as Magic Missile can't even be used on a wall in the first place both you and your moron of a player are wrong.

If your players are really trying to do something like that then I find myself feeling sorry for you for being forced to be in the same room with such a idiots and wonder just where you live.

Boci

2014-06-26, 07:50 PM

A sorcerer casts the exact same spells the wizard does. In the exact same way. But while the wizard has a teacher and lots of schooling to know how to chanel and form magic, the sorcerer just has to guess. So a wizard could be told, ''to cast mount you take a bit of horse hair and rub it between your fingers and say 'sellos serre sawwer sam' '' as one tried and true and tested way of casting mount. Then the wizard can practice what they were told to do until they get it right and cast the spell. A sorcerer just guesses. He picks up all sorts of materials, says all sorts of words and tries all sorts of gestures. And by trial and error he will come up with the correct way to cast the spell. Maybe he even gets a tingle when he finds the right component or gets to see a half formed spell. Some sorcerer do share spell knowledge, so some would spread the same casting ways, but most would have something close, but unique to the ''official by the book wizard casting way''.

Sorcerors...just guess? That is how they cast spells? Does he even know what spells he knows then? Is it they know they can cast colour spray, but they can't because they never have the right material component, so they have to try casting it with everything they can get their hands on, one by one?

And that doesn't sound silly to you?

jedipotter

2014-06-26, 08:36 PM

So this is a hypothetical, yes? Could you provide a few actual examples that have come up in your game of this sort of thing?

This is an actual example. His name was Chuck and he did the shrapnel thing all the time in his 'other' game. I never let him do it in my game, all three hours he was there. And yes he was told before the game ''no homebrew shrapnel rules'', but he still tried with every spell. He thought it was clever and creative.

One that was in the rules.......oh, Henry. He had the artificer that had like +60 to +100 on most skills he liked. He had the 'master work skill item +10, the enhancement magic item +30, the luck magic item +20 or +30, the Guidance of the Avatar wand (think that was the right spell) +20, plus having all his abilities at at least 25 from his enchantment items. By-the-book, it was a legal character. He never used the character in my game, I told him flat out: No. And asked what would be the fun of playing when you can't fail a skill check.

Sorcerors...just guess? That is how they cast spells? Does he even know what spells he knows then? Is it they know they can cast colour spray, but they can't because they never have the right material component, so they have to try casting it with everything they can get their hands on, one by one?

And that doesn't sound silly to you?

Well trial and error is the best way to learn.

How would you say a Sorceror knows what material components to use for a spell? Even using the by the book spell component pouch rules, how do they know out of the hundred of things in the bag, what to pull out? Instinct? Does their blood talk to them?

Juntao112

2014-06-26, 08:43 PM

One that was in the rules.......oh, Henry. He had the artificer that had like +60 to +100 on most skills he liked. He had the 'master work skill item +10, the enhancement magic item +30, the luck magic item +20 or +30, the Guidance of the Avatar wand (think that was the right spell) +20, plus having all his abilities at at least 25 from his enchantment items. By-the-book, it was a legal character. He never used the character in my game, I told him flat out: No. And asked what would be the fun of playing when you can't fail a skill check.

The bolded things do not exist.

Either the player was lying and you failed to realize this due to ignorance of the rules, or we have cause to doubt the veracity of your story.

AuraTwilight

2014-06-26, 08:45 PM

How would you say a Sorceror knows what material components to use for a spell? Even using the by the book spell component pouch rules, how do they know out of the hundred of things in the bag, what to pull out? Instinct? Does their blood talk to them?

Since they're literally described as casters who can perform magic without education and go basically by their gut and instinct....yea, basically? The whole point is that they don't LEARN how to use magic, they just suddenly know it in the same way an X-Men mutant suddenly learns they have a superpower. That's why they cast with Charisma and not intelligence.

Sir Chuckles

2014-06-26, 08:49 PM

Boci

2014-06-26, 08:56 PM

Well trial and error is the best way to learn.

Only for things grounded in some semblance of logic and consistency. Material components are not that. Sure there is some evidence of thought, with fire spells requiring phosphorous or sulphide, but freedom of movement requires "A leather thong, bound around the arm or a similar appendage". How the hell is a tribal sorcerer going to figure that out? Plus sorcerers are charisma casters, whilst trial and error is more of an int thing (not that a wizard would be able to figure out the logic of material components alone either).

How would you say a Sorceror knows what material components to use for a spell? Even using the by the book spell component pouch rules, how do they know out of the hundred of things in the bag, what to pull out? Instinct? Does their blood talk to them?

I assume that whatever source gives them the spells, so their blood in most interpretations, also lets them know what is needed to cast the spell. I find it weird that you do not. Exactly how they know this is up to you, they could dream of it, picture it in their mind the first few times they fail to cast the spell, ect ect.

aleucard

2014-06-26, 09:06 PM

This is an actual example. His name was Chuck and he did the shrapnel thing all the time in his 'other' game. I never let him do it in my game, all three hours he was there. And yes he was told before the game ''no homebrew shrapnel rules'', but he still tried with every spell. He thought it was clever and creative.

One that was in the rules.......oh, Henry. He had the artificer that had like +60 to +100 on most skills he liked. He had the 'master work skill item +10, the enhancement magic item +30, the luck magic item +20 or +30, the Guidance of the Avatar wand (think that was the right spell) +20, plus having all his abilities at at least 25 from his enchantment items. By-the-book, it was a legal character. He never used the character in my game, I told him flat out: No. And asked what would be the fun of playing when you can't fail a skill check.

Well trial and error is the best way to learn.

How would you say a Sorceror knows what material components to use for a spell? Even using the by the book spell component pouch rules, how do they know out of the hundred of things in the bag, what to pull out? Instinct? Does their blood talk to them?

I'll do some responsing here, this time.

First guy was a dip****, I'll give you that. Not everyone has a brain like a bowl of fried tripe, though, so not the best example except for showing what you have to work with for players.

Second one is a bit more interesting, but since this is presumably an outside toon (that is, one that was played in someone else's campaign), most wouldn't allow it as a matter of course (and all that would be needed to curtail that monstrous amount of skill bonuses is lock-stepping to WBL (employing rust monsters and the like if the PC has a method of wealth generation you can't control), putting sensible caps on how high skill bonuses can go (only 1 item applies, equal to enchanter's CL might work, ask someone with more experience), and not allowing some of the more obvious alternate/optional rules (not all skills have any (or at least, not portable) MW tool items and default bonus is +2, for instance). All in all, not that insane if you handle this like most do.

Technically, the fluff of the Sorcerer class is that Sorcerers DO know this **** by instinct/having their blood tell them what to do/etc. The particulars behind how they know what material components to look for isn't described here, but that sort of thing is never described ANYWHERE for any magic system that uses Material Components to my knowledge, with the single exception of things like Materia from FF and any equivalents. This would be the point where the DM should hand the control of the character's fluff to the character's player, in my book. Let them do this however the Hell they want; the vast majority are there for flavor, anyway. Try looking up what percentage of what's considered the best arcane spells have a material component of any kind, and you'll see where the forum's coming from here.

Brookshw

2014-06-26, 09:26 PM

RolkFlameraven

2014-06-26, 10:32 PM

I would love to know what other "rules" Chuck tried to import to your game. Seeing as even with a two PRCs Magic Missile tops out at 7D4+14 without going into meta magic. Even forgetting the fact that MM can't be used on items (The Darkness or Gazebos exempted of course) how in the holy hell does that turn into 10D10 untyped damage to all within 10 feet for no save?

IF such a thing could work, and I could see it with an orb spell or some other force spells, wouldn't it be Slashing at lest if not all three type of physical damage types, save for half for a handful of D4's OR D6's or even D3's? If you don't know how his 'other game' worked that's fine but such a crazy idea has me morbidly curious.

Henry on the other hand, well how did his Masterwork tool(s) get above +2? And just how much time/gp/xp did he spend on "+60 to +100" in skills of all things? Why would you even NEED skills that high? Does he balance on clouds a lot or something? Dlipomacy is one thing but...

How often do people like Chuck get brought into or ask to play in your games? If it is half as much as you're implying you might want to move as there must be something in the water.

the_other_gm

2014-06-26, 11:05 PM

The highest a skill boosting item usually goes is +10 competence, but that's a custom magic item that costs about 10k, but unless it was a named item it's most likely a custom one and not an out-of-the-book item. I can see something along the lines of a cloak that boosts hiding, a character's natural hiding abilities and invisibility making you rather stealthy.

I checked "guidance of the avatar" and it's actually a spell available on wizard's old site. it's level 2 cleric spell that gives a +20 competence bonus to a single check for a minute (or until discharged/used) and you have to choose which skill to use it with before you cast the spell so it has to be used pre-emptively rather then reactively. Being a competence bonus, it also wouldn't stack with the +10 to a skill. IE: a cloak of supreme hiding +10 and guidance of the avatar(hiding) would only give the highest modifier: a +20 competence, what with stacking rules being what they are.

To my knowledge there are no by-the-books ways of getting +20/30 luck bonuses on skills via items unless they're specific ones. The custom items rules specifically call out competence bonuses.

As for masterwork items, those only give a +2. I know d20modern has mastercraft items, but those only go up to a +3 bonus if memory serves.

As for every stat being 24+ that requires some pretty epic rolling. we're looking at PCs with 18s in virtually every stat and +6 to stat items. you know, those 36k magic belts.

Now, the artificier class is pretty broken but your player was simply pulling matter out of his backside. This is one of the few times where Jedipotter could call "cheating" and actually be spot-on as this character was simply using items that didn't exist or started with 210k+ gold, IE what a level 15+ PC would have.

Killer Angel

2014-06-27, 12:29 AM

The bolded things do not exist.

Either the player was lying and you failed to realize this due to ignorance of the rules, or we have cause to doubt the veracity of your story.

Examples by jedipotter usually involve huge lack of knowledge of the system, or are very improbable, like the ceremony with the burning of a copy of Tome of Battle.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-27, 05:17 AM

Examples by jedipotter usually involve huge lack of knowledge of the system, or are very improbable, like the ceremony with the burning of a copy of Tome of Battle.

Jedipotter is ok with Slumber + Coup de Grace (1 round kill) but not a two spell combo that takes 3 rounds to kill an enemy.

From above

Quote Originally Posted by SpawnOfMorbo View Post
Wait... I wonder what jedipotter thinks of the Witch's slumber hex? Is that cheating? Lazy? Broken (ok maybe )?

Jedipotter's reply...
Slumber + Coup de Grace = 1 round death
This the pathfinder witch? I've never read the class, just skimmed. Is slumber like the spell sleep? I'm fine with sleep+ Coup de Grace= 1 round death.

......
...
..
.

Alright now I know he is acrwwing with everyone, and I'm pretty sure this "chuck" doesn't really exist.

Nightcanon

2014-06-27, 09:46 AM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-27, 09:57 AM

Going back to the original topic, if the notion of THL followed by Aquatic Orb seems overpowered, one could always rule that being doused in water breaks the initial spell or at least allows another save (I've never seen anyone continue laughing when suddenly soaked, even if others around do find the bucket of water/ shove into swimming pool hilarious). On a tangent, I note that the THL description states that those affected are prone and unable to act but are not helpless. Presumably this means no coups de grace, but what about vulnerability to sneak attack and ability to make reflex saves? My wizard bought his sulphur-and-bat-poo marbles pre-packed from Anduin* using one-click: can he cast his spell without fear of it being rendered ineffective by evasion?

*large online retailer in Middle-Earth

The problem with one spell disrupting the other spell is that you already have rules for that.

Certain spells disrupt others and other spells disrupt or cancel all spells. If you start adding more you will just get I to a troublesome mess.

Why not allow fireball to stop Hold Monster? Perhaps the pain jolts the creature out of the hold?

It just gets weird.

Maybe there should be a universal rule about this, but there really isn't other than DM Fiat.

jedipotter

2014-06-27, 01:42 PM

The bolded things do not exist.

Either the player was lying and you failed to realize this due to ignorance of the rules, or we have cause to doubt the veracity of your story.

Well, lets not nit pick a character sheet I saw years ago and do not have in my possession. He had several magic items of different bonus types so they would stack.

Since they're literally described as casters who can perform magic without education and go basically by their gut and instinct....yea, basically? The whole point is that they don't LEARN how to use magic, they just suddenly know it in the same way an X-Men mutant suddenly learns they have a superpower. That's why they cast with Charisma and not intelligence.

Oh, what a great example! Ok, so one day a guy just suddenly moves a metal gate by waving his hand. Now our mini Magneto does not instantaneous become an expert at his power. I, for one, can see him trying to move all sorts of items before he figured out he could only effect things made of metal. And slowly he gets better at using his power through practice, training and real world experience. One of the main plot points in the whole X-Men universe is they go to school to learn how to use their powers. It's even a plot point in X-men:First Class where Charles teaches Magneto how to better use his power.

So apply it to the sorcerer. Do they just wake up ''oh wow I know exactly how to cast this spell''? Sure, that is what the lame fluff in the PH says.

But how about the sorcerer is always practicing, mediating and doing self study? They are always looking for ways to ''tap their power more''. So they are always trying to ''do'' magic. So they would quite often gesture, speak and pick up odds and end material things and see if it works. So sorcerer wants to have a spell that puts foes to sleep. He tries a couple gestures (like "Shhh, sleep monkey'') and gets one that feels right...but does not cast the spell. Then as he walks around he picks up things : some dirt, a twig, an apple. None of them work. So he keeps trying, and suddenly one day when he tries the pinch of sand.....presto, the spell works.

Juntao112

2014-06-27, 01:47 PM

Well, lets not nit pick a character sheet I saw years ago and do not have in my possession. He had several magic items of different bonus types so they would stack.
Providing inaccurate information after being asked for accurate information, without any sort of disclaimer or notice, is dishonest.

I submit that you, sir, are cheating.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-27, 01:50 PM

Well, lets not nit pick a character sheet I saw years ago and do not have in my possession. He had several magic items of different bonus types so they would stack.

If it has been so long, and you don't remember everything, then why for all things logical did you bring up the example in the first place?

And why did you think that people wouldn't ask questions?

:smallannoyed:

Edit: Spelling

Lord of Shadows

2014-06-27, 01:51 PM

The problem with one spell disrupting the other spell is that you already have rules for that.

<snip>...</snip>

Maybe there should be a universal rule about this, but there really isn't other than DM Fiat.

I think, in the final analysis, it all boils down to "DM fiat," which is something that can be debated all day (or for several days, as shown here).

Jedipotter is free to run his game the way he sees fit, and those who play in it are free to come and go. By posting his game details here, he has opened himself up to criticism from others, which is fine, especially if it's constructive or thoughtful (as most of it has been). I do think he has spent an unusual amount of time on something that I would not be concerned with, but if that's how he wants to spend his time, so be it. Let him have his fun, as he should let us do the same.

Sir Chuckles

2014-06-27, 01:53 PM

That method would likely mean that an individual Sorcerer would never figure out how to cast a large variety of spells. Acid Arrow uses leaves mashed and stuffed into snakeskin. There's one spell that requires a marble bust of themselves. The material components of spells were never meant as a balancing factor. They were meant as simple things to fit the spells into Vancian spellcasting.

Once more, you make the false assumption that the only other option is the extreme opposite of what we're suggesting. Nobody said that a Sorcerer becomes an expert instantly, jumping to conclusions will not help anyone, especially not your own credibility. You have to find what you think is a dirty deed, compromise; the middle ground. In this case, it's that he is experimenting with various components, words, and spells, but it's not random bumbling about his house that will likely never lead to a discovery. A sixth sense guides him to the beach. It tells him "No no no, it's LeviOsa".

Anlashok

2014-06-27, 02:01 PM

OP has it right, which is strange since I always took jedipotter for one of the types to favor "common sense" over rules. It's a good ruling tho

Alternatively the DM takes some personal initiative, thereby increasing verisimilitude and rewarding a player's clever trick.

Alternatively we can not give sorcerers buffs they don't need or deserve for no real reason and try to hand wave it off as "verisimilitude"

Frankly, it's magic, it doesn't need to make sense and since few people care when' magic breaks verisimilitude when it's convenient I don't see a reason to suddenly get antsy when it's inconvenient.

Elderand

2014-06-27, 02:05 PM

You have to find what you think is a dirty deed, compromise; the middle ground. In this case, it's that he is experimenting with various components, words, and spells, but it's not random bumbling about his house that will likely never lead to a discovery. A sixth sense guides him to the beach. It tells him "No no no, it's LeviOsa".

I'm just going to leave this here.

Compromise is wrong.

Compromise is wrong in relationships too

Sir Chuckles

2014-06-27, 02:09 PM

I'm just going to leave this here.

You have to find what you think is a dirty deed, compromise

Yeah, I know.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-27, 02:09 PM

I'm just going to leave this here.

Holy hell, I just.. What? How? I might need to follow you after reading those Jedipotter quotes...

Elderand

2014-06-27, 02:13 PM

Holy hell, I just.. What? How? I might need to follow you after reading those Jedipotter quotes...

Believe you me, I'm all about treating the rules of the game as a suggestion rather than a set in stone set of law one must slavishly follow (wouldn't have made a handbook for chaos mage if I thought otherwise) but jedipotter is just not worth it. He is the sort of guy who gives everyone else in the hobby a bad name. Just ignore him.

Boci

2014-06-27, 02:20 PM

Alternatively we can not give sorcerers buffs they don't need or deserve for no real reason and try to hand wave it off as "verisimilitude"

Its hardly a "buff" if it requires them to take hideous laughter and aqueous orb, neither of which are that good on their own. Even together, with some houseruled synergy, the combo is still less effective than a slew of optimized choices of spell selection.

Frankly, it's magic, it doesn't need to make sense and since few people care when' magic breaks verisimilitude when it's convenient I don't see a reason to suddenly get antsy when it's inconvenient.

It's magic that everyone can now hold their breathe even when laughing uncontrollable? So we are also ruling that laughter doesn't make you any harder to hear? After all, the spell makes no such mention of that, and it is magic...

Its not so much about "inconvenient", as it is about giving two suboptimal choices that logically should have some synergy, some synergy, (which in no way overpowers them, or even makes the combo competitive against other choices).

What instantaneous are you thinking of when magic breaks verisimilitude, but is ignored for convenience?

But how about the sorcerer is always practicing, mediating and doing self study? They are always looking for ways to ''tap their power more''. So they are always trying to ''do'' magic. So they would quite often gesture, speak and pick up odds and end material things and see if it works. So sorcerer wants to have a spell that puts foes to sleep. He tries a couple gestures (like "Shhh, sleep monkey'') and gets one that feels right...but does not cast the spell. Then as he walks around he picks up things : some dirt, a twig, an apple. None of them work. So he keeps trying, and suddenly one day when he tries the pinch of sand.....presto, the spell works.

So do sorcerers in your game need to go through this process themselves when leaner new spells? How do you make sure they are not cheating, when their characters guess the right material component? And how do they guess the right material component? Does a spellcraft/knowledge arcane roll?

Seriously, trial and error does not work for MC. Not only are they practically devoid of logic, but the only feedback is "no" and "yes". That does not lend itself to trial and error, because you learn nothing when you fail, beyond that you have failed. You have no idea if the sand you used wasn't enough because it wasn't coloured, or because you actually need to the fresh blood of an intelligent animals.

Imagine if I alter the material component of Freedom of Movement (to prevent cheating) whilst keeping it thematically consistent, how many guesses if it going to take you to figure out the right one? Especially when the only feedback you get is "wrong" or "right".

AuraTwilight

2014-06-27, 02:31 PM

Oh, what a great example! Ok, so one day a guy just suddenly moves a metal gate by waving his hand. Now our mini Magneto does not instantaneous become an expert at his power. I, for one, can see him trying to move all sorts of items before he figured out he could only effect things made of metal. And slowly he gets better at using his power through practice, training and real world experience. One of the main plot points in the whole X-Men universe is they go to school to learn how to use their powers. It's even a plot point in X-men:First Class where Charles teaches Magneto how to better use his power.

When I made the example, I was going by the original comics and not anything like the movie remakes. In said comics, the knowledge to use their powers is effectively instinctual that doesn't need to be learned. What they go to Xavier's school for is how to use their powers responsibly, and how to use them in ways instinct wouldn't teach.

Kitty Pryde doesn't need to learn how to phase through objects, per se, but she does need to learn how to phase others through, or how to only selectively phase parts of her body, or how to phase through things without falling through the floor. They learn precision.

So apply it to the sorcerer. Do they just wake up ''oh wow I know exactly how to cast this spell''? Sure, that is what the lame fluff in the PH says.

But how about the sorcerer is always practicing, mediating and doing self study? They are always looking for ways to ''tap their power more''. So they are always trying to ''do'' magic. So they would quite often gesture, speak and pick up odds and end material things and see if it works. So sorcerer wants to have a spell that puts foes to sleep. He tries a couple gestures (like "Shhh, sleep monkey'') and gets one that feels right...but does not cast the spell. Then as he walks around he picks up things : some dirt, a twig, an apple. None of them work. So he keeps trying, and suddenly one day when he tries the pinch of sand.....presto, the spell works.

So then why aren't they just wizards, if they learn magic the same way? Sorcerers DO NOT DO what you say they do. And even then they can't be explicitly compared to X-Men mutants because magic can more justifiably put knowledge in someone's head then science fiction DNA.

Also, as long as we're using X-Men examples, Layla Miller. She just knows stuff. Just because. That's part of her powers.

Not that this is really relevant. A player shouldn't need to do extra work to learn how to use their class features. LEVELING UP ALREADY REPRESENTS THIS.

Kazudo

2014-06-27, 02:45 PM

Now, in my games depending on how roleplay heavy I want the game to be, I'll require players to actually roleplay their level. You don't just level, you have the requisite number of XP to do so but there's an action or something that you have to put in in order to do it.

This isn't really a global rule. Sometimes the fighter can really just say "well, actually that last battle where we fought the [monster] actually taught me more about how to handle my body in the interest of improving combat." and I'll go ahead and let him get his level, And some sorcerers say the same, usually "during the last confrontation as I was on fire I felt my blood scream out to me to harness its ability, and I'm pretty sure that I know fireball now." and I'll throw them a level and the fireball spell along with one other that they can justify.

Wizards are a bit different. If the group rests after that combat sue to expending resources, then the player with the Wizard says "While studying my spellbook, I learned a certain interesting intonation that I'd scribbled into the margins this morning and synthesizing it with the magical usage I displayed today, I was able to decipher a possible new spell combination and, yes, I think I can use this incantation with these material components to make this effect. Watch! See, it works." and I'll throw them their level.

But that's rare, and usually at player request. Normally I even give out XP for individual members of an encounter so it's entirely possible for a level to happen during combat. I don't actually let them do the leveling during, but all casters are temporarily casting at +1 CL (save for spells known and per days) and everyone gets a temporary +1 to attack until the level is done. Call it victorious triumph flowing in their veins. Or something like it. Whatever.

jedipotter

2014-06-27, 03:00 PM

So then why aren't they just wizards, if they learn magic the same way? Sorcerers DO NOT DO what you say they do. And even then they can't be explicitly compared to X-Men mutants because magic can more justifiably put knowledge in someone's head then science fiction DNA.

I'd be the first to agree that sorcerers were done wrong in 3X. They made them ''just like wizards'' with a ''tiny bit changed''. What they really should have done is had sorcerers have their own magic sub system, something like spell points where a sorcerer could use and shape magic however they wanted to within the rule frame work. So they would not ''use spells'' at all. But they did not do it that way.

I say sorcerers have to figure out how to cast spells by trial and error, others say ''it just happens''. So......

Coidzor

2014-06-27, 03:04 PM

Most players come with a folder of characters, all at the right level, and all ''built by a labor of love''.

Well, yeah. One keeps the various characters one has created at one time or another for future reference if nothing else. I still have character sheets somewhere or another that I made in college, doesn't mean they're ready to go at any particular game without updating or adjusting to the level requirements of the game or any of a number of tweaks both minor and major.

Creating an entire folder of characters for a particular game is not "most" players or even a majority of them. That's more something one does when one has no attachment to the characters because one goes through them like one is playing Paranoia.

Juntao112

2014-06-27, 03:04 PM

I'd be the first to agree that sorcerers were done wrong in 3X. They made them ''just like wizards'' with a ''tiny bit changed''. What they really should have done is had sorcerers have their own magic sub system, something like spell points where a sorcerer could use and shape magic however they wanted to within the rule frame work. So they would not ''use spells'' at all. But they did not do it that way.

I say sorcerers have to figure out how to cast spells by trial and error, others say ''it just happens''. So......

Perhaps you should remake the sorcerer after having fixed the entire magic system.

Creating an entire folder of characters for a particular game is not "most" players or even a majority of them. That's more something one does when one has no attachment to the characters because one goes through them like one is playing Paranoia.

At least Paranoia had the decency to give you a six pack.

Boci

2014-06-27, 03:06 PM

I say sorcerers have to figure out how to cast spells by trial and error, others say ''it just happens''. So......

But you haven't explained how they do this. Trial and error requires more feedback than a simple "yes" or "no". They cannot discover their spells by trial and error, because there are too many variables for a binary feedback system.

Coidzor

2014-06-27, 03:23 PM

At least Paranoia had the decency to give you a six pack.

I imagine it would be even more amusing after a couple of beers, come to think of it.

A couple, maybe five.

Wait. So you never took that to be a warning sign or indicative of anything problematic? You just decided that it was all just the quality of people and/or players either in general or in your local area... and yet also never took steps to limit this or even set up a vetting process for prospective players?

That is impressive and unfortunate at the same time.

Grod_The_Giant

2014-06-27, 04:33 PM

jedipotter, if you think that sorcerers aren't sufficiently differentiated from wizards, why are you fluffing their magic to work more like a wizard's?

Also, as long as we're using X-Men examples, Layla Miller. She just knows stuff. Just because. That's part of her powers.
Technically, her power has to do with raising the dead. She "knows stuff" because her future self came back in time and transferred a bunch of knowledge over.

AuraTwilight

2014-06-27, 06:00 PM

I liked Layla better before that particular retcon, alright? Infact, my favorite iteration of her, power-set-wise, was her introduction when she was Reality-Warping proof and may or may not have been Wanda's failsafe.

I'd be the first to agree that sorcerers were done wrong in 3X. They made them ''just like wizards'' with a ''tiny bit changed''. What they really should have done is had sorcerers have their own magic sub system, something like spell points where a sorcerer could use and shape magic however they wanted to within the rule frame work. So they would not ''use spells'' at all. But they did not do it that way.

I kind of agree with you here. I think Sorcerers would be neat if they had no metamagic full-round penalty, metamagic bonus feats, and a spell point system (but not the abortion that's in UA).

But even then I don't mind spontaneous spellcasting as it exists. It's moderately more balanced than how a wizard is, and even if they were a spellpoint caster it doesn't change the fluff here, which is my bone with you: A Sorcerer instinctively knows their spells. They do not LEARN magic through study or figuring things out, they are just so goddamn stubborn (Charisma, force of personality) that they are warping reality to do what they want because they're throwing a metaphysical temper tantrum to get their way.

Frankly, I have great grievance with a Sorcerer having to use material spell components at all, period.

...Well I dislike material components in general because they are literally a joke, but atleast it's sorta justified with wizards tapping ambient magic since they don't have any brimming inside themselves.

137beth

2014-06-27, 07:16 PM

Seriously.
GO BUY A FREAK'N DICTIONARY.

"Cheating" does not mean what you think it means.
"Lazy" does not mean what you think it means.

Comparing a 2 spell, slow-death combination to an 'experience mill', and threatening lower XP, and then going on to say 'just lightning bolt them'...I...I'm done.

At this point I'm convinced he is either a troll, or has a loose grasp on the English language. And it doesn't much look like the second option...
Or, if money is an issue, don't buy a dictionary, follow this link. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheating?s=t)

I'm just going to leave this here.
...wow:smalleek:

Well, at least there's one major difference between jedipotter and Circle Chief: Circle Chief avoids message boards because the internet is "obscene". When people suggested AdblockPlus or Noscript, Trekkin clarified that Circle Chief also makes up his own definitions for common words, and that "obscene" to CC means people expressing opinions that aren't his own.

RolkFlameraven

2014-06-28, 12:06 AM

"Compromise is wrong in relationships too"

Well there we have it, no point in beating this horse anymore its dead.

I really hope that was out of context Jedi, for your sake, or you well NEVER have a long lasting meaningful relationship with anything outside of a Dog.

Svata

2014-06-28, 12:15 AM

georgie_leech

2014-06-28, 12:20 AM

And inside of a dog, wait, wrong joke, sorry.

I doubt he'd find one in there either.

137beth

2014-06-28, 12:27 AM

And inside of a dog, wait, wrong joke, sorry.

Well, the first six jokes I thought of in response to the "compromise is wrong" quotes were all about politicians. So I'll just leave this here:
Jedipotter isn't the first person to suggest compromise is wrong, Michal Scott said so too. Michal insisted on going not for a compromise, nor a win-win agreement, but for a win-win-win.

The difference is that with a win-win-win, we all win.

Juntao112

2014-06-28, 12:48 AM

Well, the first six jokes I thought of in response to the "compromise is wrong" quotes were all about politicians.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVu_yMEhUfM)

Killer Angel

2014-06-28, 03:56 AM

So I'll just leave this here:
Jedipotter isn't the first person to suggest compromise is wrong, Michal Scott said so too. Michal insisted on going not for a compromise, nor a win-win agreement, but for a win-win-win.

And Charlie (Erfworld).

Not that I would like to be judged similar to him... :smalltongue:

Millennium

2014-06-30, 09:12 AM

Ever tried (and mostly failed) to stifle a laugh you couldn't control? It's not a very pleasant experience, but it can be done.

My personal ruling would be that the target can indeed try to hold its breath. But it's still convulsing and rolling around and unable to take actions, according to hideous laughter's effects, so it has no way to get out of the orb. And so, per aqueous orb's effects, it will still take nonlethal damage every round, and if that knocks it unconscious, then it will stop holding its breath.

In other words, this combo would not be an insta-drown, but it would be a way to hold the creature in place while the orb batters the heck out of it. And if the creature gets knocked out, then you have your drowning effect anyway. So it's still not a terrible combination, it's just not an instant kill.

I do not hold with the idea that outsmarting the DM is cheating. The clever trickster who wins by his wits and his willingness to challenge the assumptions everyone makes (including villains) is yet another stock fantasy archetype, perhaps not quite as well-known (or easily-modeled) as the ones used to build the core classes, but no less real or valid for that. For that reason, I don't think it's good to encourage that kind of play in a fantasy game. This is not to say that I'm a pushover: my antagonists want to live, even if "live" isn't a very good word choice for some of them, so if a character figures out a clever combination of spells, I'll put up a fight within the rules to find a way out. But if I can't find anything, then the PCs have earned their victory.

Or perhaps I find something in the rules that makes things more interesting if I let the combo through. In that case, the PCs still get their victory, but they may find themselves wondering if this was really such a good idea. This is generally my preferred outcome, because in the end we both get what we want. They have their win, and I have my interesting scenario.

Deophaun

2014-06-30, 10:05 AM

Ever tried (and mostly failed) to stifle a laugh you couldn't control? It's not a very pleasant experience, but it can be done.
The problem is, the spell precludes that possibility:

It collapses into gales of manic laughter
How is the target producing "gales of manic laughter" if it is stifling them?

Segev

2014-06-30, 10:10 AM

The problem is, the spell precludes that possibility:

How is the target producing "gales of manic laughter" if it is stifling them?

Since you can't produce "gales of manic laughter" without being able to breathe, clearly Hideous Laughter makes you able to breathe the entire time you're under its effects!

dehro

2014-06-30, 10:49 AM

Since you can't produce "gales of manic laughter" without being able to breathe, clearly Hideous Laughter makes you able to breathe the entire time you're under its effects!

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/03/03ffadbc615724266e996c4a6477cc9057febe65559a54d08d 441479ab16612d.jpg

137beth

2014-06-30, 11:28 AM

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVu_yMEhUfM)
Do, or do not. There is no try.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/03/03ffadbc615724266e996c4a6477cc9057febe65559a54d08d 441479ab16612d.jpg
It's blue text, so I'm pretty sure it's sarcastic.

By the way, is blue text "cheating"?

Oddman80

2014-06-30, 11:52 AM

I told myself i wasn't going to click on this thread any more... it was pissing me off too much...
i went 4 days without clicking, but now i've fallen off the wagon...

FOR ALL THE PEOPLE THAT SAID THEY HAVE STIFLED UNCONTROLLABLE LAUGHTER...
WHAT YOU STIFLED WAS NOT UNCONTROLLABLE LAUGHTER!

This is not very difficult. If laughter is uncontrollable, you CAN NOT CONTROL it. You cannot stifle it. Stifling laughter is a means of controlling it.

The Hideous Laughter spell has a means, by which one can control/stifle their laughter. It is called a "Will Save"
If you FAIL your Will Save, you do not have the power of mind or body to control the laughter that then comes out of you.

Now, everybody - Its time for a little hands on experiment. Stop what you are doing and pull out a stopwatch. Do not take a deep breath, just breath normally. It isn't like seeing that you are about to fall in a lake. you have no clue what you are about to get hit with... Get ready.... and GO! Start laughing maniacally. Don't take a breath!

How long do you last before running out of the air you already had in your lungs?
My time was 8 seconds. The air forced out so thoroughly (due to the GALES of laughter), that when I then tried holding my breath when out of air, I started seeing black spots - I was on the verge of passing out almost immediately.

^That is what would happen.

The target of this spell, upon failing its will save against the Hideous Laughter Spell goes one round without needing to breathe. During Round 2, if the orb of water is on the target's square, the target either passes out and starts breathing (i.e., Drowning) or he takes a big old Whooping Breath full of water, and DROWNS!.

Everybody post your times. If anyone legitimately goes 12 seconds or more while FULL OUT LAUGHING, and doesn't take a breath. Well congratulations - you got a set of lungs on you! And maybe we will consider stretching the death out to round 3... but my guess is everyone is going to come in at 4-10 seconds.