PDA

View Full Version : Hiding a Lich's Sanctuary...



Funkyodor
2008-02-25, 05:10 AM
...on the Positive Energy Plane? While researching some after reading the Energy Substitution: Positive Energy thread below, I discovered that per the SRD undead benefit from fast healing as normal and that the Positive Energy Plane doesn't do Positive Energy damage, but gives fast healing instead. And Undead are immune to the Fort save versus explosion after getting temporary HP greater than their normal HP. Side affect good, Undead never stop gaining temp HP's on the Positive Energy Plane (Thats like +5,256,000 temp HP for a skeleton thats been there one year!) and Positive energy spells are maximized. Side affect bad, the Cleric Turn/Destruction is better and Negative Energy spells/spell like abilities are impeded. This leads to the Lich using spells like Mass Heal and Heal to cause players to make fatal Fort saves every round and the like.

My question is, are there any Necromancy spells (or spells that help Undead) that don't deal with Negative Energy? And if so, which would be the best to use in this situation?

(I know that this goes against everything that RAI D&D should stand for. But the expression on the leap attacking frenzied barbarian that expects to kill all 5-6 skeletons with his full attack and just barely manages to chip ones tooth sounds priceless.)

Kyace
2008-02-25, 05:34 AM
The best spell I can think of in that situation would be Cloudkill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cloudkill.htm). This lowers the Con of those that fail the saving throw which lowers the max HP, which in turn speeds up exploding, as well as hurts their future fort saves and it doesn't affect your undead.

lord_khaine
2008-02-25, 05:35 AM
i also belive that there are some fun rules regarding the positive energy plane that makes undead take some sort of nasty save each round or explode in a impressive way.

Zincorium
2008-02-25, 05:50 AM
i also belive that there are some fun rules regarding the positive energy plane that makes undead take some sort of nasty save each round or explode in a impressive way.

Actually, Funkyodor is right on the money as far as the current, 3.5 description. Undead are immune to the nasty save each round or explode in an impressive way that you're talking about.

Of course, in planescape 2nd edition, undead were just outright obliterated moments after reaching the plane. Negative energy plane was similarly nasty to living creatures, and even the undead had to worry about just vanishing into the nothingness.

Paragon Badger
2008-02-25, 05:52 AM
i also belive that there are some fun rules regarding the positive energy plane that makes undead take some sort of nasty save each round or explode in a impressive way.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm

Wherever it is, I can't find it...

Roderick_BR
2008-02-25, 06:03 AM
Is the fast healing from the positive energy plane considered a healing effect? Because that deals damage to undead, so they have "fast damaging", losing HP in the same proportion a living creature gains HP. If not, WotC messed up (again) with their rewrites.

Zincorium
2008-02-25, 06:17 AM
Is the fast healing from the positive energy plane considered a healing effect? Because that deals damage to undead, so they have "fast damaging", losing HP in the same proportion a living creature gains HP. If not, WotC messed up (again) with their rewrites.

That second one. Fast healing cures HP damage normally for undead, in fact vampires and probably a few others have it on all the time.

The Professor
2008-02-25, 06:24 AM
............... :smalleek:

Well, I suppose this means my group's jokes about Plane Shifting undead to the Positive Energy Plane have come to an end.

As a player, I'd exploit this absurd little loop-hole.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-25, 06:44 AM
That second one. Fast healing cures HP damage normally for undead, in fact vampires and probably a few others have it on all the time.
Yeah, I was thinking on the vampire, that's why I asked if the fast healing in the positive energy plane was considered healing or not. Checking the d20 hypertext page, it really grants normak fast healing for everyone, no exception.
Then the negative plane says that only living creatures takes damage.
Definitively, a horrible oversight. An variation I read on magazine did use an actual healing scale, instead of just saying that creatures gains fast healing. Made mode sense.

Funkyodor
2008-02-25, 07:09 AM
The Cloudkill idea sounds good, along with other CON lowering attacks, to reduce the Fort save bonus and speed up the "head 'asplode" situation. Good note for PC's though is that it looks like Undead can't use alot of their (sp) abilities after this Positive Reinforcement.

Good Ideas and points so far. The only drawback is that it adds a blanket difficulty to all the monsters there, so normally crappy encounters (Zombies and Golems and Ghasts, oh my!) become challenging till you figure out you need to Turn them, and then you got to hope you don't run out of Turn attempts before you get to the bad guy.

Kyace
2008-02-25, 07:36 AM
If you throw few larger undead rather than hordes of low HD undead, unhallow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unhallow.htm) will protect the undead some. The max HD of undead you can turn will be lower (on average) in an unhallowed section of a positive plane, but you can turn more of the undead that fall under your max HD from your turning check. And the spell doesn't speak of negative energy, only a profane bonus/penalty.

sikyon
2008-02-25, 10:08 AM
(Thats like +5,256,000 temp HP for a skeleton thats been there one year!)

Shouldn't this be 5 HP/6seconds * 60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year = 26 280 000 temp HP?

While not necromancy, I suggest forcecage to trap them there and dimensional anchor/lock to prevent teleportation. Just let them sit there and eventually fail their fort saves.

ladditude
2008-02-25, 10:59 AM
Make the Lich a Radiomancer as well. Just to abuse the lack of a fort save/con even more.

Doresain
2008-02-25, 12:07 PM
*sniff* this thread makes me a very happy necromancer

olelia
2008-02-25, 02:05 PM
What makes the lich immune to the explosion effect? It doesn't really seem a death effect as more of a positive energy effect.

NEO|Phyte
2008-02-25, 02:06 PM
What makes the lich immune to the explosion effect? It doesn't really seem a death effect as more of a positive energy effect.

It requires a fort save, and it doesn't work on objects (nor is it harmless)

An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).

KillianHawkeye
2008-02-25, 05:09 PM
Just as a confirmation...


Undead are almost impossible to find on this plane

This would imply that it is occasionally possible (i.e. not COMPLETELY impossible) to find Undead there.

Collin152
2008-02-25, 07:24 PM
Wow, paradoxal protection.
Liches get all the good stuff. They even get their own plane of ultimate power.

sikyon
2008-02-25, 07:48 PM
Wow, paradoxal protection.
Liches get all the good stuff. They even get their own plane of ultimate power.

I'm not sure if this works DM fiat probably prevents it.



Impeded magic. Spells and spell-like abilities that use negative energy (including inflict spells) are impeded.

I would wager that a lich channels negative energy, the process of creating it uses negative energy. All undead are powered by negative energy. Therefore, their very existence is impeded on the negative energy plane. What that means, exactly, is DM fiat.

Though those "exceedingly rare" undead on the plane would have massive HP.


HOWEVER, constructs are not negative energy. A construct on this plane would be... ridiculous.

Chronos
2008-02-25, 07:50 PM
This would imply that it is occasionally possible (i.e. not COMPLETELY impossible) to find Undead there.Under the way the should have written the rules, this would mean that occasionally, some highly-powerful undead might plane shift to Positive for three rounds to accomplish some very quick errand. If the literal interpretation of the rules were correct, then undead ought to not only be found occasionally on Positive; they should be all over the place, since they'd basically be indestructible there.

Or, in other words, the Rules As Written do imply that the Positive Energy Plane would be highly beneficial to undead, but this is one case where it would be a really, really good idea for the DM to apply Rule Zero.

Collin152
2008-02-25, 07:58 PM
Yeah, no DM should let this slip by.
Unless they're going for irony and the negative energy plane somehow destroys undead.

NEO|Phyte
2008-02-25, 08:06 PM
I would wager that a lich channels negative energy, the process of creating it uses negative energy. All undead are powered by negative energy. Therefore, their very existence is impeded on the negative energy plane. What that means, exactly, is DM fiat.

Only their CREATION uses spells (or spell-likes), their continued existence does not require any spells or spell-likes, and thus they are not hampered one bit.

sikyon
2008-02-25, 09:06 PM
Only their CREATION uses spells (or spell-likes), their continued existence does not require any spells or spell-likes, and thus they are not hampered one bit.

I would argue that the definition of "spells" here is ambiguous, thereby going to the DM to decide the meaning. Even though the spell is instantaneous when cast, it's consequences are long lasting and those consequences could fall under the broad definition of "spells" here.

NEO|Phyte
2008-02-25, 09:38 PM
I would argue that the definition of "spells" here is ambiguous, thereby going to the DM to decide the meaning. Even though the spell is instantaneous when cast, it's consequences are long lasting and those consequences could fall under the broad definition of "spells" here.


A spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers).
Doesn't sound that ambiguous to me.

And looking into the planar rules, the impediment isn't that bad anyway.

Impeded Magic

Particular spells and spell-like abilities are more difficult to cast on planes with this trait, often because the nature of the plane interferes with the spell.

To cast an impeded spell, the caster must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the level of the spell). If the check fails, the spell does not function but is still lost as a prepared spell or spell slot. If the check succeeds, the spell functions normally.

sikyon
2008-02-25, 10:58 PM
Yeah that's a longshot RAW.

However, you could argue for positive energy fast healing to do damage to undead.

Cure light wounds:

"Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage."

Positive Energy Plane:
"An unprotected character on this plane swells with power as positive energy is force-fed into her. Then, her mortal frame unable to contain that power, she immolates as if she were a small planet caught at the edge of a supernova."

"Major positive-dominant planes go even further. A creature on a major positive-dominant plane must make a DC 15 Fortitude save to avoid being blinded for 10 rounds by the brilliance of the surroundings. Simply being on the plane grants fast healing 5 as an extraordinary ability. In addition, those at full hit points gain 5 additional temporary hit points per round. These temporary hit points fade 1d20 rounds after the creature leaves the major positive-dominant plane. However, a creature must make a DC 20 Fortitude save each round that its temporary hit points exceed its normal hit point total. Failing the saving throw results in the creature exploding in a riot of energy, killing it."

While this is not a "trait" or very technical aspect, it is still part of the description of the plane and lends weight to the idea that the fast healing.


However, this is important: "Immolate" is a very different term than "Explode" which is the descriptor for the fortitude save. Therefore, we can see that these are 2 different effects by RAW, and how "Immolation" is handled is directly up to the DM.

Collin152
2008-02-25, 11:11 PM
THe only other tiem I recall hearing the word immolation was in A Cask of Amontillado, and I think once was quite enough of it.

Fuzzy_Juan
2008-02-25, 11:14 PM
RAW there is a loophole apparently. In the old 2nd ed and perhaps 1st ed books (can't remmeber if Pos ele plane was in 1st ed) it counted as a constant healing effect (no 'fast healing' rule) and would harm undead since the healing was from positive energy just like curative magic. I think the fluff said that most undead would just turn to dust within moments. Humans would be rapidly healed, but would explode with energy if they stayed too long.

If I was DMing the game, the healing from the Positive elemental plane would harm undead....though, in a convention game or other game that is strictly RAW rather that intended...feel free to scam this exploit...in those games, it is a free for all and DM pitty be damned.

NEO|Phyte
2008-02-25, 11:23 PM
Yeah that's a longshot RAW.

A longshot? That IS the RAW. Spells are defined by the game. That definition does not include "Creatures that are sustained by a given energy type after magical creation by an instantaneous effect." Even if it DID, the impeded magic planar trait only applies to things being cast while on the plane, and then is only a spellcraft check to not waste the spell slot when casting an impeded spell (interestingly, the rules are silent on how an SLA is impeded). Similarly, while the plane's flavor text talks of immolation, the actual game rules for the plane include nothing of the sort, just the exploding in a riot of energy. There's also no such thing as 'positive energy fast healing', just Fast Healing, which undead can benefit from.

sikyon
2008-02-26, 12:02 AM
Similarly, while the plane's flavor text talks of immolation, the actual game rules for the plane include nothing of the sort, just the exploding in a riot of energy.

Flavor Text? D&D is a role playing game, flavor text IS rules text. All the description is relevant. This isn't Warhammer, where the flavor text is italicized for you neatly. The smell of a monster, the brightness of a spell, the colours of a stone, these are all very much rules text. Just because it doesn't involve dice does not mean it is not rules text. Is the physical description of the Positive Energy Plane (some pockets of minor positive energy, mostly major positive energy) just flavor text, with no bearing on the rules? Of course not.

In short, immolation is a clearly defined consequence of the positive energy plane, separate from the explosion otherwise defined. It does not have numbers to crunch with it, so therefore this additional consequence must be houseruled in by the DM.

NEO|Phyte
2008-02-26, 12:08 AM
In short, immolation is a clearly defined consequence of the positive energy plane, separate from the explosion otherwise defined. It does not have numbers to crunch with it, so therefore this additional consequence must be houseruled in by the DM.

If the consequences of immolation (and the cause of the immolation effect, for that matter) need to be houseruled in by the DM, I don't think its quite as clearly defined as you say, and all the houseruling in the world means nothing in a RAW debate. By RAW, undead thrive on the Positive Energy Plane. Show us some RAW that says otherwise.


Is the physical description of the Positive Energy Plane (some pockets of minor positive energy, mostly major positive energy) just flavor text, with no bearing on the rules? Of course not.
Of course it's not flavor text, its included in the list of planar traits.

sikyon
2008-02-26, 12:29 AM
If the consequences of immolation (and the cause of the immolation effect, for that matter) need to be houseruled in by the DM, I don't think its quite as clearly defined as you say, and all the houseruling in the world means nothing in a RAW debate. By RAW, undead thrive on the Positive Energy Plane. Show us some RAW that says otherwise.

I did. The Rules as Written Specify Immolation. The cause does not need to be houseruled, the rules say that it happens. You want to get rid of houseruling? Fine. "immolates as if she were a small planet caught at the edge of a supernova." Supernova. A supernova generates 10 billion years worth of energy of our sun's output. Earth get's 120 000 terrawatts of energy. Times 31 556 926 seconds is 3.786E21 Joules per year. 10 billion years is 3.786E31 Joules in a supernova.

Yes, that's right, you take 3.786E31 joules worth of damage from immolation. Convert that to TNT equivlent and do the d6 damage thing and you have how much damage you take from being immolated on the positive energy plane.

There's your RAW.

Talic
2008-02-26, 12:30 AM
Yeah that's a longshot RAW.

However, you could argue for positive energy fast healing to do damage to undead.

Cure light wounds:

"Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage."

Positive Energy Plane:
"An unprotected character on this plane swells with power as positive energy is force-fed into her. Then, her mortal frame unable to contain that power, she immolates as if she were a small planet caught at the edge of a supernova."

"Major positive-dominant planes go even further. A creature on a major positive-dominant plane must make a DC 15 Fortitude save to avoid being blinded for 10 rounds by the brilliance of the surroundings. Simply being on the plane grants fast healing 5 as an extraordinary ability. In addition, those at full hit points gain 5 additional temporary hit points per round. These temporary hit points fade 1d20 rounds after the creature leaves the major positive-dominant plane. However, a creature must make a DC 20 Fortitude save each round that its temporary hit points exceed its normal hit point total. Failing the saving throw results in the creature exploding in a riot of energy, killing it."

Rebolded for different emphasis. Undead aren't mortal, first.

Second bolded portion. Only creatures must make the save. Objects are unaffected. So are undead.

That said, if you want a nigh invincible LIVING opponent, Dwarf with a 20 base con, 16 cha, 2 level fighter, 1 level ranger, 2 levels paladin, 3 level Fort savvy PrC. (2 levels boosts go to Cha)

Base fort save: 3 (fighter) + 2 (Ranger) + 3 (Paladin) +3 ( PrC) + 5 (Con) + 4 (Cha) = +20 fort. Now, Take the feat that states you don't auto fail fort saves on a natural 1.

NEO|Phyte
2008-02-26, 12:31 AM
I did. The Rules as Written Specify Immolation. The cause does not need to be houseruled, the rules say that it happens. You want to get rid of houseruling? Fine. "immolates as if she were a small planet caught at the edge of a supernova." Supernova. A supernova generates 10 billion years worth of energy of our sun's output. Earth get's 120 000 terrawatts of energy. Times 31 556 926 seconds is 3.786E21 Joules per year. 10 billion years is 3.786E31 Joules in a supernova.

Yes, that's right, you take 3.786E31 joules worth of damage from immolation. Convert that to TNT equivlent and do the d6 damage thing and you have how much damage you take from being immolated on the positive energy plane.

There's your RAW.
Ok, now give me the RAW that tells you when you've absorbed enough positive energy for that to happen.

Funkyodor
2008-02-26, 03:18 AM
Campaign planning is going fine, and while Undead may thrive on the Positive Energy Plane per RAW, I honestly believe that this is an oversight per RAI. The few things preventing a population explosion of Undead are the hinderance of the creation spell, the clause that they are almost impossibe to find, and bodies are almost impossible to find because most creatures explode! I'm thinking of a small imported fortress (Think Tiny Death Star) with multiple spread out Unhallow's to make a small globe of darkness on the Positive Energy Plane (allows undead that thrive on darkness to be there too). Very Obvious, Very Odd, and as the players will find out Very Deadly. HP damage becomes pointless and players will have to adapt thinking to "Wow, maybe we should just try grappling 'em, pinning 'em, and let Fred tie 'em up? You know, because their still weak human skeletons. And what are they going to do, scream for help? Hah, hah, hah!" Or something of that nature. And with a very justified plot hook of... "This guy is trying to corrupt and taint the Positive Energy Plane and sever access to the Material Plane. God's 'll have it, but Cleric won't because transfer of spells dealing with it can't happen to the Prime Material Plane. Hurt spells will work, but everything heal natured won't." At first it will be some side effect thing, like Fort saves after being healed or you become drunk. Insert PC Exploration and Divinations and Adventures, Oh my! Then turns into no level based bonuses to healing spells and they cannot be maximized & Good turning is hindered as if on the Negative Energy Plane (I'm going to foster the notion that the Negative Energy Plane is getting stronger, heh, heh). Insert PC's expressions of "What the Heck is going on!" Then into can't be cast or even memorized/prayed for and Good turning does not work. DM Drops Hint of Planar access problem (I mean, who would think that there is a problem with the Positive Material Plane and Undead are going wild on it!), PC's go there and see the obvious black speck in the distance, like an inverse twinkling star in the bright sky. "That's no moon, thats a space station..." All while Undead are running amok invading lands ala Chronicles of Riddick style. In my campaign though, the Necromungers found the Under-Verse, The Positive Energy Plane!

sikyon
2008-02-26, 08:20 AM
Ok, now give me the RAW that tells you when you've absorbed enough positive energy for that to happen.


An unprotected character on this plane swells with power as positive energy is force-fed into her. Then, her mortal frame unable to contain that power, she immolates as if she were a small planet caught at the edge of a supernova. Visits to the Positive Energy Plane are brief, and even then travelers must be heavily protected.

This falls under the rules for when you put a bag of holding into a portable hole. Bad things happen by RAW, but exactly what varies with the power of the DM. You can't say that undead have it easy on the positive energy plane, because bad things will explicitly happen to them, but it never describes exactly what. You cannot deny that a bad thing happens. This is RAW, as it is written down.

Either way, D&D doesn't specify alot of important details, especially with spells, and especially regarding physics.

EDIT: By bag of holding/portable hole, I actually meant bag of holding into rope trick (extradimensional spaces together.). However, notice that many rules don't tell you how long they take to happen: When you put a bag of holding in a portable hole, RAW it gives no indication of how long it takes for the tear occurs.

Talic
2008-02-26, 08:28 AM
This falls under the rules for when you put a bag of holding into a portable hole. Bad things happen by RAW, but exactly what varies with the power of the DM. You can't say that undead have it easy on the positive energy plane, because bad things will explicitly happen to them, but it never describes exactly what. You cannot deny that a bad thing happens. This is RAW, as it is written down.

Either way, D&D doesn't specify alot of important details, especially with spells, and especially regarding physics.

It specifies all the necessary ones.
Fast healing.
Temporary hp.
Creatures (and only creatures) make a fort save when temp HP => max hp. Failure = death.
Undead are healed by fast healing.
Undead are immune to Fort saves unless they specifically list affecting undead, or affect objects.

By these details, all laid out very specifically, in the RAW, undead will gain massive HP on the positive energy plane. I would houserule it differently, but by RAW, this is one of the safest places for undead to be.

Armar
2008-02-26, 08:50 AM
Flavor Text? D&D is a role playing game, flavor text IS rules text. All the description is relevant.

Oh great, that'd mean that by your logic and making the flavor text count, I could do following things with following feats:

- Cast spells in combat, even with noncaster, using Combat Casting
"You are adept at casting spells in combat"
(Hmm, maybe it means that while in combat I get spells like an adept of same level???)

- Can counterspell enemy's spells, without even being a caster, using Improved Counterspell
"You understand the nuances of magic to such an extent that you can counter your opponent's spells with great effinency"
(I'm not sure how you define effinency in this matter, but great effinency means at least 50% of the time!)

- Use Power Attack to hit for more damage, even if my BAB is 0!
"You can make exceptionally powerful melee attacks"
(I'd rate "exceptionally powerful" at least +50% more damage than usually)

- Cast spells just by thinking about them with Quicken Spell, even if I'm a commoner
"You can cast a spell with a moment's thought"
(Hmm, thinking is a free action, so you could spam spells with quite a speed)


Using flavor text as rules text is illogical, and often in conflict with the actual rules text. Just like in Magic the Gathering, and just like the name says, it's there just for flavor; 'nuff said.

sikyon
2008-02-26, 09:26 AM
Using flavor text as rules text is illogical, and often in conflict with the actual rules text. Just like in Magic the Gathering, and just like the name says, it's there just for flavor; 'nuff said.

I don't have the original books, d20srd does not have this text so I'm not sure how to quote it fully.

You assume there is such a thing as flavor text in D&D. There is not. I will remind you again that D&D is a setting. The flavour of the world IS the world.

If, in the description of a +3 stone of throwing, it were to say "the red orb often..." would it be Red? YES. Would it matter in the setting? YES. Does it actually modify any of the rules associated with the item? NO. This is a rule. If your players asked "what colour is that stone" you would say red, because it is in the rules for the stone.

I'll say it again, for emphasis. What something looks like, what something smells like, the visual action of something happening are all described for you. Yes, this is "flavour". Sure, in Magic you have italicized statements and it is explicitly stated in the Comprehensive Rules that this is flavour text. But can you show me something like that for D&D? No, you can't as everything described in D&D is important, all parts of the statement. Just because it doesn't involve numbers and isn't immediatly quantifiable, does not mean you can discard it when considering the whole rule/area/item/class/race/spell/ect.

Kraggi
2008-02-26, 09:50 AM
Who says immolating kills her? RAW never mentions the bursting into flame killing anyone. She just does. If you want everyone in the positive energy plane to be on fire, thats fine by RAW, but RAW never says it hurts anyone.

Talic
2008-02-26, 09:57 AM
I don't have the original books, d20srd does not have this text so I'm not sure how to quote it fully.

You assume there is such a thing as flavor text in D&D. There is not. I will remind you again that D&D is a setting. The flavour of the world IS the world.

If, in the description of a +3 stone of throwing, it were to say "the red orb often..." would it be Red? YES. Would it matter in the setting? YES. Does it actually modify any of the rules associated with the item? NO. This is a rule. If your players asked "what colour is that stone" you would say red, because it is in the rules for the stone.

I'll say it again, for emphasis. What something looks like, what something smells like, the visual action of something happening are all described for you. Yes, this is "flavour". Sure, in Magic you have italicized statements and it is explicitly stated in the Comprehensive Rules that this is flavour text. But can you show me something like that for D&D? No, you can't as everything described in D&D is important, all parts of the statement. Just because it doesn't involve numbers and isn't immediatly quantifiable, does not mean you can discard it when considering the whole rule/area/item/class/race/spell/ect.

But when you are looking at quantifiable effects. Does the fact that the +3 stone of throwing is red have any bearing or importance on the damage it deals, or its accuracy? Does the red make it throw faster? Does it grant you a special ability? No? Well then, for the purposes of determining the effects of throwing that stone, the color red is COMPLETELY UNIMPORTANT. Only when rules text gives flavor text importance does it have meaning. For instance, when I manifest aversion, and give my opponent an aversion to the color red, NOW that rock's color has relevance. Up until a rule gave the fluff power, it's fluff.

Everything in D&D may be important, on some level or another. We're not talking about some level or another. We're talking about a specific level. Mechanical effects. And the color of the rock has no importance to that. Further, when flavour and descriptive text directly contradicts rule, guess what wins? Rule. Thus, rules text is MORE important than flavor text.

sikyon
2008-02-26, 10:42 AM
But when you are looking at quantifiable effects. Does the fact that the +3 stone of throwing is red have any bearing or importance on the damage it deals, or its accuracy? Does the red make it throw faster? Does it grant you a special ability? No? Well then, for the purposes of determining the effects of throwing that stone, the color red is COMPLETELY UNIMPORTANT. Only when rules text gives flavor text importance does it have meaning. For instance, when I manifest aversion, and give my opponent an aversion to the color red, NOW that rock's color has relevance. Up until a rule gave the fluff power, it's fluff.

Everything in D&D may be important, on some level or another. We're not talking about some level or another. We're talking about a specific level. Mechanical effects. And the color of the rock has no importance to that. Further, when flavour and descriptive text directly contradicts rule, guess what wins? Rule. Thus, rules text is MORE important than flavor text.

Again, you are assuming that there is flavour text and rules text, and they are separate. There is no formal separation. Rules text doesn't override flavour text (as there is no difference), but specific text overrides general text. There is no specific description for immolation, but there is a general description for it. How you want to make that happen is up to the DM. This is exactly the same as when you bring extradimensional space into a rope trick. It's "dangerous" but the effects are not specific.


Well then, for the purposes of determining the effects of throwing that stone, the color red is COMPLETELY UNIMPORTANT.


No, it is not. How are you going to describe that stone being thrown? How are you going to describe the RED streak as the stone arches? What if you rolled a spot check and suddenly saw a RED streak out of the corner of your eye? How the players would connect this RED streak with a +3 RED stone is important. Red is just as much a property of that stone as the +3 part.




I really, really don't know where people get this idea that there is such a thing as flavour text and such a thing as rules text. It's all just part of the description. I think it's a carryover from other games where it's clearly defined, such as warhammer or magic but in D&D there is no such separation, that I am aware of.


Edit:


Who says immolating kills her? RAW never mentions the bursting into flame killing anyone. She just does. If you want everyone in the positive energy plane to be on fire, thats fine by RAW, but RAW never says it hurts anyone.

Immolating as if she were a planet caught on the edge of a supernova.

Sure, if the character can survive the energy a planet receives on the edge of a supernova, she won't die.

NEO|Phyte
2008-02-26, 10:46 AM
No, it is not. How are you going to describe that stone being thrown? How are you going to describe the RED streak as the stone arches? What if you rolled a spot check and suddenly saw a RED streak out of the corner of your eye? How the players would connect this RED streak with a +3 RED stone is important. Red is just as much a property of that stone as the +3 part.

It may be a property of the stone, but when determining the GAME RULE EFFECTS of throwing it, the fact that it is red happens to be unimportant, unless someone has an ability/fear/whatever that requires something to be red. Sure, when its time to describe the FLUFF of the throw, the redness is important, but for the effect, you can forget it.

Talic
2008-02-26, 11:04 AM
Again, you are assuming that there is flavour text and rules text, and they are separate. There is no formal separation. Rules text doesn't override flavour text (as there is no difference), but specific text overrides general text. There is no specific description for immolation, but there is a general description for it. How you want to make that happen is up to the DM. This is exactly the same as when you bring extradimensional space into a rope trick. It's "dangerous" but the effects are not specific.

And the specific text that outlines the exact effect of positive energy in this example overrides the text on immolate that you yourself stated is vague. As for a formal seperation. Look at nearly every feat in existence, every spell in existence. It has a descriptive area, and an Effects area. The descriptive area outlines a pretty description, usable by crappy DM's with no imagination. The Effects says WHAT IT DOES.


No, it is not. How are you going to describe that stone being thrown?

However I describe the stone being thrown, it doesn't change the FACT that it has a +7 to hit, versus AC 16, and deals 1d4+3+Strength damage on a successful hit. There are multiple valid ways to describe the rock being thrown. None of them provide any meaningful impact on the game over another.


How are you going to describe the RED streak as the stone arches? What if you rolled a spot check and suddenly saw a RED streak out of the corner of your eye?

And if the stone were blue, they'd see a blue streak. It has a color, I'm aware. That color is useful for descriptions, but whether it's green or blue or red or polka dot makes no difference. Describe it as such, rule the effects, MOVE ON. The description changes. THE EFFECTS ARE CONSTANT.


How the players would connect this RED streak with a +3 RED stone is important. Red is just as much a property of that stone as the +3 part.

However, much less important. What's more important functionally, to the game? The player getting dropped to -1 because of the +3 enhancement bonus to damage, or the knowledge that the last thing that Bob's character sees before he loses all his actions for the rest of the combat was a glint of red?

Let's see. Change the red to blue, and what changes? Bob's character sees a glint of blue, and still loses all his actions for the rest of combat.

Change the +3 to +2, and what happens? Instead of Unconscious, Bob's character is Staggered, and can take an action to drink a potion that cures him.

Judging importance by the impact of a trait's change or removal, that extra +1 is more important to the combat than the color.



I really, really don't know where people get this idea that there is such a thing as flavour text and such a thing as rules text.

Because there is?


It's all just part of the description. I think it's a carryover from other games where it's clearly defined, such as warhammer or magic but in D&D there is no such separation, that I am aware of.

Yes, games where it's clearly defined. Like D&D. That you're not aware of it doesn't make it false. It just makes you woefully uninformed.


Edit:
Immolating as if she were a planet caught on the edge of a supernova.

Sure, if the character can survive the energy a planet receives on the edge of a supernova, she won't die.
Interesting theory. How do we tell if the character lives or dies though? The creature makes a DC 20 Fortitude save, of course. When does he make that save? Well, every round on a positive energy plane that his temporary HP exceed his current HP, of course. How do those HP get that way? Why, the Fast Healing trait that any character on the plane gets, to be sure.

Lucky for us that there's a clearly defined cause and effect relationship between those silly little numbers on a character sheet and an actual impact on the play of the game. Regardless of what FLAWED views you incorrectly believe, there is a concrete difference between mechanics and description.

fireinthedust
2008-02-26, 11:25 AM
Wow.

just... wow, guys.


For those who haven't mentioned this: what is it about the positive energy plane causes fast healing?

Answer: positive energy. the same cause of healing energy on the material plane.

there is no reason to think the fast healing is an arbitrary feature that has nothing to do with positive energy. It has a cause that is due to the nature of the plane, not an accidental house rule.
The whole structure of the living vs. undead healing spells issue is whether or not the source of the healing is positive or negative. Undead are healed by negative energy and are damaged by positive energy.
If the positive plane grants fast healing, it goes without saying that undead are damaged by this because the healing is from the positive energy of the plane.
There are so many monsters in the MM, and beyond, that WotC can't go filling every entry with the variant affects something has on every creature type.
Do evil outsiders gain hp or lose them when a cure wounds spell is cast on them? Possibly. But did Wotc somehow screw up by not putting that in? no. just think about it.

Worira
2008-02-26, 11:53 AM
Wow.

just... wow, guys.


For those who haven't mentioned this: what is it about the positive energy plane causes fast healing?

Answer: positive energy. the same cause of healing energy on the material plane.

there is no reason to think the fast healing is an arbitrary feature that has nothing to do with positive energy. It has a cause that is due to the nature of the plane, not an accidental house rule.
The whole structure of the living vs. undead healing spells issue is whether or not the source of the healing is positive or negative. Undead are healed by negative energy and are damaged by positive energy.
If the positive plane grants fast healing, it goes without saying that undead are damaged by this because the healing is from the positive energy of the plane.
There are so many monsters in the MM, and beyond, that WotC can't go filling every entry with the variant affects something has on every creature type.
Do evil outsiders gain hp or lose them when a cure wounds spell is cast on them? Possibly. But did Wotc somehow screw up by not putting that in? no. just think about it.

Yes, we know undead are intended to be harmed by the positive energy plane. But, as the rules are written, they aren't.

sikyon
2008-02-26, 12:31 PM
Sigh.


It may be a property of the stone, but when determining the GAME RULE EFFECTS of throwing it, the fact that it is red happens to be unimportant, unless someone has an ability/fear/whatever that requires something to be red. Sure, when its time to describe the FLUFF of the throw, the redness is important, but for the effect, you can forget it.

Isn't part of the effect of throwing a red stone that a red stone travels through the air? Not just any stone, but a red stone.


And the specific text that outlines the exact effect of positive energy in this example overrides the text on immolate that you yourself stated is vague. As for a formal seperation. Look at nearly every feat in existence, every spell in existence. It has a descriptive area, and an Effects area.


There is no direct "overriding" going on here. I don't see a reference to hitting harder, and then going on to specify exactly what that means. I do see a reference to exploding, but that has no bearing on immolating.


Look at nearly every feat in existence, every spell in existence. It has a descriptive area, and an Effects area. The descriptive area outlines a pretty description, usable by crappy DM's with no imagination. The Effects says WHAT IT DOES.


And how exactly does the descriptive area not say what it does, but in a broader, more general sense?



However I describe the stone being thrown, it doesn't change the FACT that it has a +7 to hit, versus AC 16, and deals 1d4+3+Strength damage on a successful hit.


No, it does not change all those factors you listed. However, it does add to them. It now has +7 to hit, and deals blah blah, and in addition a red stone hit you.



And if the stone were blue, they'd see a blue streak. It has a color, I'm aware. That color is useful for descriptions, but whether it's green or blue or red or polka dot makes no difference. Describe it as such, rule the effects, MOVE ON. The description changes. THE EFFECTS ARE CONSTANT.


No, the description would change, and that's part of the effect. You have action -> outcome.



However, much less important. What's more important functionally, to the game? The player getting dropped to -1 because of the +3 enhancement bonus to damage, or the knowledge that the last thing that Bob's character sees before he loses all his actions for the rest of the combat was a glint of red?


Depends on the player. To the game, both are part of the rules, so they are equally important in their enforcement. Is first degree murder a more important crime (enforcement wise, not penalty wise) in the eyes of the law than aggravated assault? Nope. People may care more about murder than assault, but in the eyes of the law (the gaming system) they must both be punished.



Judging importance by the impact of a trait's change or removal, that extra +1 is more important to the combat than the color.


To the player perhaps. Not the the game.



Because there is?

Yes, games where it's clearly defined. Like D&D. That you're not aware of it doesn't make it false. It just makes you woefully uninformed.


You need to prove something exists before you can claim it exists. You have offered no such proof that there is a formal difference between fluff and rules. Therefore, I say there is no such difference. Just yelling "It's True!" means exactly diddly squat.



Interesting theory. How do we tell if the character lives or dies though? The creature makes a DC 20 Fortitude save, of course.

Not from the immolation effect of the positive energy plane. For the explosion effect, sure.



Lucky for us that there's a clearly defined cause and effect relationship between those silly little numbers on a character sheet and an actual impact on the play of the game. Regardless of what FLAWED views you incorrectly believe, there is a concrete difference between mechanics and description.

If you can actually find me a quotation, written somewhere in the rules, that there is a difference, I will concede wholeheartedly. Failing that, you are assuming that there is a difference. And we all know what assuming makes out of you and me.

NEO|Phyte
2008-02-26, 12:49 PM
I think you've opened my eyes here. There's no such thing as fluff, its all rules! Which means Strike of Perfect Clarity is an attack that always hits (there's no way a flawless strike could miss, if it did, it would clearly be flawed), and never fails to drop its target. Death in the Dark is almost the same, with the added bonus that your foe is caught unaware. Disarming Strike always causes your foe to drop his weapon, Manticore Parry never fails to make your foe hit one of his allies, Prey on the Weak lets you kill weaker foes with no challenge, and many more examples of abilities that work without fail.

I guess Tome of Battle really IS overpowered.

Worira
2008-02-26, 01:00 PM
Your entire argument rests on immolating being a different condition than exploding. It's not. They immolate when they fail a fortitude save, and the way they immolate is by explosion. Immolation and explosion are by no means mutually exclusive. The entries about the positive energy plane and the major positive-dominant trait are clearly referring to the same thing.

sikyon
2008-02-26, 01:15 PM
I think you've opened my eyes here. There's no such thing as fluff, its all rules! Which means Strike of Perfect Clarity is an attack that always hits (there's no way a flawless strike could miss, if it did, it would clearly be flawed), and never fails to drop its target. Death in the Dark is almost the same, with the added bonus that your foe is caught unaware. Disarming Strike always causes your foe to drop his weapon, Manticore Parry never fails to make your foe hit one of his allies, Prey on the Weak lets you kill weaker foes with no challenge, and many more examples of abilities that work without fail.

I guess Tome of Battle really IS overpowered.

Har Har Har :smalltongue:

What I'm saying is that there is not "fluff" which has zero impact on the rules. However, I do agree that there are "general" rules and "specific" rules. When specific rules clash with general rules, then obviously specific rules win. However, when a general rule is presented (say immolation) and then not referenced again by any specific rule then it still stands. For example, Brining extradimensional space into a rope trick is "dangerous" (general rule). However, there's no specific rule to add on to that. But are there no consequences of brining extradimensional space into a rope trick? Nope, as the general rule still has meaning. No such thing as just ignoring a rule.


Your entire argument rests on immolating being a different condition than exploding. It's not. They immolate when they fail a fortitude save, and the way they immolate is by explosion. Immolation and explosion are by no means mutually exclusive. The entries about the positive energy plane and the major positive-dominant trait are clearly referring to the same thing.

Immolating is very much different than exploding. If you look at the text, you immolate as if you were a planet caught in a supernova. Planets don't explode when that happens, they burn. That's vastly different than exploding. You should check your dictionary definitions.

Talic
2008-02-26, 02:08 PM
Isn't part of the effect of throwing a red stone that a red stone travels through the air? Not just any stone, but a red stone.

And isn't the end result the same, regardless of the color of the stone? Your arguement is retarded, and I have an increasingly hard time believing you're not making it for the sole purpose of annoying people and being petty.



And how exactly does the descriptive area not say what it does, but in a broader, more general sense?

If by "broader" and "more general", you mean the following:

Less clear
Less accurate
Less precise
More open to differing views


Son, the advantage of RAW is that for a large group of people, it's the SAME. People in different areas can discuss the same things, in the same way, and have common ground. By being precise, and having single correct answers, people have that. A dozen great DM's will have a dozen different description, but will all rule the same effect the same way. That consistency is what makes it a game, with rules, rather than a 6 year old's game of cops and robbers. You say the color is important. I say that a rose by any other name, would smell as sweet.



No, it does not change all those factors you listed. However, it does add to them. It now has +7 to hit, and deals blah blah, and in addition a red stone hit you.

WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!


No, the description would change, and that's part of the effect. You have action -> outcome.

Exactly. Cause and Effect. Action and outcome. The consequences and description change for one set of variables. The description changes without consequence for the other. Unless of course, by your incredibly flawed logic, you wish you argue that the description of Bob falling unconscious or collapsing to a knee, wounded but alive... Are you saying that that description is less important than the color of the rock? You've invalidated your own point. Either it isn't, and the mechanics are more important, or it is, and you undermine the importance of description, invalidating your whole arguement. Either way, it's a catch-22. You fail.



Depends on the player. To the game, both are part of the rules, so they are equally important in their enforcement. Is first degree murder a more important crime (enforcement wise, not penalty wise) in the eyes of the law than aggravated assault? Nope. People may care more about murder than assault, but in the eyes of the law (the gaming system) they must both be punished.

Show me the section of the player's handbook outlining red stones versus blue ones, and I'll show you the section outlining rules for throwing an object. Let's see which one is really "part of the rules". Show me a rulebook effect for the color "red", printed in the SRD.
Oh, and I'll answer your question with a question. Is 1st degree murder more important a crime, overall, than petty theft? Well, cops will arrest you and try you for both, yes. However, the first one has more lasting consequences; they will penalize the first one more harshly, and devote more time and resources to solving the first one. You can tell a lot about what's cared about by how someone spends their time and energy. Cops spend more resources dealing with a single murder case than they will a theft. Which then, would you say that they consider more important to enforce? Again, you fail.



To the player perhaps. Not the the game.

Personification. You're trying to attribute to the game an ability to consider things important. Games don't think things are important. People do. Flawed arguement. You fail. AGAIN.



You need to prove something exists before you can claim it exists. You have offered no such proof that there is a formal difference between fluff and rules. Therefore, I say there is no such difference. Just yelling "It's True!" means exactly diddly squat.

And you've just reversed the order of about 5,000 years of scientific theory. You start with the claim, and test to the proof. I've said it time and again. If you aren't grasping it, then you're either incapable of doing so, or you're being contrary to be contrary. Either way, you fail.


If you can actually find me a quotation, written somewhere in the rules, that there is a difference, I will concede wholeheartedly. Failing that, you are assuming that there is a difference. And we all know what assuming makes out of you and me.
The very moment you find where "Red" and "color" are laid forth in the SRD. And yes, I know the cliches. What surprises me is how many people are unimaginative and thoughtless enough to use things because they sound pithy, rather than have any substance. The world, as we know it, is based upon assumptions. The last time you made a plan, you assumed you'd be alive to do it. People take for granted the assumptions about the world that make life possible. For example. Prove your keyboard exists. Everything you will use to prove it is based on perception. Prove your perception is correct. It cannot be proven. It must be ASSUMED that the things our minds process are true. So if assumption really does make an a$$ of you and I, then Junior, the world has made a$$es of us all.

Irreverent Fool
2008-02-26, 02:52 PM
HA! HA! HA!

Wow, I've never seen an argument like this here. Usually anyone saying that the 'fluff' text has any impact on the actual function of the rules is shot down by a mob of people stating we know the RAW are stupid, but that's the point.

Seriously, this was pointed out as an obvious flaw in the RAW. We like finding ways to exploit it. Why? The same reason we like building level 20 characters that can deal enough damage to sunder a planet.

Remember, boys and girls, by the RAW, failing your first drowning check can save your life.

sikyon
2008-02-26, 05:29 PM
And isn't the end result the same, regardless of the color of the stone? Your arguement is retarded, and I have an increasingly hard time believing you're not making it for the sole purpose of annoying people and being petty.

You are bordering on flaming. Friendly warning - don't.

The end result is NOT the same. You were hit by a red stone, not a blue stone or a green stone. It might not make your HP drop any more, but by your arguement me dying through old age and my dying through being shot are the same thing, and the method is irrelevant.



If by "broader" and "more general", you mean the following:

Less clear
Less accurate
Less precise
More open to differing views


Son, the advantage of RAW is that for a large group of people, it's the SAME. People in different areas can discuss the same things, in the same way, and have common ground. By being precise, and having single correct answers, people have that. A dozen great DM's will have a dozen different description, but will all rule the same effect the same way. That consistency is what makes it a game, with rules, rather than a 6 year old's game of cops and robbers. You say the color is important. I say that a rose by any other name, would smell as sweet.


And I say that you can't just ignore a broad statement. What's written is written. The rules only get precise to a point, anyhow.



WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!

Pardon?



Exactly. Cause and Effect. Action and outcome. The consequences and description change for one set of variables. The description changes without consequence for the other. Unless of course, by your incredibly flawed logic, you wish you argue that the description of Bob falling unconscious or collapsing to a knee, wounded but alive... Are you saying that that description is less important than the color of the rock? You've invalidated your own point. Either it isn't, and the mechanics are more important, or it is, and you undermine the importance of description, invalidating your whole arguement. Either way, it's a catch-22. You fail.

I'm afraid I don't understand your logic. Please be clearer.



Show me the section of the player's handbook outlining red stones versus blue ones, and I'll show you the section outlining rules for throwing an object. Let's see which one is really "part of the rules". Show me a rulebook effect for the color "red", printed in the SRD.

An effect? An effect occurs while you are playing the game. In a theoretical excesize it does not matter. In an experimental game of D&D, however, the effect of the rock being red is that it can be identified as "the red rock".



Oh, and I'll answer your question with a question. Is 1st degree murder more important a crime, overall, than petty theft? Well, cops will arrest you and try you for both, yes. However, the first one has more lasting consequences; they will penalize the first one more harshly, and devote more time and resources to solving the first one. You can tell a lot about what's cared about by how someone spends their time and energy. Cops spend more resources dealing with a single murder case than they will a theft. Which then, would you say that they consider more important to enforce? Again, you fail.


Yes, 1st degree murder is more important than petty theft as murder is a felony and theft is a misdemeanor.

In this case, you are mistaken. In the eyes of the legislative branch of government, both must be enforced rigorously and to the utmost extent of the law. In practice, the judicial branch of the law makes a decision not to enforce the law against theft as rigorously.

My point is exactly the one you are not getting. The outcome is not the only thing that matters. You seem fixated on it. Allow me to apply a chemistry analogy - path dependence. In some systems, how you get from state A to state B is independent of the method. The energy used is the same. However, other systems are highly path dependent, meaning that how you get from state A to state B matters very much. You seem to be forgetting that D&D is not path independent.



And you've just reversed the order of about 5,000 years of scientific theory. You start with the claim, and test to the proof. I've said it time and again. If you aren't grasping it, then you're either incapable of doing so, or you're being contrary to be contrary. Either way, you fail.


Actually, you are failing to apply the scientific method. I am saying "there is no rule". I cannot prove this hypothesis, only fail to disprove it. Despite my best efforts, I have failed to disprove my hypothesis (this is also supporting evidence). Now, you can disprove my hypothesis by providing contradictory evidence, or we shall keep looking.

I strongly urge you to review your science textbooks.



The very moment you find where "Red" and "color" are laid forth in the SRD. And yes, I know the cliches. What surprises me is how many people are unimaginative and thoughtless enough to use things because they sound pithy, rather than have any substance. The world, as we know it, is based upon assumptions. The last time you made a plan, you assumed you'd be alive to do it. People take for granted the assumptions about the world that make life possible. For example. Prove your keyboard exists. Everything you will use to prove it is based on perception. Prove your perception is correct. It cannot be proven. It must be ASSUMED that the things our minds process are true. So if assumption really does make an a$$ of you and I, then Junior, the world has made a$$es of us all.

Again, I'm going to point you in the direction of basic scientific theory. You cannot prove something, only fail to disprove it. I have failed to disprove the notion that my keyboard exists. It may indeed not really exist, but that's what we like to call a trivial question.


To cut off what I perceive to be your next statement, you can't say "I say that there are distinct fluff and rules, now disprove it" because you have no supporting evidence to back up your hypothesis in the first place (unless you can provide it), which means that while it may not be untrue, it also would have no support for being true (making the question immaterial).



As a final note to you, please answer my question about Rope Trick and Extra dimensional space. Is this, in your mind, "rules" or "fluff"? Why?


HA! HA! HA!
Wow, I've never seen an argument like this here. Usually anyone saying that the 'fluff' text has any impact on the actual function of the rules is shot down by a mob of people stating we know the RAW are stupid, but that's the point.


I grow weary of this because people will defend to the death that rules are distinct from fluff in D&D. It's a freaking RPG. It REQUIRES fluff to even function. That functionality is given by fluff, making it integral to the rules of the system. Therefore fluff IS rules in D&D.


Edit:

I have made a new thread, as I want to hear everyone's opinions on this issue. Let us please continue there.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-26, 06:43 PM
Ok, found a loophole *against* undead.
From d20hypertext
"However, a creature must make a DC 20 Fortitude save each round that its temporary hit points exceed its normal hit point total. Failing the saving throw results in the creature exploding in a riot of energy, killing it."
It says a creature. Nothing says it doesn't affect undead. According to this, even a iron golen could explode. It gives no exceptions to creatures that are considered objects. The only thing that'll protect you is actual lack of HP.

Douglas
2008-02-26, 06:48 PM
The only thing that'll protect you is actual lack of HP.
Or, you know, Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless). (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType) The immunity is not from the planar trait, it's from the undead type.

Tokiko Mima
2008-02-26, 07:51 PM
If I had to make a logical objection to this, I would rule that being immune to the nasty side effects of a planar trait should make one immune to it's benefits as well. It's more or less the same effect anyway, filling you with positive energy till you explode; logically, if you can't explode from that energy it stands to reason that maybe it's because you weren't effected by the positive planar trait in the first place.

The precident on this is that creatures who heal or are immune to damage from elemental attacks do not benefit from the elemental dominant traits of the Elemental Planes. Otherwise an iron golem would have a nearly infinite amount of HP on the Elemental Plane of Fire.

Collin152
2008-02-26, 08:18 PM
All they are immune to is things requirign a fort save, and the healing is free of that little feature.

Chronos
2008-02-26, 10:22 PM
Show me a rulebook effect for the color "red", printed in the SRD.Oh, that's easy. Red (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticSpray.htm) deals 20 points of fire damage, reflex half. Blue, meanwhile, turns you to stone. Completely different effects.

Seriously, though, I find it hard to believe that someone is arguing that the immolation and explosion on the Positive Plane are two separate effects. It's a brief and vague description, followed by a detailed description of the same thing. You're trying to claim that a character immolates and explodes... How is that possible? Which one happens first, the immolation or the explosion? Whichever one happens first, the other one can't, since the character isn't there any more (having been burned away or blown up).

But even if you insist that the immolation is a separate effect, it still doesn't matter to liches. Why? I quote:
An unprotected character on this plane swells with power as positive energy is force-fed into her. Then, her mortal frame unable to contain that power, she immolates as if she were a small planet caught at the edge of a supernova. Visits to the Positive Energy Plane are brief, and even then travelers must be heavily protected.The immolation effect only affects unprotected characters, and by the RAW, a lich is protected, by virtue of being undead. So liches don't immolate.

fireinthedust
2008-02-26, 11:48 PM
I think you've opened my eyes here. There's no such thing as fluff, its all rules!

I don't think that's what he's saying.

It's not that there's *either* all crunch or all fluff, but rather *both* have an effect on what's to be decided in-game.

Here's my offering: we describe a wooden masterwork sword and an adamantine sword (which is masterwork by default, being starmetal).
They both have different properties, one of which is one is vulnerable to fire damage, while the other ignores item hardness. It's the nature of the objects in question.
We know that mist has certain traits, but unless there's an effect that affects mist, we'd treat mist as fluff in game (well, maybe concealment of some sort, but you get what I'm saying).

Basically we have an object or thing. That thing comes with traits. The positive energy plane, the same plane what gives clerics their healing energies (and is effectively a cure wounds spell on steroids pumped into it by the Death Star (I love being a geek, btw)), and is the same energy that wounds undead when cast as a cure spell or effect, pumps into visitors to grant them fast healing. That's obvious, and so what you'd think should happen is that the undead would fizzle, or whatever (immolate being a dirty word on this thread).

I get what the OP is saying about how the plane causes a Fort save for creatures, and since Undead ignore fort saves that don't affect objects or are harmless, they don't get harmed by the plane.

However, the premise is ridiculous in a way that's far beyond RAW-foolery. The plane is a massive cure spell. That's it. The effect described in the entry merely describes its nature as a big cure spell.
In this case I don't think one could even call the description FLUFF. it's not fluff, or what would normally be considered fluff. You just can't separate the positive energy from the plane.

also: don't flame. flame is lame. (I realize the irony of saying that, as my name is fireinthedust)

NullAshton
2008-02-27, 12:29 AM
Maybe they explode, with their pieces burning up in the plane... thus they explode then immolate.

Talic
2008-02-27, 01:39 AM
You are bordering on flaming. Friendly warning - don't.

And you are bordering on trolling, derailing a topic, and inflammatory comments. How 'bout we leave the warnings to the mods, champ?


The end result is NOT the same. You were hit by a red stone, not a blue stone or a green stone. It might not make your HP drop any more, but by your arguement me dying through old age and my dying through being shot are the same thing, and the method is irrelevant.

Those most certainly are NOT the same. Dying because your age reached your max axe, based on race, and dying from HP loss due to a crossbow wound are two different things, entirely. They happen in completely different circumstances, for completely different reasons.


And I say that you can't just ignore a broad statement. What's written is written. The rules only get precise to a point, anyhow.

I never said that you ignore fluff text. Just that in THIS discussion, the "color of the rock" is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Thus, for THIS discussion, it is unimportant. You've already conceded that specific trumps general. Which is good, because it's true. Specific effects trump general descriptions. "+1 to hit on attack rolls with the selected weapon" trumps "you are more proficient with the weapon in question". Both are TRUE. One is more relevant, and thus, more important to know.


Pardon?

Look up Morbo on google. It's a Futurama reference. Basically, it means that your understanding of the situation is completely backwards, and I've run out of the will to argue with it. While I certainly don't feel that you're an idiot, I am 100% convinced that your arguement is certainly hopelessly flawed and idiotic.


I'm afraid I don't understand your logic. Please be clearer.

Smaller words, I guess. Here we go. 2 comparisons for the importance issue: color versus mechanical bonus.

+3 red rock of throwing - Effect of mechanical bonus: He's unconscious. Describe unconsciousness. Effect of color: Describe red rock.
+3 blue rock of throwing - Effect of mechanical bonus: He's unconscious. Describe unconsciousness. Effect of color: Describe blue rock.

and
+1 red rock of throwing - Effect of mechanical bonus. He's conscious, able to act. Describe situation. Effect of color: Describe red rock.
+1 blue rock of throwing - +1 red rock of throwing - Effect of mechanical bonus. He's conscious, able to act. Describe situation. Effect of color: Describe blue rock.

Now, when you change the color in each example above, you change a description. This description has minimal impact on the game, as whether the rock is red or blue, the player has the same degree of clues to discern what hit him, and such. Likely player actions will be unchanged.

When you change the mechanical bonus of the rock, you change the damage dealt. This has the effect of changing game state, and changing whether a character may act. This must be described, so changing the bonus of the rock has an effect on description. This directly affects the ability of a character to act. Thus, the impact of this change is a change in description and in mechanics, which changes the actions of both the character in question, AND the characters around him.

Thus, changing the mechanical bonus changes descriptions AND changes game state and actions. Changing the color of the rock only changes descriptions. Since you are arguing for the importance of descriptions, and there are differing descriptions on BOTH sides, both have equal importance, in terms of arguement. Unless you are arguing that the bonus of the rock has absolutely no importance whatsoever, by default, it MUST be more important than the color. If the importance of the mechanic has any importance at all, then A+B > A. Simple logic.



An effect? An effect occurs while you are playing the game. In a theoretical excesize it does not matter. In an experimental game of D&D, however, the effect of the rock being red is that it can be identified as "the red rock".

Oh no. You said that the color of the rock is PART OF THE RULES. Those were your exact words. Show me the exact portion of the rules that outlines the impact of the color of objects, or withdraw your nonsensical arguement.


Yes, 1st degree murder is more important than petty theft as murder is a felony and theft is a misdemeanor.

Ah, but by your arguement, they're both crimes. Cops should treat all crimes equally. Thus, the habitual shoplifter should have state wide manhunts called on him, just as much as the serial killer.


In this case, you are mistaken. In the eyes of the legislative branch of government, both must be enforced rigorously and to the utmost extent of the law. In practice, the judicial branch of the law makes a decision not to enforce the law against theft as rigorously.

Ah, so what you're saying is that everyone SAYS they should be equally important, but in practice, they're not? Thank you for arguing my point, sir.
Because in actuality, you're arguing what "should be" equally important. I'm arguing what IS.


My point is exactly the one you are not getting. The outcome is not the only thing that matters. You seem fixated on it. Allow me to apply a chemistry analogy - path dependence. In some systems, how you get from state A to state B is independent of the method. The energy used is the same. However, other systems are highly path dependent, meaning that how you get from state A to state B matters very much. You seem to be forgetting that D&D is not path independent.

No, I get your point. I just cannot accept something that is patently false. Regardless of which mechanic are used, descriptions will change. All of those descriptions are equally important, and since all outcomes feature descriptions, then we can factor descriptions out in importance. It's like arguing that monk is better than fighter because monk can use Use Magic Device. Well, both classes can use Use Magic Device, with equal ability in each. It must therefore be factored out as a relevant point of difference between the two.
Unless you're saying that the fact that the rock is red, and is described as such is MORE important than the importance of the rock being blue, if it were.


Actually, you are failing to apply the scientific method. I am saying "there is no rule". I cannot prove this hypothesis, only fail to disprove it. Despite my best efforts, I have failed to disprove my hypothesis (this is also supporting evidence). Now, you can disprove my hypothesis by providing contradictory evidence, or we shall keep looking.

Your basic premise is that descriptive text with no mechanical impact is equally important to a mechanic. Since the mechanic affects other descriptions, and affects gameplay, and the other affects only description, then the one must be more important than the other.

Again, I have not argued that descriptions are worthless in D&D. Only that they have less impact and importance than mechanics, and aren't important to a discussion on the mechanical impact of the traits of the positive energy plane on undead.


I strongly urge you to review your science textbooks.

I strongly urge you to not strongly urge me. I have defeated your arguement on several different levels. That you keep changing your topic back to this, rather than refute my points, shows the lack of strength that it has.


Again, I'm going to point you in the direction of basic scientific theory. You cannot prove something, only fail to disprove it. I have failed to disprove the notion that my keyboard exists. It may indeed not really exist, but that's what we like to call a trivial question.

Sigh. I don't like bringing my qualifications into this, but trust me when I say that by the odds, there is an exceedingly small chance that you are better versed in scientific theory. Scientific theory relies on concrete, quantitative observations and observable quantitative evidence. Your arguement is based solely on qualitative data. Thus, it may have merit in the debate floor, but by your arguement, you cannot prove your point. Nor can you provide evidence to argue that the "color of the rock" has an impact on the game, by the rules. You cannot, because nowhere in the rules does it outline the impact on colors in the game. Feel free to disprove that one. You make assumptions, and take them as fact, without examining the merits of them, and THIS is why you are eminently unqualified to debate me on "Scientific Theory".



To cut off what I perceive to be your next statement, you can't say "I say that there are distinct fluff and rules, now disprove it" because you have no supporting evidence to back up your hypothesis in the first place (unless you can provide it), which means that while it may not be untrue, it also would have no support for being true (making the question immaterial).

I don't need to rely on your weak arguement. I have better ones. You have no supporting evidence to back up the importance of fluff text (text which does not provide concrete mechanical guidelines) to text which provides concrete machanical guidelines, by the rules. You've failed to do so, so, by your own guidelines, you cannot make the arguement. As I said before. You fail. You continue to fail. But hey, at least you're consistent.


As a final note to you, please answer my question about Rope Trick and Extra dimensional space. Is this, in your mind, "rules" or "fluff"? Why?

What? you expect answers to every single point? I decline to contend this point, on the grounds that I can't be arsed to look up the information required to make the arguement. Yes, in this aspect, I'm lazy. Sue me.


I grow weary of this because people will defend to the death that rules are distinct from fluff in D&D. It's a freaking RPG. It REQUIRES fluff to even function. That functionality is given by fluff, making it integral to the rules of the system. Therefore fluff IS rules in D&D.

Technically, there is no D&D description for the term "Fluff". In the context I use it, it is "Descriptive text that provides no direct mechanical guideline for operation". While the game does require it to function, it is just NOT RELEVANT to the discussion at hand. So drop it.



Edit:

I have made a new thread, as I want to hear everyone's opinions on this issue. Let us please continue there.
Thank you for doing so. Now I can continue with this thread's discussion (which I am intrigued by) without your distractions (which I am annoyed by).

Tokiko Mima
2008-02-27, 05:00 AM
All they are immune to is things requirign a fort save, and the healing is free of that little feature.

Exactly. They are immune to the positive dominant trait which grants fast healing 5, but requires a fortitude save be made when Hit Points are greater than their maximum for that creature. Because the plane doesn't effect objects, and undead are immune to effects dealing a fortitude save that do not also affect objects, they are immune to the entire trait, not just two thirds of it.

The DMG clarifies the effect a little better when it states that the positive energy protection spell blocks all three effects of the plane (fast healing, blindness, and immolation), because presumably they are all linked together, and being protected from one protects from the others. Undead's immunity to fort saves is similiar; if you are protected from a planar trait, you are protected from all of the trait. You can't cherry pick which features you get to keep.

Talic
2008-02-27, 05:09 AM
Incorrect. Each part of that is listed seperately. Rules of the Positive Energy Planes are as follows:

Each creature gains fast healing 5. Does this require a fort save? No.

If a creature is at maximum HP, it gains 5 temporary hp each round. If the temporary hp of a creature ever exceed the current hp of the creature, then it must make a dc 20 fort save each round or die.

This is the specific two effects. Thus, by RAW, the undead would heal, but technically, I believe, not gain temp HP.

Interesting thought. If you had a single point of vile damage, you could never be at maximum hp, and thus would never gain the temp hp. Vile damage protects you from exploding? Hmmm.

Tokiko Mima
2008-02-27, 05:46 AM
Incorrect. Each part of that is listed seperately. Rules of the Positive Energy Planes are as follows:

Each creature gains fast healing 5. Does this require a fort save? No.

If a creature is at maximum HP, it gains 5 temporary hp each round. If the temporary hp of a creature ever exceed the current hp of the creature, then it must make a dc 20 fort save each round or die.

This is the specific two effects. Thus, by RAW, the undead would heal, but technically, I believe, not gain temp HP.

Listen to yourself. 'Each part of that is listed seperately' in the *exact same* paragragh. That's not very seperate, now is it? Using this method is akin to splitting up the spell time stop into 5 parts:

1. Makes time appear to cease to flow for everyone else but you.
2. Speeds you up so greatly that other creatures appear frozen.
3. Allows you freedom to act for 1d4+1 rounds.
4. Makes other creatures immune to your attacks or spells within certain conditions.
5. Makes you unable to effect items held by a creature.
6. Makes you undetectable.
7. Impedes you from entering an area protected by an antimagic field.

Now say you had a ring of freedom of movement worn at the same time as time stop was cast. That item "enables you to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web."

You don't get to selectively ignore the movement restrictions of number 7, even though Time Stop is a magic spell and you're ignoring it's movement impediment. The reason I don't is that Time Stop is one big effect not many small ones, and you have to follow all it's rules or the spell doesn't work. Planar traits are like spell, they come as a set and immunity to one part makes you immune to all the rest.

Talic
2008-02-27, 06:02 AM
Listen to yourself.

I do that all the time. Easiest way to hear something that makes sense, I say.

'Each part of that is listed seperately' in the *exact same* paragragh. That's not very seperate, now is it? Using this method is akin to splitting up the spell time stop into 5 parts:

1. Makes time appear to cease to flow for everyone else but you.
2. Speeds you up so greatly that other creatures appear frozen.
3. Allows you freedom to act for 1d4+1 rounds.
4. Makes other creatures immune to your attacks or spells within certain conditions.
5. Makes you unable to effect items held by a creature.
6. Makes you undetectable.
7. Impedes you from entering an area protected by an antimagic field.

Now say you had a ring of freedom of movement worn at the same time as time stop was cast. That item "enables you to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web."

Does any part of the text of antimagic field impede your movement? Does the Time stop impede your movement? No. Let's look at your horribly flawed example, in comparing spells to traits, and find the errors, shall we? First, one and 2 are the same thing. 1 is your perception of it, 2 is the truth of it. 3 is the listed duration of the spell. 4 is an effect of the spell. 5 is an extension of 4 (much as the fort save portion is an extension of the temp hp). 6 and 7 are extensions of 2. Now, let's see, is time stop physically stopping you from entering an area? No. It's effects that enhance your speed and actions merely don't extend there. Same as Freedom of movement doesn't protect you from a dispel magic that dispels expeditious retreat. Removing a bonus and imposing a penalty are two different things. Sheesh, it's amazing how many people are perfectly willing to base their entire arguements on shaky houses of cards. I almost feel bad running in as the Toddler of shaky arguement destruction +5.

Almost.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-27, 06:26 AM
I'm using the typical RAW argument where a player conveniently chooses his interpretation of RAW. Yes, that plane gives any creature fast healing, that in D&D, actually means "quickly HP recovery", and not an actual healing effect (vampires have fast healing, for example).
Then if you exceed your base HP with the temp HP, you need to roll a Fort save or go poof. Undead are immune to fort save effects, unless the effect also affects objects. Thing is, the effects on the positive energy plane doesn't say it doesn't affect objects. It just say "creatures". Undead is a creature. By RAW, he explodes. It's the DM's version of the "dead man walking". :smallamused:

This is just a tought exercise on how RAW is poorly written, and DMs and players need to fill in the blanks.
Of course, undead SHOULD be destroyed. If the descriptions just said "you gain 2 HP every round as if healed by a cure spell, and the exceeding is turned into temporary HP", it would make a lot more sense and would be easier to use, but they had to be lazy and say "fast healing 2, and that's it".
A sword or piece of armor doesn't gain HP, nor explodes. An undead shouldn't too either, but the way it is worded, he does gain the HP. Doesn't make sense. An undead is not even slowed down in that place. The plane's description simply doesn't talk about it. Heck, it should even give negative energy levels to represent how it got disrupted by the massive amount of positive energy there.

Reminds me of an adaptation of the X-Men for GURPS I read once. Instead of describling all the Wolverine's abilities (healing, strong bones, etc), they just slapped the "imortal" trait on it, and called it a day. :smallannoyed:

The point of vile damage Talic pointed out could work, though. Or constantly wounding yourself to lower your total HP :smalltongue:

Hmm.. something interesting. If you go to the negative energy plane, you take 1d6 points of damage on the minor plane, and must pass a fort save to avoid taking 1 negative level in the major plane. So, you can stay indefinitely on the major plane as long as you pass your fort save, since you doesn't take the damage. And any creature, even non-living, must make the fort save in the major plane to don't be level drained, but that may be on purpose. And it states that the death ward spell blocks both effects, but it doesn't says that the damage is considered negative energy damage, so you don't know if others similar spells works or not.

Talic
2008-02-27, 06:39 AM
The point of vile damage Talic pointed out could work, though. Or constantly wounding yourself to lower your total HP :smalltongue:

Hmm.. something interesting. If you go to the negative energy plane, you take 1d6 points of damage on the minor plane, and must pass a fort save to avoid taking 1 negative level in the major plane. So, you can stay indefinitely on the major plane as long as you pass your fort save, since you doesn't take the damage. And any creature, even non-living, must make the fort save in the major plane to don't be level drained, but that may be on purpose. And it states that the death ward spell blocks both effects, but it doesn't says that the damage is considered negative energy damage, so you don't know if others similar spells works or not.

Actually, non-living creatures are immune to effects requiring Fort saves unless they affect objects.

Rune Katashima
2008-02-27, 06:43 AM
I'm using the typical RAW argument where a player conveniently chooses his interpretation of RAW. Yes, that plane gives any creature fast healing, that in D&D, actually means "quickly HP recovery", and not an actual healing effect (vampires have fast healing, for example).
Then if you exceed your base HP with the temp HP, you need to roll a Fort save or go poof. Undead are immune to fort save effects, unless the effect also affects objects. Thing is, the effects on the positive energy plane doesn't say it doesn't affect objects. It just say "creatures". Undead is a creature. By RAW, he explodes. It's the DM's version of the "dead man walking". :smallamused:

This is just a tought exercise on how RAW is poorly written, and DMs and players need to fill in the blanks.
Of course, undead SHOULD be destroyed. If the descriptions just said "you gain 2 HP every round as if healed by a cure spell, and the exceeding is turned into temporary HP", it would make a lot more sense and would be easier to use, but they had to be lazy and say "fast healing 2, and that's it".
A sword or piece of armor doesn't gain HP, nor explodes. An undead shouldn't too either, but the way it is worded, he does gain the HP. Doesn't make sense. An undead is not even slowed down in that place. The plane's description simply doesn't talk about it. Heck, it should even give negative energy levels to represent how it got disrupted by the massive amount of positive energy there.
No, no it should not give negative levels, even for undead, that would be stupid.
Now, a lich could gain 5 temp HP before it would have to make a saving throw. The HP still continues to go up, and they continue to have to make saving throws, except they don't have to make them being immune to non-object-related fortitude saves. This is where I'll argue the bolded font: By that logic you're saying objects and creatures are the same. My reaction:
Buh?


Hmm.. something interesting. If you go to the negative energy plane, you take 1d6 points of damage on the minor plane, and must pass a fort save to avoid taking 1 negative level in the major plane. So, you can stay indefinitely on the major plane as long as you pass your fort save, since you doesn't take the damage. And any creature, even non-living, must make the fort save in the major plane to don't be level drained, but that may be on purpose. And it states that the death ward spell blocks both effects, but it doesn't says that the damage is considered negative energy damage, so you don't know if others similar spells works or not.

Aside from the fact it actually says "living" in the description, to my knowledge, most undead if not all are immune to negative levels at the very least. I'm being generous in that arguement by second guessing it.

Funkyodor
2008-02-27, 07:16 AM
Exactly. They are immune to the positive dominant trait which grants fast healing 5, but requires a fortitude save be made when Hit Points are greater than their maximum for that creature. Because the plane doesn't effect objects, and undead are immune to effects dealing a fortitude save that do not also affect objects, they are immune to the entire trait, not just two thirds of it.

The DMG clarifies the effect a little better when it states that the positive energy protection spell blocks all three effects of the plane (fast healing, blindness, and immolation), because presumably they are all linked together, and being protected from one protects from the others. Undead's immunity to fort saves is similiar; if you are protected from a planar trait, you are protected from all of the trait. You can't cherry pick which features you get to keep.

Hmm, that's an interesting point. Arrrgh, I hate Effect/Affect verbage. Are they are immune to the effect of gaining temp HP's so they will not be affected by the Fort save? Or are they immune to the effect of gaining more temp hitpoints than their current HP's so they will not be affected by the Fort save? Or are they immune to the effect of the Major-Positive Dominant trait so they will not be affected by the Fort save?

Within your own statement you highlight that positive energy protection blocks all THREE effects of the positive energy plane. Within it's own description it separates the trait into different effects. I'm unsure if this is a paraphrase, or the actual wording. If it is the actual wording then it's incomplete as there are more effects than that (enhanced positive energy spells, enhanced turning, hindered negative energy spells/spell like abilities, etc...).

Talic
2008-02-27, 08:39 AM
Hmm, that's an interesting point. Arrrgh, I hate Effect/Affect verbage. Are they are immune to the effect of gaining temp HP's so they will not be affected by the Fort save? Or are they immune to the effect of gaining more temp hitpoints than their current HP's so they will not be affected by the Fort save? Or are they immune to the effect of the Major-Positive Dominant trait so they will not be affected by the Fort save?

Within your own statement you highlight that positive energy protection blocks all THREE effects of the positive energy plane. Within it's own description it separates the trait into different effects. I'm unsure if this is a paraphrase, or the actual wording. If it is the actual wording then it's incomplete as there are more effects than that (enhanced positive energy spells, enhanced turning, hindered negative energy spells/spell like abilities, etc...).


Actually, I think that even if you take it all together, this one still slips by. This effect doesn't require a Fort save, technically. You only need the fort save IF certain conditions are met. This is compared against a good example of an effect that requires a fort save, such as poison or the Disintigrate spell. When you get hit with one, you make a save, no exceptions. This one does not.

That means, by this interpretation of the RAW, not only are undead allowed to gain HP, they are allowed to explode, as it's not a "required" save.