Does this even work RAW or RAI?

[dukeofwolfsgate]

To set the stage, our gaming table has a pretty punishing DM who does not like to change his plans. The party has more than a few casters in it between PCs and cohorts.

In a recent game session, I and the four other players in my group were traveling down a river in a fishing boat.Our DM tells us there is bridge over the river with enemy archers, and the current is too strong to stop. It looks like we will be peppered with arrows for several rounds, until the dwarf bard's player announces that he casts animate object on the boat.

Now, according to him, that makes the boat a "creature" and also gives it a flying speed. The DM is floored and has to take a moment to figure out how this effects this encounter. Once he does, the archers begin firing at the character that obviously just cast a spell, in the hopes of breaking his concentration on the spell and continuing the encounter as planned.

However, after a round of successful concentration checks, the ship is still flying and is now gaining elevation. It is at that point that the player with a dragonborn warlock says that since the boat is now a creature, he casts invisibility on it.

Again, the DM has to take a moment. He then argues that the relatively small boat is overburdened by the whole party's combined weight and cant move very fast. He figures that the animate objects spell will end before we escape, or that the archers who are now firing blindly will eventually get lucky with the aforementioned concentration check.

It is only after a wizard cohort is asked to cast haste on the boat, that the DM gives up and tells us we successfully evade the archers. Congratz and xp for everyone.

Now, do these spells work the way they were used, or does that break RAW or RAI?

[ZenBear]

I can't answer your question, but I can say that is hilarious! :smallbiggrin:

[RulesJD]

You broke RAW.

At best, the boat would be a Huge creature with 18 strength. The maximum it could lift is its Strength x 15lbs, so 270lbs. That's significantly less than an entire party would weigh.

[dukeofwolfsgate]

You broke RAW.

At best, the boat would be a Huge creature with 18 strength. The maximum it could lift is its Strength x 15lbs, so 270lbs. That's significantly less than an entire party would weigh.

What if someone had cast enlarge on the "creature"?

[gfishfunk]

You broke RAW.

At best, the boat would be a Huge creature with 18 strength. The maximum it could lift is its Strength x 15lbs, so 270lbs. That's significantly less than an entire party would weigh.

"Now that the boat is a creature, your combined weight starts killing it. It cries out in pain and begins weeping."

[MaxWilson]

You broke RAW.

At best, the boat would be a Huge creature with 18 strength. The maximum it could lift is its Strength x 15lbs, so 270lbs. That's significantly less than an entire party would weigh.

According to the PHB, Huge creatures get a multiplier on the weight they can carry. I believe it's x2 per size category, so 270x4 in this case, which might suffice to carry the party if they're not overly encumbered with gear.

[RulesJD]

Better idea:

1. Have melee smash the sides of the boat.
2. Cast Animate Objects on 10 small sized pieces of the boat.
3. Their cumulative lifting strength is 900 (10 objects with 90 lifting pounds each).

Still not as good with the invisibility thing, but you're now flying.

[RulesJD]

According to the PHB, Huge creatures get a multiplier on the weight they can carry. I believe it's x2 per size category, so 270x4 in this case, which might suffice to carry the party if they're not overly encumbered with gear.

Hmm good point, I forgot about the size category multiplier. So yeah, you might actually have been RAW.

[MaxWilson]

Better idea:

1. Have melee smash the sides of the boat.
2. Cast Animate Objects on 10 small sized pieces of the boat.
3. Their cumulative lifting strength is 900 (10 objects with 90 lifting pounds each).

Still not as good with the invisibility thing, but you're now flying.

Since they're tiny, they only have half lifting strength (or is it 25%?), so your total lift weight actually goes down to 450 lb., instead of 1080 lb.

But Animate Objects only lasts for one minute, so I hope you have somewhere close by to crash land.

[Inevitability]

Talk to your DM about his tendency to pseudo-railroad you.

[Corran]

Talk to your DM about his tendency to pseudo-railroad you.
The worst thing, seems to me, is how the DM took a small break to try and think what would the best way be to have his archer NPCs counter the PC's tactics. Man..... that's just..... anyway, remind this DM that he also has to roleplay his NPCs instead of only thinking them like pieces in a chessboard, unless of course all the NPCs are mind controlled by another NPC who also has time stop (to give him time to think about how he should have his minions act).

[Quintessence]

I like how your DM meta-gamed that entire encounter to try to beat you guys. The archers instantly focus firing the bard was especially amusing, guess they all made their arcana checks to know what was going on ;)

[HammeredWharf]

I don't see any railroading. When something weird happens, the DM might need a break to rethink his tactics. When a bunch guys are on a boat, one of them makes some weird gestures and suddenly the boat starts flying, trying to shoot that guy makes sense. The one thing I don't understand is how casting Invisibility on the boat is supposed to help the party. It wouldn't turn them invisible, after all.

[Douche]

I like how your DM meta-gamed that entire encounter to try to beat you guys. The archers instantly focus firing the bard was especially amusing, guess they all made their arcana checks to know what was going on ;)

Yeah, the DM clearly had a foregone conclusion for his NPCs and then decided how to justify it, rather than consider whether the archers would actually have any idea what's going on.

[Reverse]

This type if encounter solution is what become in game legend.

[Desamir]

I don't see any railroading. When something weird happens, the DM might need a break to rethink his tactics. When a bunch guys are on a boat, one of them makes some weird gestures and suddenly the boat starts flying, trying to shoot that guy makes sense. The one thing I don't understand is how casting Invisibility on the boat is supposed to help the party. It wouldn't turn them invisible, after all.

Do the enemy archers know how spell concentration works; are they even able to see his gestures, likely hidden behind several other PCs, from 200-300 feet away; why wouldn't they assume it's just a magical boat, etc. Sounds like clear-cut metagaming to me.

Invisibility reads: "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person."

[mephnick]

Do the enemy archers know how spell concentration works

It depends on the setting, but I figure trained soldiers in a magical world might know a thing or two about fighting people with magic. Knowing that a spell can be ended if a caster is wounded/disrupted would be pretty common knowledge.

I'm less inclined to agree that they'd be able to tell who cast the spell so easily, depending on distance.

[ZenBear]

It depends on the setting, but I figure trained soldiers in a magical world might know a thing or two about fighting people with magic. Knowing that a spell can be ended if a caster is wounded/disrupted would be pretty common knowledge.

I'm less inclined to agree that they'd be able to tell who cast the spell so easily, depending on distance.

Regardless, I doubt the DM gave a moment's thought to whether or not the archers would know that, and just metagamed the best way to ruin the player's plan.

[mephnick]

Regardless, I doubt the DM gave a moment's thought to whether or not the archers would know that, and just metagamed the best way to ruin the player's plan.

Possibly, though I often have enemies focus-fire characters that perform powerful spells. But, I'm excited when my players do stuff like this, so they'd know it wasn't me trying to railroad them.

Sounds like OP doesn't trust his DM, so you're probably right.

*shrug*

[saeval]

Completely don't understand all the negativity directed the DM for this post. He obviously rolled with it, even if he had no idea it was possible, and it ruined a 30/60 min set piece he worked hard to put together. So he took a minute to make sure the spells could do that, honestly, I hadn't thought of it before, but instead of denying it as ridiculous, (which I would have been close to doing) he let it happen. Just cause he employed "geek the mage" tactics doesn't mean he's metagaming/trying overly hard for the PC's to lose.

I mean, if anything I'd keep track of what spells my players knew after this, out of 5th level choices for a bard, barring this specific scenario/combo, that is definitely an unusual pick.

[Gignere]

Completely don't understand all the negativity directed the DM for this post. He obviously rolled with it, even if he had no idea it was possible, and it ruined a 30/60 min set piece he worked hard to put together. So he took a minute to make sure the spells could do that, honestly, I hadn't thought of it before, but instead of denying it as ridiculous, (which I would have been close to doing) he let it happen. Just cause he employed "geek the mage" tactics doesn't mean he's metagaming/trying overly hard for the PC's to lose.

I mean, if anything I'd keep track of what spells my players knew after this, out of 5th level choices for a bard, barring this specific scenario/combo, that is definitely an unusual pick.

I disagree animate objects is one of the best spells in the game. Top notch DPR when cast on tiny objects and awesome control utility when cast on huge objects as demonstrated by the OP.

[ZenBear]

Completely don't understand all the negativity directed the DM for this post. He obviously rolled with it, even if he had no idea it was possible, and it ruined a 30/60 min set piece he worked hard to put together. So he took a minute to make sure the spells could do that, honestly, I hadn't thought of it before, but instead of denying it as ridiculous, (which I would have been close to doing) he let it happen. Just cause he employed "geek the mage" tactics doesn't mean he's metagaming/trying overly hard for the PC's to lose.

I mean, if anything I'd keep track of what spells my players knew after this, out of 5th level choices for a bard, barring this specific scenario/combo, that is definitely an unusual pick.

It's largely due to the OP's description of the DM as punishing. I've known too many Killer DMs who actively try to "win" the game. It sounds less like he thoughtfully considered the players' tactics in subverting his carefully constructed set piece, and more like he desperately tried to figure out how to kill someone with his death trap without blatantly breaking the rules. I could be wrong, it's just how it sounds to me.

[endur]

Invisibility reads: "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person."

So the passengers would not be invisible, but the oars and sail and other ship components would be invisible. The spell only target's one creature, additional creatures require a higher level version of invisibility.

Even if the passengers would be visible, it would be a pain to shoot them with arrows, since the archers would be shooting from below and watching arrows bounce off an invisible boat.

[Vogonjeltz]

To set the stage, our gaming table has a pretty punishing DM who does not like to change his plans. The party has more than a few casters in it between PCs and cohorts.

In a recent game session, I and the four other players in my group were traveling down a river in a fishing boat.Our DM tells us there is bridge over the river with enemy archers, and the current is too strong to stop. It looks like we will be peppered with arrows for several rounds, until the dwarf bard's player announces that he casts animate object on the boat.

Now, according to him, that makes the boat a "creature" and also gives it a flying speed. The DM is floored and has to take a moment to figure out how this effects this encounter. Once he does, the archers begin firing at the character that obviously just cast a spell, in the hopes of breaking his concentration on the spell and continuing the encounter as planned.

However, after a round of successful concentration checks, the ship is still flying and is now gaining elevation. It is at that point that the player with a dragonborn warlock says that since the boat is now a creature, he casts invisibility on it.

Again, the DM has to take a moment. He then argues that the relatively small boat is overburdened by the whole party's combined weight and cant move very fast. He figures that the animate objects spell will end before we escape, or that the archers who are now firing blindly will eventually get lucky with the aforementioned concentration check.

It is only after a wizard cohort is asked to cast haste on the boat, that the DM gives up and tells us we successfully evade the archers. Congratz and xp for everyone.

Now, do these spells work the way they were used, or does that break RAW or RAI?

The boat has a means of locomotion already (the mast and/or oars), so it wouldn't gain a fly speed.

Aside from that, it's also probable that using it violates the intention behind the not being worn/carried requirement.

[JackPhoenix]

Do the enemy archers know how spell concentration works; are they even able to see his gestures, likely hidden behind several other PCs, from 200-300 feet away; why wouldn't they assume it's just a magical boat, etc. Sounds like clear-cut metagaming to me.

Invisibility reads: "Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person."

They may not know anything about concentration, but they assumedly know about the wizards, and that they are dangerous and make them a priority target before he blasts them all with a Fireball or turns them all into newts, or imprison their souls for all eternity, or summons a bunch of demons or something...it doesn't matter that this was not an actual wizard or that most of those things aren't possible.

Remember, geek the mage.

[ProphetSword]

You broke RAW.

At best, the boat would be a Huge creature with 18 strength. The maximum it could lift is its Strength x 15lbs, so 270lbs. That's significantly less than an entire party would weigh.

Common sense would dictate that if the boat was capable of carrying the party safely across the water, transforming it into a creature wouldn't suddenly make it unable to perform the same action, as it's still a boat. Flying is a different matter altogether, but the boat shouldn't suddenly sink.

[Segev]

Yeah, I'm not sure how the boat gained a flying speed. A swim speed, sure, but only objects with obvious "flappy-bits" can do that. Best I can guess is your Bard argued that sails count as wings? They aren't geared to move like that, though, so it still wouldn't work.

Still, interesting tactics.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, I'm not sure how the boat gained a flying speed. A swim speed, sure, but only objects with obvious "flappy-bits" can do that. Best I can guess is your Bard argued that sails count as wings? They aren't geared to move like that, though, so it still wouldn't work.

Still, interesting tactics.

Animate Objects grants a flying speed to anything without obvious means of locomotion otherwise. I suppose a DM could claim that the boat grew little paddles and started paddling itself around in the water, and as a player I would accept that--but I would also be a bit surprised. "My salad forks can fly, why can't my boat?"

[Segev]

Animate Objects grants a flying speed to anything without obvious means of locomotion otherwise. I suppose a DM could claim that the boat grew little paddles and started paddling itself around in the water, and as a player I would accept that--but I would also be a bit surprised. "My salad forks can fly, why can't my boat?"

Same reason your table can't. Your boat swims, possibly using its rudder. Your table walks on its legs. Honestly, your salad forks probably should be crawling, but rule of fun and all that.

[joaber]

take out the boat from the water and now he need the fly speed.

[Spectre9000]

The solution is very interesting, but... Wouldn't the easier solution be to destroy the bridge, or perhaps cast animate object on the bridge, and have it drop the archers into the river?

[Gignere]

The solution is very interesting, but... Wouldn't the easier solution be to destroy the bridge, or perhaps cast animate object on the bridge, and have it drop the archers into the river?

It might have been out of range, animate object range is 120 feet. Assuming longbows the archers may have been out at 150 feet. If it wasn't out of range that would have been too awesome animating the bridge.