OOTS #1224 - The Discussion Thread

[danielxcutter]

i mean, are they just in a cul-de-sac? with only one portal trap? that is to say they walked through the only portal and they ended up in a just a room with nothing in it except the portal they walked through?

Oh you mean why aren't they going deeper in? Roy said so; he doesn't want to risk his team doing something that could mess up the Gate.

[locksmith of lo]

Oh you mean why aren't they going deeper in? Roy said so; he doesn't want to risk his team doing something that could mess up the Gate.

which probably means that they have no choice but explore deeper in... a sort of chekov's cave?

[danielxcutter]

which probably means that they have no choice but explore deeper in... a sort of chekov's cave?

They're not going to go explore deeper, at least for now.

[Goblin_Priest]

I'll be with the guy saying the IFCC are going to call in V again pretty soon.

Could reasonably avoid a battle that's too early to be had.

[Ghosty]

Epic magic armor, like its nonepic counterpart, provides an armor bonus to AC; and armor bonuses don't apply to touch AC.

In what is easily the least intuitive wording choice in the core books, an incorporeal touch attack is not a touch attack.Apparently the idea that "incorporeal" would be seen as a modifier on "touch attack" never came up during proofing or editing....

Thank you. Sincerely, Jasdoif: that was a well-written, concise explanation and I understand the distinction now.

I still don't understand why an incorporeal force shield---which is why the various species of Mage Armor are---would be irrelevant to figuring out if one were protected from Disintegrate. The Disintegrate ray isn't some sort of infinite-power X-ray laser. Eventually, it gets stopped by something. I would have guessed a force shield would help stop it or ameliorate it, before your tender flesh would. But it doesn't seem to make a difference whether you have such a shield or not. Add it to the Celestia sized pile of oddities in D&D rules, I guess.

Then I would think that the Quickened True Strike/Disintegrate combo mentioned upthread should, by raw, be pretty much an auto-hit for V, and that even without it, V should hit with it a decent chunk of the time. Assuming there isn't some other deflection AC boost or other relevant buff.

And X stands a good chance of blowing the Fortitude save, and thereby eating 34d6 if Blackwing gets a little closer. Maybe even 36d6. Ouch.

[danielxcutter]

Thank you. Sincerely, Jasdoif: that was a well-written, concise explanation and I understand the distinction now.

I still don't understand why an incorporeal force shield---which is why the various species of Mage Armor are---would be irrelevant to figuring out if one were protected from Disintegrate. The Disintegrate ray isn't some sort of infinite-power X-ray laser. Eventually, it gets stopped by something. I would have guessed a force shield would help stop it or ameliorate it, before your tender flesh would. But it doesn't seem to make a difference whether you have such a shield or not. Add it to the Celestia sized pile of oddities in D&D rules, I guess.

Then I would think that the Quickened True Strike/Disintegrate combo mentioned upthread should, by raw, be pretty much an auto-hit for V, and that even without it, V should hit with it a decent chunk of the time. Assuming there isn't some other deflection AC boost or other relevant buff.

And X stands a good chance of blowing the Fortitude save, and thereby eating 34d6 if Blackwing gets a little closer. Maybe even 36d6. Ouch.

I'm pretty sure that Rich has explained why he doesn't have characters use save-or-loses? It'd be rather anti-climatic, honestly.

Also, I just realized that Epic Mage Armor might not be canceled by an AMF. So he'd still have most of his AC.

[JNinja]

what bothers me so far is that they have not checked what is on the other side of the space that they are in. i am assuming that behind them is another trap portal, but where does that go?

I agree with you in that the comic makes it clear why they don't continue in, but I as the reader am still very curious about what is there (and I bet we will see eventually).

[Ghosty]

I'm pretty sure that Rich has explained why he doesn't have characters use save-or-loses? It'd be rather anti-climatic, honestly.

Also, I just realized that Epic Mage Armor might not be canceled by an AMF. So he'd still have most of his AC.

But fine with having it done to them....it all turned out great, in the end.

(I'm still laughing from reading the Apocalypse Now reference in the prior strip's discussion thread, and now I keep thinking of lines from it.

The Mechane. *hit, I'm still only on the Mechane. Every time I think I'm gonna wake up back in the jungle."

Never get out of the boat, indeed...)

[bunsen_h]

If only Redcloak had some means of negating those markings. Illusion spells would also work, for what its worth. Or, it could be a tiny item with miniscule markings which necessitate that it be examined closely, which Xykon might well do with a fake one Redcloak gave him but likely will not do with one Redcloak is wearing around his neck.

I'm not confident that even a mending spell would work through all of the protections on that thing. (Which presumably were added after it took the damage?) Especially since Mending is just a cantrip.

Would Mending be positive-energy based? "I just felt this weird... tingle. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, except bad."

I definitely wouldn't trust that Xykon wouldn't notice an illusion, with a strong possibility of seeing through it, one way or another.

[One Skunk Todd]

I'm not confident that even a mending spell would work through all of the protections on that thing. (Which presumably were added after it took the damage?) Especially since Mending is just a cantrip.

Would Mending be positive-energy based? "I just felt this weird... tingle. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, except bad."

I definitely wouldn't trust that Xykon wouldn't notice an illusion, with a strong possibility of seeing through it, one way or another.

RC might be able to explain away in anomalies in the appearance by saying "the elves and paladins had hold of it for a while, no telling what they did or tried to do."

[Fitzclowningham]

Wanted to add, we don't know if RC added all those protection spells to the phylactery, do we? We just saw him adding them to the fake one. It could be easier for him to destroy than we're thinking.

Or, after being lost in a sewer and then found again it still has all the protections it had on it before

[mashlagoo1982]

I think we know which paladin is which.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=...AAAAAdAAAAABAD

[Saint-Just]

Hey, I'm going to make my first prediction:

Fiends will intervene before the trap's sprung, taking Vaarsuvius out of the running, and so the Order will not trigger the ambush. They want the conflict to last as long as possible, after all.

Want to bet five quatloos?

In 2E there was a 1st level spell (later demoted to an orison {clerical cantrip} when those rules came out) called Create Holy Symbol. It doesn't make a fancy one, but you have one. I presume that spell got converted at some point in the 18 kajillion splats 3.X had.

It made it (Complete Champion), though it is a Summoning so it only lasts a few rounds (still enough for 99.9% of encounters). Don't know whether 2e was permanent.

[Rogar Demonblud]

It was, as it created a simple wooden icon.

[Peelee]

I'm not confident that even a mending spell would work through all of the protections on that thing. (Which presumably were added after it took the damage?) Especially since Mending is just a cantrip.

Would Mending be positive-energy based? "I just felt this weird... tingle. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, except bad."

I definitely wouldn't trust that Xykon wouldn't notice an illusion, with a strong possibility of seeing through it, one way or another.

What would stop Mending from working, exactly?

[bunsen_h]

What would stop Mending from working, exactly?

It would depend on the nature of the protection spells. If it's "protection from damage", mending could work. If it's "protection from magic", it wouldn't. If it's "protection from positive energy" and Mending is based on positive energy, it might not.

[Peelee]

It would depend on the nature of the protection spells. If it's "protection from damage", mending could work. If it's "protection from magic", it wouldn't. If it's "protection from positive energy" and Mending is based on positive energy, it might not.

There doesn't seem to be any indication that Mending is based on positive energy, and I've never heard of a "protection fro magic" spell that wasn't some flavor of Anti-Magic, which would be counter-productive to put on the phylactery.

Also, the Mending thing started out tongue-in-cheek, but I think from now on in my games Mending also fixes cosmetic damage like small scratches or scruffs. It makes sense to me. Plus, that helps give a way for old items to still be in circulation easily. Very small detail but I like it.

[danielxcutter]

Positive energy doesn't really do anything to a phylactery, though.

The spells that I remember Redcloak casting on it were Hardening - self explanatory - and Superior Resistance, which increases the item's "saving throw" so it doesn't get easily Disintegrated or something. Probably spells like Nondetection as well.

[Mariele]

Or, after being lost in a sewer and then found again it still has all the protections it had on it before

Yeah, should have stated "readded" instead of "added", as that's what I meant. I thought I remembered reading that Redcloak has to rebuff the phylactery every so often because the spells don't last forever, but I could be misremembering.

[bunsen_h]

Yeah, should have stated "readded" instead of "added", as that's what I meant. I thought I remembered reading that Redcloak has to rebuff the phylactery every so often because the spells don't last forever, but I could be misremembering.

"Yeah, it's gonna take more than a few whacks with a metal bar to scuff the finish, pally. / There are so many abjuration spells protecting that thing, I've forgotten what half of them actually do."

This implies to me that the protections are permanent, or so long-lasting that they might as well be. Though it's possible that they're applied by Redcloak, and Xykon just hasn't been paying close attention to the details, I'd be inclined to think that the phylactery is important enough to Xykon that he'd be watching better.

EDIT:

Also, the Mending thing started out tongue-in-cheek, but I think from now on in my games Mending also fixes cosmetic damage like small scratches or scruffs. It makes sense to me. Plus, that helps give a way for old items to still be in circulation easily. Very small detail but I like it.

Makes sense to me, too.

[hamishspence]

IMO it falls within the description:



https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mending.htm

Mending repairs small breaks or tears in objects (but not warps, such as might be caused by a warp wood spell). It will weld broken metallic objects such as a ring, a chain link, a medallion, or a slender dagger, providing but one break exists.

Ceramic or wooden objects with multiple breaks can be invisibly rejoined to be as strong as new. A hole in a leather sack or a wineskin is completely healed over by mending.

Scuffs and scratches could be reasonably characterised as "small breaks".

[Rogar Demonblud]

So I'd never again have my favorite sweater wear out? Sign me up!

[Lemarc]

I still don't understand why an incorporeal force shield---which is why the various species of Mage Armor are---would be irrelevant to figuring out if one were protected from Disintegrate. The Disintegrate ray isn't some sort of infinite-power X-ray laser. Eventually, it gets stopped by something. I would have guessed a force shield would help stop it or ameliorate it, before your tender flesh would. But it doesn't seem to make a difference whether you have such a shield or not. Add it to the Celestia sized pile of oddities in D&D rules, I guess.

Disintegrate annihilates an independent object of incorporeal force, including a wall of force, so it makes sense to me that a magical shield making up the same "object" as its caster wouldn't help. Comparing it to a laser that has to drill through the shield is probably a tad reductive. It's a magic spell to make something go away forever. It could have been equally accurately named "Transmute Matter to Dust".

[danielxcutter]

Disintegrate annihilates an independent object of incorporeal force, including a wall of force, so it makes sense to me that a magical shield making up the same "object" as its caster wouldn't help. Comparing it to a laser that has to drill through the shield is probably a tad reductive. It's a magic spell to make something go away forever. It could have been equally accurately named "Transmute Matter to Dust".

Yes, but popping a Forcecage doesn't zap the guy standing behind it either. That's why a lot of later spells like Cyclonic Blast do specify they can punch straight through barriers.

[Lemarc]

Yes, but popping a Forcecage doesn't zap the guy standing behind it either. That's why a lot of later spells like Cyclonic Blast do specify they can punch straight through barriers.

A forcecage is a separate object though, isn't it? While if I understand the rules correctly you're still just one object, no matter how many protective spells you put on yourself. The solid version of Forcecage is described as akin to Wall of Force, which expressly prevents spells from passing through, so you'd have to pop the barrier to allow you to cast spells on the person inside, but is there any reason you couldn't cast Disintegrate or Rock to Mud through, say, a pane of glass to affect a target behind it?

[danielxcutter]

A forcecage is a separate object though, isn't it? While if I understand the rules correctly you're still just one object, no matter how many protective spells you put on yourself. The solid version of Forcecage is described as akin to Wall of Force, which expressly prevents spells from passing through, so you'd have to pop the barrier to allow you to cast spells on the person inside, but is there any reason you couldn't cast Disintegrate or Rock to Mud through, say, a pane of glass to affect a target behind it?

Because that blocks line of effect, and aside from glass usually line of sight as well.

[bunsen_h]

Because that blocks line of effect, and aside from glass usually line of sight as well.

The spell description for Transmute Rock to Mud doesn't mention line of sight, or that it would be blocked by an intervening transparent object/substance. Is that generally assumed or implied?

[danielxcutter]

The spell description for Transmute Rock to Mud doesn't mention line of sight, or that it would be blocked by an intervening transparent object/substance. Is that generally assumed or implied?

Pretty sure LoE/LoS are default?

[Lemarc]

Because that blocks line of effect, and aside from glass usually line of sight as well.

Trying to understand the PHB on this subject is confusing me terribly. Disintegrate is a ray effect. Line of effect isn't mentioned by name under ray effects, but it's mentioned that intervening objects can provide cover. Meanwhile you "must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on", which is blocked by a solid barrier, and line of effect is defined as just like line of sight for ranged weapons except it's not blocked by visibility factors. Under the cover rules, if I don't have line of effect to my target they have total cover, which means I can't make an attack against them at all. Whereas Mage Armor is a field of force, not a solid object, so does not provide cover. This all seems to work out fine except that it leaves me in the position of not being able to fire a crossbow bolt or hurl a brick at a target through a glass window?

[danielxcutter]

Trying to understand the PHB on this subject is confusing me terribly. Disintegrate is a ray effect. Line of effect isn't mentioned by name under ray effects, but it's mentioned that intervening objects can provide cover. Meanwhile you "must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on", which is blocked by a solid barrier, and line of effect is defined as just like line of sight for ranged weapons except it's not blocked by visibility factors. Under the cover rules, if I don't have line of effect to my target they have total cover, which means I can't make an attack against them at all. Whereas Mage Armor is a field of force, not a solid object, so does not provide cover. This all seems to work out fine except that it leaves me in the position of not being able to fire a crossbow bolt or hurl a brick at a target through a glass window?

I'm pretty sure these are the things where it comes to "ask your DM".