Gaseous Form: Am I reading this right?

[Drakevarg]

So, I was trying to find some sort of mechanical precedent for houseruling that elementals could not simply be beaten to death (for the same reason you cannot "kill" a lake by punching it), and decided to take a look at the gaseous form spell. Reading it, I realized something that frankly had never occurred to me before:

Per the spell's wording, absolutely nothing about the effect actually prevents the subject from taking damage from mundane sources. They gain DR 10/Magic and become immune to critical hits, but as far as I can tell there is nothing stopping say, a sufficiently beefy man with a completely ordinary sword from stabbing a cloud of gas to death.

Is this "working as intended," or is this just another example of RAW being painfully stupid when read closely?

[Thurbane]

Yeah, 3E Gaseous form is very underwhelming compared to earlier editions. From memory, in 2E it made you all but immune to most damage sources.

So, no, you're not reading it incorrectly. It's not great at what it advertises itself as being. It's main use in 3E is to slip into narrow spaces. I mean, immunity to critical hits and poison is OK, I guess. A 10 ft fly speed is weaksauce compared to Fly of the same level, and the inability to use most spells, activate magic items or use supernatural abilities nerfs the character massively.

If you want to make it more palatable, maybe house-rule the DR to 10/-, like the more powerful Air Elementals.

For contrast, look at the Sandform spell in Sandstorm. One level higher, and entirely more useful along a similar theme.

[BowStreetRunner]

If you make a direct comparison between Gaseous Form and Incorporeal creatures you see that Incorporeal is the next step up, with DR 10/Magic being upgraded to immunity to all non-magical attacks, and a 50% miss chance even on those. Obviously, there is more to both abilities than just that, but there does appear to be a progression.

I think if they made the effect of Gaseous Form more like Incorporeal then the spell level would need to be increased significantly though.

[Thurbane]

I think if they made the effect of Gaseous Form more like Incorporeal then the spell level would need to be increased significantly though.

True. Ghostform (SC p.103) is an 8th level spell, and only goes 1 round/level to boot.

[heavyfuel]

Gaseous Form is an OK spell. Hardly the best but it's not horrible, it just doesn't do what you assume it does by reading the name. Making you immune to damage at all would be crazy strong. Stronger than even Ethereal Jaunt, which is a 7th level spell.


If you want to make it more palatable, maybe house-rule the DR to 10/-, like the more powerful Air Elementals.[/edit]

If we're just going to give it better DR, why not make it DR 50/magic. You're basically immune to mundane weapons, but there's no reason a magical sword shouldn't hurt you, especially since magic weapons can even hit incorporeal creatures.

[Zanos]

To be fair DR 10/Magic would make you immune to most common sources of damage. All conventional non-magical ranged weapons except for composite longbows with exceptional strength ratings, and even most 1 handed weapons.

But gaseous is not incorporeal as mentioned above. Your physical mass still matters when you're gaseous, presumably damage is you losing control over parts of the gas that compose yourself.

[Lapak]

To be fair DR 10/Magic would make you immune to most common sources of damage. All conventional non-magical ranged weapons except for composite longbows with exceptional strength ratings, and even most 1 handed weapons.

But gaseous is not incorporeal as mentioned above. Your physical mass still matters when you're gaseous, presumably damage is you losing control over parts of the gas that compose yourself.Yeah, I was going to say it's pretty easy to reconcile this. A hit that deals damage to you (11+) is in the range where it has at least a chance of killing a normal person outright, so it's easy to imagine that the weapon is moving fast enough to act as a fan, scattering bits of your gaseous form to the point where you lose some cohesion.

[Necroticplague]

So, I was trying to find some sort of mechanical precedent for houseruling that elementals could not simply be beaten to death (for the same reason you cannot "kill" a lake by punching it), and decided to take a look at the gaseous form spell. Reading it, I realized something that frankly had never occurred to me before:
Why would you expect there to be any kind of precedence for it? in DnD, it's a rather default assumption that if it exists, it can be destroyed. Even the earth itself has Hit Points to chip away at. At best, you have immunities to specific things, but immunity to a good old beating is nigh-unprecedented, and I can only think of a couple creatures that have that.

Per the spell's wording, absolutely nothing about the effect actually prevents the subject from taking damage from mundane sources. They gain DR 10/Magic and become immune to critical hits, but as far as I can tell there is nothing stopping say, a sufficiently beefy man with a completely ordinary sword from stabbing a cloud of gas to death.

Is this "working as intended," or is this just another example of RAW being painfully stupid when read closely?
Do you think it was an egregious editing error that a level 3 spell doesn't make me completely invincible?


But gaseous is not incorporeal as mentioned above. Your physical mass still matters when you're gaseous, presumably damage is you losing control over parts of the gas that compose yourself.
This. Even when you're gaseous, you're still cohesive in an important way. That's what makes you identifiable as still being you, instead of just some random patch of air. This applies to any not-entirely-solid creature as well. They essentially have a membrane or pattern that is, for all practical reasons, their body, even if its full of something odd. You can poke holes in this template, and even alter its working negatively (stat damage).

[Telok]

Back in AD&D the spell turned you into a cloud of fog. You were immune to mundane attacks because mundane attacks can't significantly affect fog. However anything that would disperse fog was pretty much instant death (gust of wind, fireball). The near complete invulnerability was balanced by not being able to affect the world and a few serious vulnerabilities.

The update to 3e was... less than stellar. A crowd of children can beat a gaseous 5th level wizard to death with torches pretty easily. I don't think you can even use it to hide in normal fog any more.

[Thurbane]

Just out of interest (I accidentally stumbled on this article looking up something entirely different today), here's another take on how "gaseous" can be expressed in game terms: Usunag (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psb/20070711a&page=4)


Gaseous (Ex) A usunag is not subject to critical hits or flanking. It is immune to poison, sleep, paralysis, polymorph, petrification, and stunning effects. It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, and can move over difficult terrain without impediment. A usunag can occupy the same space as a creature of any size. It can move through a foe's space without impediment, but provokes attacks of opportunity if it does so. A usunag cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, unless it chooses to be affected. A usunag is treated as one size smaller for special size modifiers to an opposed check, and two sizes smaller when determining the effects of wind.

[Venger]

Back in AD&D the spell turned you into a cloud of fog. You were immune to mundane attacks because mundane attacks can't significantly affect fog. However anything that would disperse fog was pretty much instant death (gust of wind, fireball). The near complete invulnerability was balanced by not being able to affect the world and a few serious vulnerabilities.

The update to 3e was... less than stellar. A crowd of children can beat a gaseous 5th level wizard to death with torches pretty easily. I don't think you can even use it to hide in normal fog any more.

Good spot. Torches, unlike other sources of nonmagical fire, actually deals 1 point of fire damage.

I like using dispel fog to kill people who're stupid enough to use gaseous fog. That and vampires.

That's a weird monster, Thurbane. I'm trying to think of reasons why he'd want to be affected by a combat maneuver. Some complicated thing where he's close to a lockdown/aoo guy, and has one of his own allies tactically shock trooper him out of the way, maybe?

[Crake]

Good spot. Torches, unlike other sources of nonmagical fire, actually deals 1 point of fire damage.

I like using dispel fog to kill people who're stupid enough to use gaseous fog. That and vampires.

That's a weird monster, Thurbane. I'm trying to think of reasons why he'd want to be affected by a combat maneuver. Some complicated thing where he's close to a lockdown/aoo guy, and has one of his own allies tactically shock trooper him out of the way, maybe?

Did you miss the part of the spell where it says:


Creatures in fog or mist form who are in the area must succeed on a Fortitude save or take 2d10 points of damage.
Even those who make their saves must immediately assume another shape.

Vampires are immune, and everyone else just takes a bit of damage.

[Venger]

No, I can read, thanks.

As discussed, since this spell is worthless for protection, and is mainly used to escape through cracks and similar, it will by and large be deployed by people who are very low on health, whom 2d10 damage can finish off, especially vampires, who have no negative hit point buffer.

Not sure why you think vampires would be immune. Dispel fog also affects objects.

[Zanos]

Vampires are undead, making them immune to fortitude save effects that don't also affect objects. The damage portion doesn't apply to objects.

I'm not sure I'd bother taking a 2d10 damage spell for such a tiny use case, either way.

[Venger]

Vampires are undead, making them immune to fortitude save effects that don't also affect objects. The damage portion doesn't apply to objects.

I'm not sure I'd bother taking a 2d10 damage spell for such a tiny use case, either way.

Undead immunity doesn't say "if the spell has an effect that works against creatures, you're allowed to ignore that." it says "if it also affects objects." Dispel fog affects objects, guys.

[Deophaun]

No, I can read, thanks.

As discussed, since this spell is worthless for protection, and is mainly used to escape through cracks and similar, it will by and large be deployed by people who are very low on health, whom 2d10 damage can finish off, especially vampires, who have no negative hit point buffer.

Not sure why you think vampires would be immune. Dispel fog also affects objects.
Probably because

Any additional damage dealt to a vampire forced into gaseous form has no effect.

[Necroticplague]

Dispel fog affects objects, guys.

Source? Its description says absolutely nothing about Objects, its saving throw line doesn't use (object), it's primary effect isn't related to objects (instead covering Areas), I'm not seing any relation to Objects.

[Drakevarg]

Why would you expect there to be any kind of precedence for it? in DnD, it's a rather default assumption that if it exists, it can be destroyed. Even the earth itself has Hit Points to chip away at. At best, you have immunities to specific things, but immunity to a good old beating is nigh-unprecedented, and I can only think of a couple creatures that have that.

Unless by "earth" you mean "ground," can't say I've ever seen a source describing the HD total of a planet.


Do you think it was an egregious editing error that a level 3 spell doesn't make me completely invincible?

I figured "effectively can't take any actions besides movement" was a reasonable tradeoff for "not subject to mundane sharp objects."

[Goaty14]

Unless by "earth" you mean "ground," can't say I've ever seen a source describing the HD total of a planet.

Noncreatures don't get HD, because then you'd imply that they get feats, skill points, BaB, etc and can withstand certain effects ("Oh no, we're running out of time before dawn!" "It's ok guys, I just gotta use <spell> to put the planet to sleep!").

Objects get HP based on their thickness and material type.

[Thurbane]

I believe Venger is assuming the spell works on objects since it specifically says it works on non-magical fog; I think it's a fair assumption that non-magical fog counts as an object.

However, the quote that Deophaun provided would indicate casting it on a vampire in gaseous form would have no additional affect, regardless of whether the spell works on objects or not, so it's probably somewhat of a moot point.


Unless by "earth" you mean "ground," can't say I've ever seen a source describing the HD total of a planet.

I've never seen it specifically spelled out in a rule book, but it's something that gets discussed on a semi-regular basis on forums like these. People hypothesize the hp of a planet extrapolating from the object hp rules.

[Remuko]

I believe Venger is assuming the spell works on objects since it specifically says it works on non-magical fog; I think it's a fair assumption that non-magical fog counts as an object.

I dont think so personally. Object is a game term. Fog is a weather effect not a object. Fog doesnt have hardness or Hp/inch of thickness etc. Its not an object and thus that spell doesnt work on any objects (that we know of).

[Goaty14]

I've never seen it specifically spelled out in a rule book, but it's something that gets discussed on a semi-regular basis on forums like these. People hypothesize the hp of a planet extrapolating from the object hp rules.

It all boils down to how a sufficiently leveled War Hulking Hurler can throw the Material Plane into Atropus, hereby killing him and his puny aspect.

[Thurbane]

I dont think so personally. Object is a game term. Fog is a weather effect not a object. Fog doesnt have hardness of Hp/inch of thickness etc. Its not an object and thus that spell doesnt work on any objects (that we know of).

Hmm, all good points.


It all boils down to how a sufficiently leveled War Hulking Hurler can throw the Material Plane into Atropus, hereby killing him and his puny aspect.

:smallbiggrin:

[Venger]

Source? Its description says absolutely nothing about Objects, its saving throw line doesn't use (object), it's primary effect isn't related to objects (instead covering Areas), I'm not seing any relation to Objects.
The source is the spell text.

Is fog a creature?

No?

Object. Which is affected by the spell. The spell works on objects.

Unless by "earth" you mean "ground," can't say I've ever seen a source describing the HD total of a planet.



I figured "effectively can't take any actions besides movement" was a reasonable tradeoff for "not subject to mundane sharp objects."

The earth is an object and doesn't have HD. Inanimate substances are given hp per inch of thickness. Calculations usually use the stats for rock or dirt. and extrapolate based on measurements of the earth, or whatever measurements are given for oerth or whatever planet eberron is on, which are slightly different sizes.


I believe Venger is assuming the spell works on objects since it specifically says it works on non-magical fog; I think it's a fair assumption that non-magical fog counts as an object.

However, the quote that Deophaun provided would indicate casting it on a vampire in gaseous form would have no additional affect, regardless of whether the spell works on objects or not, so it's probably somewhat of a moot point.



I've never seen it specifically spelled out in a rule book, but it's something that gets discussed on a semi-regular basis on forums like these. People hypothesize the hp of a planet extrapolating from the object hp rules.

I mean, I wouldn't say I'm assuming, since the spell does work on nonmagical fog, but yeah, that's basically the logic.

Not official, but I think the planet earth or something similar got hit points in "immortals handbook" or something like that. whichever one had neutronium golem. They performed the calculations I believe by using the measurements of the earth, pretending for simplicity's sake that it was a solid ball of rock, and calculating hp from there. Destroying the earth isn't rocket science, any level 1 dragonfire adept can do it.

[Necroticplague]

The source is the spell text.

Is fog a creature?

No?

Object. Which is affected by the spell. The spell works on objects.

Only if you assume that all things are one xor the other. It's entirely possible for something to be neither. Which fog is.

[Venger]

Only if you assume that all things are one xor the other. It's entirely possible for something to be neither. Which fog is.

Uh huh. Source?

[ericgrau]

I figured "effectively can't take any actions besides movement" was a reasonable tradeoff for "not subject to mundane sharp objects."
Both silent/still/eschew spells and SLAs are still on the table. As are psionics, and many other abilities. It's beyond abusable. But yeah even near-invincibility and getting away on top of massive utility is a bit much.

[Necroticplague]

Uh huh. Source?

I could just as easily ask you where it says fog is an object.

[Thurbane]

Both silent/still/eschew spells and SLAs are still on the table. As are psionics, and many other abilities. It's beyond abusable. But yeah even near-invincibility and getting away on top of massive utility is a bit much.


The subject and all its gear become insubstantial, misty, and translucent. Its material armor (including natural armor) becomes worthless, though its size, Dexterity, deflection bonuses, and armor bonuses from force effects still apply. The subject gains damage reduction 10/magic and becomes immune to poison and critical hits. It can’t attack or cast spells with verbal, somatic, material, or focus components while in gaseous form. (This does not rule out the use of certain spells that the subject may have prepared using the feats Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials.) The subject also loses supernatural abilities while in gaseous form. If it has a touch spell ready to use, that spell is discharged harmlessly when the gaseous form spell takes effect.

A gaseous creature can’t run, but it can fly at a speed of 10 feet (maneuverability perfect). It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists. The creature is subject to the effects of wind, and it can’t enter water or other liquid. It also can’t manipulate objects or activate items, even those carried along with its gaseous form. Continuously active items remain active, though in some cases their effects may be moot.

I personally don't feel the DR 10/magic, immunity to poison and immunity to crits worth the downsides.

Good call on SLAs; but unless you're a Warlock, DFA, Factotum or similar, the amount of SLAs you're likely to have is generally quite limiting.

I'm not very familiar with Psionics: is there a Psionic equivalent of Gaseous Form?

You also lose use of the vast majority of gear; this means chugging a Potion of Gaseous Form will hurt mundanes, badly (some of my players still insist on doing this, since they are still used to GF being an awesome spell from our 1E/2E days :smallconfused:).

Yes, you can cast spells if you make a significant feat investment (you can't even use Metamgic rods, due to gear restrictions), and take a large increase to the effective level of your spells (before investing further in metamagic reducers).

I'll also point back to the example of Sandform: for 1 extra spell level, you get a lot more use and versatility. It doesn't offer DR, but does offer immunities etc. The Sand Shaper in my game spams this spell quite a bit, and for good reason.

[Remuko]

Uh huh. Source?

The game rules. There are rules for what makes a creature or an object. Fog does not match either of them. Thus it is neither, just as rain, and clouds, and wind, and lightning, are not. They are weather effects, not objects, just like fog.

[Kish]

I believe Venger is assuming the spell works on objects since it specifically says it works on non-magical fog; I think it's a fair assumption that non-magical fog counts as an object.

However, the quote that Deophaun provided would indicate casting it on a vampire in gaseous form would have no additional affect, regardless of whether the spell works on objects or not, so it's probably somewhat of a moot point.
Rather, it would have no effect cast on a vampire forced into gaseous form and returning to its coffin. It would still work on a vampire who tried to retreat, or for any reason shifted to gaseous form, while still able to control their form.

I agree with Venger that fog is clearly an object, and I would point out that treating it as something else would effectively make it impossible to create a fog-damaging spell that allows a Fortitude save and would work on vampires in gaseous form, since the only object it could work on has been declared somehow not an object.

Edited to add: Remuko, if you can point to a definition in the SRD or one of the rulebooks that specifies, e.g., "An object must be solid to count as an object, so that things like water and fog don't qualify," do so and I'll change my stance. I'm not finding anything like that in the SRD; all the references to "an object" seem to simply assume the reader knows what an object is.

[Necroticplague]

I agree with Venger that fog is clearly an object, and I would point out that treating it as something else would effectively make it impossible to create a fog-damaging spell that allows a Fortitude save and would work on vampires in gaseous form, since the only object it could work on has been declared somehow not an object.

Not really. You’d just have to change the ‘Fortitude Half; see text’ to ‘None or Fortitude Half (Object); see text.’

Simply getting rid of fog doesn’t require any kind of save on anything’s account, so whether it’s save is object or not is immaterial to that function.

[Venger]

I could just as easily ask you where it says fog is an object.
Proving the negative.


The game rules. There are rules for what makes a creature or an object. Fog does not match either of them. Thus it is neither, just as rain, and clouds, and wind, and lightning, are not. They are weather effects, not objects, just like fog.
Wrong.

Something must have a wis and cha of at least 1 to be a creature. Anything not meeting that criterion is not a creature and thus an object.

There is nothing defining objects in the game rules besides that. Everything you just listed is an object.


Rather, it would have no effect cast on a vampire forced into gaseous form and returning to its coffin. It would still work on a vampire who tried to retreat, or for any reason shifted to gaseous form, while still able to control their form.

I agree with Venger that fog is clearly an object, and I would point out that treating it as something else would effectively make it impossible to create a fog-damaging spell that allows a Fortitude save and would work on vampires in gaseous form, since the only object it could work on has been declared somehow not an object.

Edited to add: Remuko, if you can point to a definition in the SRD or one of the rulebooks that specifies, e.g., "An object must be solid to count as an object, so that things like water and fog don't qualify," do so and I'll change my stance. I'm not finding anything like that in the SRD; all the references to "an object" seem to simply assume the reader knows what an object is.
Right. That's why I said a vampire who assumed gaseous form to retreat, not one who was forced into it. In that instance, his damage immunity does not apply.

I'm glad someone else has some common sense.


Not really. You’d just have to change the ‘Fortitude Half; see text’ to ‘None or Fortitude Half (Object); see text.’

Simply getting rid of fog doesn’t require any kind of save on anything’s account, so whether it’s save is object or not is immaterial to that function.
No, you wouldn't. Not all spells that affect objects have (object) in the name. Do you say a tornado created by control winds only affects creatures?

[Faolin]

I just had a thought. If I can punch the cloud and damage it, could I grapple a cloud to death?

[Venger]

I just had a thought. If I can punch the cloud and damage it, could I grapple a cloud to death?

Of course. Gaseous form confers no special immunity to grappling. You can trip it too, strangle it to death, etc.

[Thurbane]

I thought maybe the D&D Glossary defined "object", but it doesn't. http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=&alpha=O

It seems to only be mentioned in passing in most areas:


WISDOM
Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Only objects have no Wisdom score, and an object that has no Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.


CHARISMA
Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and other creatures and objects has at least 1 point of Charisma. Only objects have no Charisma score, and an object that has no Charisma score also has no Wisdom score.

The topic of objects seems to be most fully addressed in the Breaking And Entering secion of the SRD, but even that lacks a definitive definition: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm

And we get this nugget from the section on spell targets (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets):


Objects
A spell with this kind of area affects objects within an area you select (as Creatures, but affecting objects instead).

A corpse is called out as an object in several places in the rules, but AFAIK we never seem to get given hardness or HP for a corpse, so merely lacking those qualities does not seem to rule something out from being an object.

Long story short: 3.5 never defined objects particularly well.

[Venger]

While you're correct that the hardness for "corpses" (which cover all kinds of monsters) is not delineated, in my games, I'd defaulted to using the hardness for leather/hide. It's skin, but it's treated and everything to make it harder, so if anything, flesh might be lower, so I'd advise using 1 or 2 for flesh's hardness if you're attacking something made of flesh that isn't a creature, such as a stone wall that you transform with stone to flesh.

[Remuko]

I thought maybe the D&D Glossary defined "object", but it doesn't. http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=&alpha=O

It seems to only be mentioned in passing in most areas:





The topic of objects seems to be most fully addressed in the Breaking And Entering secion of the SRD, but even that lacks a definitive definition: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm

And we get this nugget from the section on spell targets (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets):



A corpse is called out as an object in several places in the rules, but AFAIK we never seem to get given hardness or HP for a corpse, so merely lacking those qualities does not seem to rule something out from being an object.

Long story short: 3.5 never defined objects particularly well.

that exploration link under smashing and object says:

"Hardness

Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points "

"Hit Points

An object’s hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is. When an object’s hit points reach 0, it’s ruined."

If something doesnt have these things its not an object. And as everyone agrees something like fog is also clearly not a creature. At best its undefined. But its a weather effect by the rules and weather effects are not objects no matter how much Venger wants them to be.

[Venger]

So nothing but paper, cloth, rope, glass, ice, leather, hide, wood, stone, iron, steel, mithral, or adamantine are objects. Yeah, that tooooooootally makes sense.

[Thurbane]

If something doesnt have these things its not an object.

As I mentioned, WotC make multiple references to a corpse being an object, but never list HP or hardness (as far as I am aware, apart from a fairly oblique and ill defined answer in the FAQ).

So is a corpse an object, or not?


Gentle Repose
Necromancy
Level: Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Corpse touched
Duration: One day/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object)

You preserve the remains of a dead creature so that they do not decay. Doing so effectively extends the time limit on raising that creature from the dead (see raise dead). Days spent under the influence of this spell don’t count against the time limit. Additionally, this spell makes transporting a fallen comrade more pleasant.

The spell also works on severed body parts and the like.
Arcane Material Component

A pinch of salt, and a copper piece for each eye the corpse has (or had).

Barghest's Feast and Rejuvinate Corpse have almost identical wording.


A dead body of any creature (warforged, human, dragon, whatever) is treated as an object, and thus it can be damaged using the rules for “Smashing an Object” (PH 165).
There are no rules for determining the hardness or hit points of a corpse.


Speak with dead doesn’t work on undead creatures, only on corpses. An undead creature is not alive, but it’s also not a corpse—a corpse is an object.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20070502a


Jorge asks: If someone wearing a ring of invisibility dies, will she stay invisible forever?

A corpse is an inanimate object. By the same token you can't put the ring around the hilt of your sword to make it invisible.
--Paul

I'm not saying I agree with one side over the other, I'm just saying that "object" is poorly defined in 3.5.

Is "weather effect" defined anywhere?

[Venger]

Invisible corpse + control object ftw

[BowStreetRunner]

...Long story short: 3.5 never defined objects particularly well.
3.5 was notoriously bad for defining anything that needed to be defined. Have you ever sat through an argument with the DM started by a player who felt that their character should receive a +5 bonus to their saving throw against Charm Person because one of the caster's allies verbally 'attacked' the target of the spell by making an insulting comment? It's an attack!

[Deophaun]

Rather, it would have no effect cast on a vampire forced into gaseous form and returning to its coffin. It would still work on a vampire who tried to retreat, or for any reason shifted to gaseous form, while still able to control their form.
A vampire who is just in gaseous form on a lark is unlikely to qualify as a target "whom 2d10 damage can finish off." You'd be better off with scorching ray if that's why you're memorizing it.

[Fizban]

I guess if I felt like talking about Gaseous Form, I should have got in on the front page.

It's main use in 3E is to slip into narrow spaces. . .For contrast, look at the Sandform spell in Sandstorm.[/edit]
Exactly. The one and only expected use of Gaseous Form is for squeezing into "even mere cracks." It has a weird 2 min/level duration, probably from past editions, which gives you a minimum of 10 full minutes even with the puny 10' speed. The wording is actually "pass through. . . even mere cracks," with no mention of it slowing you down, so the 10' speed is actually a very important limit (do you really want a relatively low-level spell to let people just zoom through any building that's not magically airtight?). As is, it's a 3rd level spell that allows you to survive/pass through multiple obstacles that would require many castings of say, Dimension Door to handle (assuming you didn't need further castings of Clairvoyance to scout). It's not a combat spell, but it's the best at what it does. Incidentally, the original version of Ghostform was at only 5th level, because it was being compared to Gaseous Form (see Tome and Blood)- before they eventually realized that 50% miss chance vs everything with no drawbacks was insane and bumped it up to 8th (and then printed Greater Blink at 5th in *the same book* because *facepalm*). But anyway.

Sandform is the sandy version, sure. It lets you keep some attacks and move faster, but squeezing explicitly takes longer. You can cast spells for which you have components, but still lose all armor and magic items. . . and spell component pouches, as they merged with your form, and you have a chance to take extra penalties ripped from the old legacy polymorphs (and it's a level higher). Without a climb or fly speed, you're going to have a heck of a time if the crack quarter-inch gap you want to go through happens to be near the ceiling rather than the floor. Sandform is a perfect example of something that kinda looks like it's good for combat, but really isn't, with a bunch of functions it doesn't do as well as more dedicated spells.

Sandform is great at letting you turn into a pile of sand, but when comparing it to Gaseous Form, there's only one way it wins in which GF actually cares: not blocked by water. Sandform will let you squeeze through a tiny opening which is covered by water, as long as you can hold your breath, since it doesn't remove your need to breathe. Similarly, gaps suspiciously covered by wind which prevents gaseous entry might be penetrable to Sandform, and of course burrowing through sand if there's sand. But unless you're adventuring in swamps or windswept caverns or sand-covered ruins, Gaseous Form is the (weirdly overlooked, I never did until I saw others use it) best bet for easy entry into all sorts of buildings and dungeons, at lower level, through smaller spaces, with more defenses, for a longer duration.

[Remuko]

As I mentioned, WotC make multiple references to a corpse being an object, but never list HP or hardness (as far as I am aware, apart from a fairly oblique and ill defined answer in the FAQ).

So is a corpse an object, or not?



Barghest's Feast and Rejuvinate Corpse have almost identical wording.





http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20070502a



I'm not saying I agree with one side over the other, I'm just saying that "object" is poorly defined in 3.5.

Is "weather effect" defined anywhere?

It feels a bit disingenuous. Anything on the list of objects is an object. Anything specifically called out as an object is an object. Nothing else is by RAW. Creatures are creatures objects are objects, anything else is "undefined". Fog should be a weather effect which by RAW are not objects. And again as Vengers argument goes, something only works on objects if it says so, not if it says it works on something that isn't defined as an object.

[Venger]

It feels a bit disingenuous. Anything on the list of objects is an object. Anything specifically called out as an object is an object. Nothing else is by RAW. Creatures are creatures objects are objects, anything else is "undefined". Fog should be a weather effect which by RAW are not objects. And again as Vengers argument goes, something only works on objects if it says so, not if it says it works on something that isn't defined as an object.

Are you seriously saying only paper, cloth, rope, glass, ice, leather, hide, wood, stone, iron, steel, mithral, or adamantine are objects?

So if a player wants to cast light on a piece of horn, or amber, or something, you say "nope, not an object. it's not on the list in the exploration section"

Do you see how that doesn't make any sense?

Once more, show us this nonexistent raw that says "weather effects" (not a discrete rules term) are not objects.

That's not my argument, that's Necroticplague's argument, and I've already explained why it's wrong too using examples.

[Segev]

Unless you're also going to tell me that the air, the ocean, that lake, and illusions in general are all "objects," I think you've got work to do before you can demonstrate that things are either creatures xor objects. There are other categories that generally involve being "environments" or "phenomena" or "effects."

Nonmagical fog is an environmental effect, not an object. Alternatively, an environmental condition.

Regardless, though, vampires can't take damage once forced into gaseous form, so the question is moot wrt them.

[Venger]

Unless you're also going to tell me that the air, the ocean, that lake, and illusions in general are all "objects," I think you've got work to do before you can demonstrate that things are either creatures xor objects. There are other categories that generally involve being "environments" or "phenomena" or "effects."

Nonmagical fog is an environmental effect, not an object. Alternatively, an environmental condition.

Regardless, though, vampires can't take damage once forced into gaseous form, so the question is moot wrt them.

Well then I guess you can't cast control air. If they're not objects then what are they? raw definition for "environments" or "phenomena?" "effects" doesn't mean that by raw.

You're confused about who the burden of proof is on here. Remuko asserted there is raw that only paper, cloth, rope, glass, ice, leather, hide, wood, stone, iron, steel, mithral, or adamantine are objects. I asked to see this nonexistent raw, and unsurprisingly, it's failed to materialize.

we're long past vampires.

[Segev]

Well then I guess you can't cast control air. If they're not objects then what are they? raw definition for "environments" or "phenomena?" "effects" doesn't mean that by raw.

You're confused about who the burden of proof is on here. Remuko asserted there is raw that only paper, cloth, rope, glass, ice, leather, hide, wood, stone, iron, steel, mithral, or adamantine are objects. I asked to see this nonexistent raw, and unsurprisingly, it's failed to materialize.

we're long past vampires.

Control air does what it says it does. It doesn't target 'objects.' It targets the air, which definitely exists and can be targeted. Specifically, it targets the air in a particular area.

You're more or less grasping at...well, fog...in your effort to proclaim these things "objects."

Objects have hardness, hit points, and a few other traits that these things just don't have.

[Venger]

Control air does what it says it does. It doesn't target 'objects.' It targets the air, which definitely exists and can be targeted. Specifically, it targets the air in a particular area.

You're more or less grasping at...well, fog...in your effort to proclaim these things "objects."

Objects have hardness, hit points, and a few other traits that these things just don't have.

What do you say to a player if they want to cast light on something other than the 13 objects listed in the exploration section? There are many things that are clearly objects that aren't listed there. If you think they're not objects and not creatures, what are they? I know "common sense" is a dirty word in raw, but the rules are written with the assumption that you'll read them with at least a little of it in mind.

[Segev]

What do you say to a player if they want to cast light on something other than the 13 objects listed in the exploration section? There are many things that are clearly objects that aren't listed there. If you think they're not objects and not creatures, what are they? I know "common sense" is a dirty word in raw, but the rules are written with the assumption that you'll read them with at least a little of it in mind.

So, you're saying you'd let them cast light on "fog" or "the ocean" or "the earth," and not instead make them use the "cast on a particular point" version?

What part of the fog sheds the illumination, so that when I wave a fan through it, the light source moves where?

"Common sense" here would actually work against you. Objects are single items, not agglomerates of particles. While I would allow an argument that "a glass of water" is an object, I would object to claiming that "rain" is an object.

[Deophaun]

Is the laughter of a small child an object, or a creature?
Is a dream an object, or a creature?

Now, I am going to say that since a creature under gaseous form is still a creature, capable of being stabbed or crushed by a magic blade or someone hitting it really, really hard, I'm willing to say that fog clouds are tangible enough to also qualify as an object when they are deprived of having a Charisma score.

What part of the fog sheds the illumination, so that when I wave a fan through it, the light source moves where?
Isn't this the same problem of casting light on a stick of chalk and then writing with it?

[Zanos]

I'm pretty sure fog is an object, but the damage portion of dispel fog only affects creatures and has a fortitude save.

[Remuko]

Are you seriously saying only paper, cloth, rope, glass, ice, leather, hide, wood, stone, iron, steel, mithral, or adamantine are objects?

So if a player wants to cast light on a piece of horn, or amber, or something, you say "nope, not an object. it's not on the list in the exploration section"

Do you see how that doesn't make any sense?

Once more, show us this nonexistent raw that says "weather effects" (not a discrete rules term) are not objects.

That's not my argument, that's Necroticplague's argument, and I've already explained why it's wrong too using examples.

By RAW only things on the list or Anything called out as an object by the game rules (such as Corpses) are objects. Something thats not on the list, and not called an object anywhere in the rules is not an object, it is undefined if there isnt a game term for it. Exception based rules system. Something isnt a thing unless it says it is (at least by RAW). You dont get to extrapolate what "makes sense".

[Segev]

Isn't this the same problem of casting light on a stick of chalk and then writing with it?

Maybe. If it is, then the answer usually is something along the lines of "if the target is destroyed, it's no longer a valid target, and the spell ends," so that would suggest that the fog cloud, lacking any real cohesion, would have the light spell wink out as soon as it's cast.

Though I actually think the chalk thing is more interesting if it does stick with the individual particles, and let you leave glowing lines of chalk. Doubly so if, instead, the spell in question is continual flame.

Still, light probably can't be cast on "a wagon" as its target, and have the whole thing glow. Let alone "a mountain" or even "a castle," causing its effective area to rise by orders of magnitude. I believe it technically originates from a point within it. So maybe it's one fleck of chalk, or one droplet in the fog. Both are reasonable to call objects.

The consequence of this interpretation with fog would be that the light drifts and moves about, sometimes wildly, in a Brownian motion, and can be blown around by the wind as well as very hard to deliberately maneuver.

[Andor13]

"Common sense" here would actually work against you. Objects are single items, not agglomerates of particles. While I would allow an argument that "a glass of water" is an object, I would object to claiming that "rain" is an object.

How about a copper piece? It's not on the list. Can you cast Light on one?

Clay is not a listed material. Can you cast Open to take the lid off a cookie jar?

[Segev]

How about a copper piece? It's not on the list. Can you cast Light on one?

Clay is not a listed material. Can you cast Open to take the lid off a cookie jar?

I think you meant to be responding to somebody else, as I never advocated the list as all-inclusive. Copper pieces and cookie jars are obviously objects to my reckoning.

[Zanos]

Maybe. If it is, then the answer usually is something along the lines of "if the target is destroyed, it's no longer a valid target, and the spell ends," so that would suggest that the fog cloud, lacking any real cohesion, would have the light spell wink out as soon as it's cast.
Invalid targeting doesn't cause spells to end; there are some spells that result in invalid targets for themselves. I don't think breaking up the object is a concern though, because RAW all area spells are centered on a grid intersection.

[Rijan_Sai]

I'm not saying I agree with one side over the other, I'm just saying that "object" is poorly defined in 3.5.

Is "weather effect" defined anywhere?

Sorry, I don't have much to add to the main conversation, (and the original questions have already been answered...,) but it slightly bothers my OCD that this was never addressed.

DMG 93-95, also here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/weather.htm).

Specifically for "Fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/weather.htm#fog)":

Fog

Whether in the form of a low-lying cloud or a mist rising from the ground, fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. Creatures 5 feet away have concealment (attacks by or against them have a 20% miss chance).

Take that as you will for whether "fog" (or other types of weather) are objects or not, but personally I'm not seeing it, and would rule against it at my own table.

Addendum: Just looked up "Dispel Fog," and by my reading it does not affect objects, as it is missing the clear (and RAW) "(object) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow)" line in it's "Saving Throw" description:


(object)

The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level.
While the italicized part does state that (some of) these spells can be cast on creatures, the bold part is clear that only spells with this line can be cast on objects.
Edit: Unless the spell directly targets objects to begin with (I.E. Animate Objects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateObjects.htm))
Edit2: Or the spell description states that it affects objects (I.E. Fireball (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm)) (Note that the similar Freezing Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/freezingSphere.htm) specifies what it does to "a body of water or a liquid that is principally water ," but makes no other mention of affecting objects at all, only creatures.)

[Segev]

Invalid targeting doesn't cause spells to end; there are some spells that result in invalid targets for themselves. I don't think breaking up the object is a concern though, because RAW all area spells are centered on a grid intersection.

That is a bit weird. If you're carrying a rock with light or darkness or silence cast on it, do you just choose one of the four corners of the square you're in as the center point, then?

[InvisibleBison]

That is a bit weird. If you're carrying a rock with light or darkness or silence cast on it, do you just choose one of the four corners of the square you're in as the center point, then?

The rule that spell effects always starts in a grid corner only applies to spells that affect an area. Light and darkness both target an object and thus don't make use of that rule; silence affects an area, but contains an exception to the usual area-spell targeting rules.