PDA

View Full Version : Arcane Lock: The Level 2 Instant Death?



Jack Zander
2008-06-04, 11:21 PM
An arcane lock spell cast upon a door, chest, or portal magically locks it. You can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it; otherwise, a door or object secured with this spell can be opened only by breaking in or with a successful dispel magic or knock spell. Add 10 to the normal DC to break open a door or portal affected by this spell. (A knock spell does not remove an arcane lock; it only suppresses the effect for 10 minutes.)

Emphasis mine.

You can cast this spell on someone's chest to lock up all passagesways of their heart and lungs, killing them in seconds. If you can't get your DM to accept that definition of chest, take this definition of the word portal:


Of or relating to a point of entrance to an organ, especially the transverse fissure of the liver, through which the blood vessels enter.

You'll also note that Arcane Lock doesn't give a saving throw. You just have to be able to touch the portal you are locking. And all this time I wondered why such a "weak" spell cost 25 gold to cast.

Cubey
2008-06-04, 11:26 PM
Okay. This thread must be a joke as it assumes that your DM is an idiot - but I'll roll with it!

This isn't an instant death ritual, more like 10-minute death ritual. If you can keep someone still for such a long period (100 rounds, right?), chances are you'll be able to kill them normally in significantly less time.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-04, 11:28 PM
if it works, then sure but.....i want to meet the DM that lets that slide

togapika
2008-06-04, 11:28 PM
Find a way to reach inside someones body to touch their organs and you're golden. Till then, skin in the way.


You just have to be able to touch the portal you are locking.

Emphasis Mine.

Jack Zander
2008-06-04, 11:29 PM
Okay. This thread must be a joke as it assumes that your DM is an idiot - but I'll roll with it!

This isn't an instant death ritual, more like 10-minute death ritual. If you can keep someone still for such a long period (100 rounds, right?), chances are you'll be able to kill them normally in significantly less time.

Have you ever fought off an adventuring party while in cardiac arrest? And even if you only cast it on their esophogus, they would pass out long before 10 minutes. Try 1-2 minutes... while they are fighting you.

Jack Zander
2008-06-04, 11:30 PM
Find a way to reach inside someones body to touch their organs and you're golden. Till then, skin in the way.

Ah, but you can still touch their chest and lock that up.

jcsw
2008-06-04, 11:52 PM
Spectral Hand?

TheOOB
2008-06-05, 12:17 AM
Ah, but you can still touch their chest and lock that up.

and lock what up, their skin, their pours?

Besides, I doubt any part of the body would fall under the conventional definition of "portal"

Also, rule 0.

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 12:30 AM
and lock what up, their skin, their pours?

Besides, I doubt any part of the body would fall under the conventional definition of "portal"

Also, rule 0.

Shh! You're ruining my fun.

Besides Rule 0 doesn't count in thoretical optimization builds. This is kinda close to something like that so it doesn't count here either. :smallyuk:

Cubey
2008-06-05, 01:44 AM
Have you ever fought off an adventuring party while in cardiac arrest? And even if you only cast it on their esophogus, they would pass out long before 10 minutes. Try 1-2 minutes... while they are fighting you.

Umm, no. You didn't get my point. This ritual has a casting time of 10 minutes. That means you have to perform it for 10 minutes, with the target nearby and unmoving, and only after that will their chest start to close up or some other crazy stuff that the idiot DM permitted. No effect before these 10 minutes pass - nothing, niet, non, nada.

FoE
2008-06-05, 02:04 AM
Jack, how bored were you to make such a lame joke? Come on.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-06-05, 07:28 AM
1) Cubey, he's talking about real D&D, IE 3.5.

2) Unfortunately nowhere in the Core books does it ever explain that any creature has a chest, so you can't lock up their chest. Sorry.

Jack_Simth
2008-06-05, 07:39 AM
Umm, no. You didn't get my point. This ritual has a casting time of 10 minutes. That means you have to perform it for 10 minutes, with the target nearby and unmoving, and only after that will their chest start to close up or some other crazy stuff that the idiot DM permitted. No effect before these 10 minutes pass - nothing, niet, non, nada.

There's a way around that - as a touch spell, you can cast it and hold the charge until you accidentally touch something or cast another spell.

Lapak
2008-06-05, 09:02 AM
Ah, but you can still touch their chest and lock that up.Unless they're currently undergoing heart surgery, their chest is already closed. All you've accomplished is to make it much more difficult to open, so if you tried something this ridiculous in a campaign I was running I might give them a one-time +1 natural armor bonus.

Though I'd give the party a temporary + 1 to-hit morale bonus against that enemy for inspiring worldplay, so it would all cancel out.

Then we would never speak of it again. :smallsmile:

SamTheCleric
2008-06-05, 09:02 AM
Why would you want to Arcane Lock Portal... that was such an awesome game.

MandibleBones
2008-06-05, 09:13 AM
Find a way to reach inside someones body to touch their organs and you're golden. Till then, skin in the way.

Reach spell?

I don't know, I might try to run this by my DM. I've banned necro and am looking for a good instant-death spell that doesn't give dual saves like certain 4th-level illusions :)

Plus, the desire to threaten to lock someone's liver shut is definitely there.

Couldn't I do that with Hold Portal, though? :smallbiggrin:

Gorbash
2008-06-05, 09:18 AM
My god, this made me laugh. Or maybe I should just cry, because of the existance of people like Jack Zander?

SamTheCleric
2008-06-05, 09:19 AM
Couldn't I do that with Hold Portal, though? :smallbiggrin:

I just picked up my copy of the Orange Box.

Technically I cast Hold Portal

Does that mean I have magics?!

Gorbash
2008-06-05, 09:24 AM
OMG, I'm a Wizard too!

Clearly, pressing a button can be viewed as Somatic components, so by pressing a button that turned on my table lamp, I was clearly casting the Light spell! This is so awesome, I'm gonna go jump off of a building, cause you know, it doesn't say anywhere that free falling cannot be regarded as Flying.

riddles
2008-06-05, 09:37 AM
to bring the conversation down a notch - cast it on someone's butthole.

although it would be an occasion for the reach spell feat...

MandibleBones
2008-06-05, 09:38 AM
This is so awesome, I'm gonna go jump off of a building, cause you know, it doesn't say anywhere that free falling cannot be regarded as Flying.

Make sure it's only 10 feet. Then you can featherfall :)


Does that mean I have magics?!

You do indeed have the magics. I am sad that I do not cast hold portal, but such is life.

Would that make counterstrike a martial maneuver?

Chronicled
2008-06-05, 09:54 AM
Skin in the way? That's what a Badger (or other burrowing) familiar is for!
Yes I know what the actual familiar list consists of.

Burley
2008-06-05, 09:55 AM
Or on somebody's mouth to mimic "Silence"?
Or on somebody's eyes to mimic "Blind"?
They both open and close, so, you could force them shut. Though...eyes would require two castings.

However! If you wanted to use the spell twice to kill somebody, you could make a called shot to touch their mouth with the spell, and the next round called shot to pinch their nose shut with the spell. Then, they'd die.

Heck, you could Arcane Lock somebody's sword and scabbard to make their weapon useless.

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 10:00 AM
Jack, how bored were you to make such a lame joke? Come on.

It's not a joke. By RAW I honestly believe you can do this.
...
And I pointed this out to my DnD group and they told me to post it on here to see what other people thought.


Unless they're currently undergoing heart surgery, their chest is already closed.

But clearly their chest is not closed since they can still eat and breathe. There must be an opening somewhere for that to happen.



Couldn't I do that with Hold Portal, though? :smallbiggrin:

Nope, it specifically says it must be made of iron, stone, or wood.

AmberVael
2008-06-05, 10:02 AM
You know, the most disturbing part about this suggestion is when you consider the second sentence of the description in terms of someone's chest.

You can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it...
So after shutting down someone's arteries, I can lunge through their chest? Would it be like, Blood Magus style?

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ca_gallery/85432.jpg

Gorbash
2008-06-05, 10:02 AM
And I pointed this out to my DnD group and they told me to post it on here to see what other people thought.

I think you should stop playing D&D.

Tengu
2008-06-05, 10:14 AM
It's not a joke. By RAW I honestly believe you can do this.


Do you believe that Swordsages get 6* skill points at first level, too?

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 10:18 AM
I think you should stop playing D&D.

That's not a very nice thing to say to someone. Especially when you know nothing about that person except for him pointing out a loophole joke in a spell description.

Did my DM actually allow me to do this? Of course not, don't be dumb. But we got a good laugh out of it when I suggested it.

Knowing how Playgrounders are, my DnD group suggested I post the loophole on here to spark people's imaginative juices. Usually when I post a thread like this, one or two more rules loopholes get discovered/pointed out to us.


Unfortunately nowhere in the Core books does it ever explain that any creature has a chest, so you can't lock up their chest. Sorry.

It also doesn't say that humans have vital organs and can be sneak attacked. Or that they have eyes and can see. I don't think they need to describe things that everyone already knows.

Indon
2008-06-05, 10:21 AM
Hmm... admittedly, not instant death, but...

Step 1: Take the last watch for the night.

Step 2: Duct-tape a fellow party members' (preferably the loudest and most obnoxous one) mouth closed.

Step 3: Go a bit aways from the campsite and cast Arcane Lock.

Step 4: Discharge on Duct tape used in step 2.

Step 5: Silence is Golden.

Step 6: Profit!

Edit: Also, you could cast Arcane Lock on your own chest in order to make the DC for opening it (by, say, a sword going through it) increase by 10. I think that's a potentially effective defensive option.

Helgraf
2008-06-05, 11:25 AM
Emphasis mine.

You can cast this spell on someone's chest to lock up all passagesways of their heart and lungs, killing them in seconds. If you can't get your DM to accept that definition of chest, take this definition of the word portal:



You'll also note that Arcane Lock doesn't give a saving throw. You just have to be able to touch the portal you are locking. And all this time I wondered why such a "weak" spell cost 25 gold to cast.

Alright, quick shut down. The spell targets an object (to be specific, an object with the further definition chest). Living creatures are not objects by the targetting rules. That's been established a gazillion times. Ergo, fail.

Jasper Snowe
2008-06-05, 11:27 AM
to bring the conversation down a notch - cast it on someone's butthole.

Hey, that was my idea. I really have no idea what the results of that would be, but I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be pretty.

And whoever it said that we shouldn't play D&D anymore. Can you honestly say that you've never thought of completely rediculous uses for spells that were completely out there or just plain funny. Who here hasn't thought of using Time Stop and then going around and dropping Delayed Blast Fireballs down your opponent's pants?

Gorbash
2008-06-05, 11:29 AM
That's not a very nice thing to say to someone. Especially when you know nothing about that person except for him pointing out a loophole joke in a spell description.


It's not a joke. By RAW I honestly believe you can do this.

So is it, or is it not?


And I pointed this out to my DnD group and they told me to post it on here to see what other people thought.

So when I saw that you honestly think you can do this, I gave you my opinion.


And whoever it said that we shouldn't play D&D anymore. Can you honestly say that you've never thought of completely rediculous uses for spells that were completely out there or just plain funny. Who here hasn't thought of using Time Stop and then going around and dropping Delayed Blast Fireballs down your opponent's pants?

Yes, I have never ever thought of as nearly stupid idea as that one. The only time I departed from the usual use of the spells was when I cast Silent Image of a wall in front of a group of mindless undead.

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 11:36 AM
Do you believe that Swordsages get 6* skill points at first level, too?

Nope. But only becuase I've never read the ToB so I've never seen that typo.

I do believe that you can get a 3.0 ninja-to to have a critical threat range of 9 to 29 though (and then -9 to 29 if you use both keen and imporved crit).


Alright, quick shut down. The spell targets an object (to be specific, an object with the further definition chest). Living creatures are not objects by the targetting rules. That's been established a gazillion times. Ergo, fail.

Nope, wrong.

Target: The door, chest, or portal touched, up to 30 sq. ft./level in size
Nowhere does it mention object as the target.

Also funny:

Duration: Permanent

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 11:38 AM
So is it, or is it not?

So when I saw that you honestly think you can do this, I gave you my opinion.

I see... It's rather hard to type out sarcasim.

Burley
2008-06-05, 11:48 AM
Here's an idea: How about instead of forcing Jack to defend himself for no reason, we actually discuss the topic? OMGZNOWAY!!!

Here's a good idea, though. Arcane Lock your bag of holding. Keep that bastard CN party rogue from stealing your crap.

Gorbash
2008-06-05, 12:16 PM
I see... It's rather hard to type out sarcasim.

Your first post wasn't sarcastic. You should read that 'Samurai are awesome' thread, that's a good use of sarcasm. When I saw your post, I thought it either a bad joke or I dreaded you were serious, and then when you said that you honestly think it can be done I just thought you were like one of those people who invented Pun-pun...

Indon
2008-06-05, 12:18 PM
Yes, I have never ever thought of as nearly stupid idea as that one. The only time I departed from the usual use of the spells was when I cast Silent Image of a wall in front of a group of mindless undead.

I'm sorry. Well, at least you won't be giving your 4'th edition DM headaches through creative use of traps.

Graymayre
2008-06-05, 12:34 PM
I think I am starting to Detect Evil from some of the posters in this thread :smallbiggrin:

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 12:37 PM
Your first post wasn't sarcastic. You should read that 'Samurai are awesome' thread, that's a good use of sarcasm. When I saw your post, I thought it either a bad joke or I dreaded you were serious, and then when you said that you honestly think it can be done I just thought you were like one of those people who invented Pun-pun...

My first post wasn't sarcastic. The one where I said it wasn't a joke was.

Anyway, This thread looks much much friendlier after a good use of the block button.

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 12:56 PM
Here's a good idea, though. Arcane Lock your bag of holding. Keep that bastard CN party rogue from stealing your crap.

Now I remember! That's exactly how we came up with the idea in the first place!

We were in a room full of musical instruments that were playing by themselves and they were fascinating those of us with low will saves.
We deducted that they must be magical and we should grab the lot of them. Our DM said that there were too many of them for us to carry so we said we'd put them in a bag of holding. He said the music would still reach through and compel us so we thought of using arcane lock on the bag to keep it shut tight. Of course, all of this was irrelevant becuase none of us even had a bag of holding or an arcane lock spell.

Somewhere in there we thought of using it on someone's esophogus or the valves in your heart. I'm not even sure I'm the one that came up with the idea now, but I was definately the main one arguing about the magic items and spells we could use that we didn't have! :smallbiggrin:

Jasper Snowe
2008-06-05, 01:25 PM
Are you sure that it was that. I thought the entire thing started with the wizard's apprentice and the hold portal spell. Seeing as he only had level 1 spells and we had the idea that he was the the villian. Then it moved on to arcane lock when we found that it couldn't work with hold portal.

Aquillion
2008-06-05, 01:36 PM
You can cast this spell on someone's chest to lock up all passagesways of their heart and lungs, killing them in seconds.Aha, but you haven't read the spell description carefully enough:


An arcane lock spell cast upon a door, chest, or portal magically locks it. You can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it; otherwise, a door or object secured with this spell can be opened only by breaking in or with a successful dispel magic or knock spell.Nowhere does it say that it locks all the passageways inside the touched chest. It just locks the chest itself. (You can't lock their internal portals directly; even with arcane reach, you lack line of effect.)

Ergo, casting Arcane Lock on an enemy only make it so their chest can only be opened by breaking in... which is, hopefully (from their standpoint), already the case. Depending on how you read it, though, a 'dispel magic' or 'knock' after casting 'Arcane Lock' on them will make their chest explode. Also, 'you can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it...'

Hey, let's go read knock.


Knock
Target: One door, box, or chest with an area of up to 10 sq. ft./level
Doesn't say 'object'. We're golden. And:

The knock spell opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or arcane locked doors. It opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests.
So you could theoretically cast knock to make someone's chest explode; the only problem is that their chest has to count as 'locked' first. But arcane lock won't work for this, since "A knock spell does not remove an arcane lock; it only suppresses the effect for 10 minutes".

Jasper Snowe
2008-06-05, 01:46 PM
Or their chest will remain all exploded for just 10 minutes then seals back up again. Unfortunately, the person will already be dead.

Hmm, you could kill someone with no evidence of how. Aha! The perfect way to kill someone and puzzle the authorities.

Aquillion
2008-06-05, 01:50 PM
Oh, and while we're on the subject:

Leomund's Secret Chest
Casting Time: 10 minutes (Ugh. But still:)
Target: One chest and up to 1 cu. ft. of goods/caster level
The casting time sucks. But the target line is good. So let's try to figure out what happens.

You hide a chest on the Ethereal Plane for as long as sixty days and can retrieve it at will.Excellent. The question is, does the target die if their chest is seperated from them like this? If not, could you hide your own chest in this manner?

The chest can contain up to 1 cubic foot of material per caster level (regardless of the chest’s actual size, which is about 3 feet by 2 feet by 2 feet).Excellent, we can hide things inside our chest. However, the size restrictions could be problematic -- we'll have to play a fairly oddly-shaped character. Still, no big deal, it's not outside of the realm of possibility.

If any living creatures are in the chest, there is a 75% chance that the spell simply fails.No workie if you've been using Swallow Whole. But otherwise, it's fine.

Once the chest is hidden, you can retrieve it by concentrating (a standard action), and it appears next to you. Ick.

The chest must be exceptionally well crafted and expensive, constructed for you by master crafters.Warforged. Or breast implants. Which, incidently, adds a whole new layer of meaning to the '3 feet by 2 feet by 2 feet' requirement...

The cost of such a chest is never less than 5,000 gp.Really, really expensive implants.

Once it is constructed, you must make a tiny replica (of the same materials and perfect in every detail), so that the miniature of the chest appears to be a perfect copy. (The replica costs 50 gp.)All good. So at the time we get the implants, we also have someone make a miniature replica of our breasts.

You can have but one pair of these chests at any given time—even a wish spell does not allow more."One pair" is not clear, given what we're doing here, but we'll move on.


The chests are nonmagical and can be fitted with locks, wards, and so on, just as any normal chest can be.They have an odd definition of 'normal'. Still, I can see some advantages to warding your breasts.


To hide the chest, you cast the spell while touching both the chest and the replica.Plz ask before casting this spell on others!


The chest vanishes into the Ethereal Plane. You need the replica to recall the chest. After sixty days, there is a cumulative chance of 5% per day that the chest is irretrievably lost. If the miniature of the chest is lost or destroyed, there is no way, not even with a wish spell, that the large chest can be summoned back, although an extraplanar expedition might be mounted to find it.Uh oh. This could get unfortunate.


Living things in the chest eat, sleep, and age normally, and they die if they run out of food, air, water, or whatever they need to survive.They sure did add a lot of special rules for using this with Swallow Whole, given how uncommon it is.

So my conclusion: Leomund's Secret Chest is intended to be used by sorceresses who hide one cubic foot per level of treasure between their cartoonishly big, absurdly expensive breasts... which they then banish to the ethereal plane (because honestly, who can adventure with a total of twelve square feet worth of breasts?) This is probably really intended for giantesses, who are the only people who could reasonably handle breasts at the size needed; that would also explain all the special rules for 'swallow whole'.

Hectonkhyres
2008-06-05, 01:52 PM
Besides, I doubt any part of the body would fall under the conventional definition of "portal"
I would rule that any orifice be considered a portal. Its the invisible chastity belt, the perfect gag/weightloss plan, and a surefire cure for incontinence!

Caracol
2008-06-05, 01:54 PM
In italian, chest is translated "baule", with is a box with things in. Not a body part. Because that's what the spell is intended to do: locking boxs and doors.

Also, please, if you're so kind, explain me, what the f***ing hell is "I lock your chest" supposed to mean. Locking a body part?

I know this is a joke thread, but this kind of wordplay techinque is actually commonly used by annoying powerplayers in their pestering and useless attempt to get the best from everything they put their hands on, calling it "optimizing".

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 02:10 PM
I know this is a joke thread, but this kind of wordplay techinque is actually commonly used by annoying powerplayers in their pestering and useless attempt to get the best from everything they put their hands on, calling it "optimizing".

Is there a problem?

Indon
2008-06-05, 02:13 PM
Also, please, if you're so kind, explain me, what the f***ing hell is "I lock your chest" supposed to mean. Locking a body part?

Ahem.


Add 10 to the normal DC to break open a door or portal affected by this spell.

So the spell makes it harder for someone to break open your chest! And believe me, you wouldn't want your chest broken open.

Edit: I just noticed that it doesn't increase the break DC for chests. What's up with that?

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-05, 02:15 PM
Aquillion: Brilliant! The nymphology handbook already has a spell for doing precisely that, if I recall.

If you lock their chest, it means a great big lock appears and you can't open it without a key.

Duh. Course, doesn't mean you can't punch holes in it or anything.

Caracol
2008-06-05, 02:23 PM
Is there a problem?

Sometimes. To me at least. Of course, everybody should play the way they want. Powerplay and Roleplay have the same rights. The problem is that when Powerplayers (or "optimizer", that's exactly the same) arrive, they manage to mess up every session in way I couldn't even imagine. And this thread, even if is a joke (I HOPE that's a joke, at least) makes you realize how far powerplayers can arrive when it comes to screwing up the rules using pointless methods like "this word can also mean this" and "nothing says that you can't wear two bucklers"

Of course,they do this for fun, but messing up all the session and ruining the fun and enjoyment of the others. That's why I don't share my game table with powerplayers, and I get so angry when I see threads like this.

Aquillion
2008-06-05, 02:26 PM
In italian, chest is translated "baule", with is a box with things in. Not a body part. Because that's what the spell is intended to do: locking boxs and doors. That's not true. "Chest" can be translated into Italian as "seni", which can also mean "heart"; and there is no way to confuse it with "baule", so it is very clear that these spells are meant to affect bodies and not boxes.

Also, wearing two bucklers isn't powergaming. You have four limbs, after all. And you could probably put one on a strap around your forehead, too.

Burley
2008-06-05, 02:28 PM
In italian, chest is translated "baule", with is a box with things in. Not a body part. Because that's what the spell is intended to do: locking boxs and doors.

Also, please, if you're so kind, explain me, what the f***ing hell is "I lock your chest" supposed to mean. Locking a body part?

I know this is a joke thread, but this kind of wordplay techinque is actually commonly used by annoying powerplayers in their pestering and useless attempt to get the best from everything they put their hands on, calling it "optimizing".

I'm fairly certain that the book/SRD he is referencing is in English. I understand that there are multiple languages in the world. But, since we're all talking about the word "chest" which is an homonym meaning not only a box, but also an area of the body. Just because you know something doesn't mean it applies to everything.

You can lock a jaw. It's a medical disorder. You can lock your joints. My knees lock all the time, actually.

This isn't a joke thread. This is a thread with a humorous idea, in my opinion. I don't think Jack intended people to be horrible horrid to him. It's probably equally annoying to some people who only post on threads to tear people down. Leave the guy alone. There are sillier and stupider things in the world.

Worira
2008-06-05, 02:33 PM
Ah ha! Ruby Ray of Reversal, among other effects, has "Doors (or chests, drawers, cabinets, and so on) that are locked, barred, or under the effect of an arcane lock spell are opened."

So you can use it to open barred drawers. Take that, court sketch artists!

Caracol
2008-06-05, 02:33 PM
That's not true. "Chest" can be translated into Italian as "seni", which can also mean "heart"; and there is no way to confuse it with "baule", so it is very clear that these spells are meant to affect bodies and not boxes.

Are you using google translator to come up with that stuff? No, because, if you didn't noticed, I'm italian, and I can say:

- Chest can be translated with seni: true, but breasts is the actual translation of seni.
- seni can also mean heart: completely false. Two totally different body parts. It's like saying that you pump blood trough the body with your boobs, and if you "lock" one of them (and I still don't know what the hell this means anyway) you will die because you "blood can't be conveyed" and stuff.

Before you ask, I'm not taking this too seriously :smallwink:

Burley
2008-06-05, 02:36 PM
If my players every brough something like Arcane Lock to my table with an intent like this, I'd allow it to work in various ways. Though...instant death is a long shot...
You could use an Animate Rope+Arcane Lock combo to grapple somebody with a chain, and then increase the escape DC by 10. I'd allow the same DC increase if used on shackles.

I'd say you could lock any bodily opening, as long as you touch it, which is a called shot.

You could lock up a wizard's spell component pouch to keep him from casting spells, but that'd be a called shot touch, also.


By the way Jack, if you put something in a bag of holding, everything about it is supressed. It comes out exactly as you put it in. If you put something that let out an aura of Inflict Light Wounds in a 10 ft radius. You could put it in a Bag o' Holdin' and the aura does not hurt you. It isn't just a big bad, it is a portal to a different dimension.
Yeah, I said portal. Arcane Lock that junk.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-05, 02:47 PM
I'm just amazed this whole thing is still going on..... /arcane lock?

Caracol
2008-06-05, 02:48 PM
You can lock a jaw. It's a medical disorder. You can lock your joints. My knees lock all the time, actually.


If you are talking about bone joints, I'm ok. But we are talking about a general unspecified area, large enough to contain the heart and other things, saying that "it will be locked" without specifying what's happening actually.

And of course, you are trying to prove your point using the word "lock", that is ambiguous as "chest". Using two ambiguous terms trying to have an istant death spell at level 2 is the kind of stupid wordplay I mentioned before.

Truth is, you can't "lock" an hearth. You can stop him, but not "lock". It doesn't work that way.

But I appreciate the general sillyness of people saying "lock grows on chest Lol, let's put a trap there also", because it's kinda funny. If it's just for this kind of fun, then I'm alright.

But I will smite with my kendo stick every player that tries to do this in game. :smallmad:

AKA_Bait
2008-06-05, 03:10 PM
Ok, if we want to nitpick...


An arcane lock spell cast upon a door, chest, or portal magically locks it. You can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it; otherwise, a door or object secured with this spell can be opened only by breaking in or with a successful dispel magic or knock spell. Add 10 to the normal DC to break open a door or portal affected by this spell. (A knock spell does not remove an arcane lock; it only suppresses the effect for 10 minutes.)

Note that in no place does it say that arcane lock actually closes the object. Merely that it locks it. I can lock my door but have it open at the same time, 'locking' is merely a function of the locking mechanisim. Hence, were someones arteries to be closed after arcane lock was cast on their chest, it would be much harder to get them open again. But until such a time, they are fine.

Alternativley, you have just made it harder to crack open someone's chest. The break DC of their sternum just went up by 10. Other than that, nothing would happen. A persons internal organs are not their chest, they are in their chest. If I have a regular chest with a music box in it, and I lock the chest, that does not mean I have also locked the music box.

As for reach spell, for anyhing but the chest use, you don't have line of effect unless you have already exposed their internal organs, at which point using Arcane Lock in this way seems like overkill.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-05, 03:14 PM
Hey, that was my idea. I really have no idea what the results of that would be, but I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be pretty.


Believe it or not, that great game, F.A.T.A.L., has rules for this:


On average, humans defecate once per day. If the anus is sealed, the creature will be unable to defecate. Constipation will be uncomfortable after 1 day of a sealed ass. The next 1d4 days will seem unbearable and the creature will be unable to concentrate on any stimulus or perform any action. After this duration, the creature will die.

Caracol
2008-06-05, 03:31 PM
May I now reaffirm that the Blood Magus' 'jump through body' attack is one of the coolest class features there is?

Yes you can. Also because it's cool as a concept, and not because it does "OMG 12d16 damage!!!". The "concept" factor is clearly missed by the majority of people in the "Gaming" section. DnD core and splatbooks give you character concepts to play, with some mechanics to use them in game. They DON'T give you just a bunch of rules to mess up with to obtain "the unbeatable character" and to umbalance the game by yourself trying to "win". DnD isn't about "winning" against the DM or the other characters. It's about roleplaying a character concept.

Of course, everybody is free to play it in that other way. Just, get out my lawn of you do this.

Now, this whole "arcane lock" thing doesn't even have a concept. It's just a play on an ambiguous word to have the illusion to be a better player just because you are powerful.

marjan
2008-06-05, 03:38 PM
Now, this whole "arcane lock" thing doesn't even have a concept.

I think you missed the point. This is "funny rules" concept.



It's just a play on an ambiguous word to have the abjuration to be a better player just because you are powerful.

Fixed it for you. :smallbiggrin:

NephandiMan
2008-06-05, 03:57 PM
A really funny and creative use of Leomund's Secret Chest, which is far too long for me to quote in full.

My favorite part of this was the bit about mounting an extra-planar expedition to find the target's chest. I know female PCs have a disproportionately high chance of being va-va-voom, but DAMN.

Caracol
2008-06-05, 03:59 PM
I think you missed the point. This is "funny rules" concept.

Not really. It won't be so much fun when your party's 3rd level wizard will start killing random NPCs and menacing you of instant death saying "HA! THE MANUAL ALLOWS ME TO DO IT! SUCKER!!!"


Fixed it for you. :smallbiggrin:

Eh-eh.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-05, 04:16 PM
Not really. It won't be so much fun when your party's 3rd level wizard will start killing random NPCs and menacing you of instant death saying "HA! THE MANUAL ALLOWS ME TO DO IT! SUCKER!!!"


That's why you bust out the Universal Stillpoint Immovable Rods to kill hi-

CLANG!

WHAT WAS THAT?

Chronicled
2008-06-05, 05:05 PM
Not really. It won't be so much fun when your party's 3rd level wizard will start killing random NPCs and menacing you of instant death saying "HA! THE MANUAL ALLOWS ME TO DO IT! SUCKER!!!"


Depending on the nature of the wizard, I'll do that anyways at level 3. Sleep someone in an alley, coup-de-grace, and rifle through their pockets.

Not that I've done this in a game yet, mind you.

Graymayre
2008-06-05, 05:09 PM
An arcane lock spell cast upon a door, chest, or portal magically locks it. You can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it;

Instead of using this in conjunction with other spells, there is another possibility.

1. Have a Wizard who has a high Strength stat, improved grappling, and other grapple buffs.

2. Cast Arcane Lock on the chest someone you feel there is an easy chance of defeating in grapple.

3. Make two grapple checks. One to grab them, the other to force your hand into their chest (which only you can pass). Once in there, you crush that person's heart or other vital organ.

4. Profit!.... somehow.

Chronos
2008-06-05, 06:33 PM
The "concept" factor is clearly missed by the majority of people in the "Gaming" section. DnD core and splatbooks give you character concepts to play, with some mechanics to use them in game. They DON'T give you just a bunch of rules to mess up with to obtain "the unbeatable character" and to umbalance the game by yourself trying to "win". DnD isn't about "winning" against the DM or the other characters. It's about roleplaying a character concept.I don't think it's missed by the people in this forum, just the threads. Character concepts are a lot more subjective than mechanics, so there just isn't as much to discuss with them. If start a thread saying how cool my character concept is, and someone else says that my concept isn't cool at all, what more is there to say? Neither side can prove their point. But if I start a thread saying how my character can do 1,173 damage a round at level 17, and someone else says that I can't, then I can list the spells, feats, and items I'm using, and show my math, and maybe someone else will ask how that works when the material from the Tome of Powerful Überness is disallowed, and someone else can point out that I can increase it to 1,226 damage using some other item, and so on. There's room for discussion, there. So more threads get started for discussion about mechanics, even if people consider the concepts just as important, or more so.

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 10:46 PM
Maybe I need to say this: If anyone honestly thinks that this would be allowed in an actual session, they probably do not have the intellegence to post on these forums.

This thread is ment to be humorous. It's purpose is to look at loopholes in the spell and say, "If I read RAW as strictly as possible, this is the kind of crazy stuff I can do!"

Aquillion, you're a person after my own heart chest.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-06-05, 10:58 PM
It's purpose is to look at loopholes in the spell and say, "If I read RAW as strictly as possible, this is the kind of crazy stuff I can do!"

Except the point is you aren't reading it strictly at all, you are assuming that "locking" someone's chest has some effect on them that it doesn't have.

Worira
2008-06-05, 11:01 PM
A better question is whether opening someone's chest does anything to them.

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 11:04 PM
Except the point is you aren't reading it strictly at all, you are assuming that "locking" someone's chest has some effect on them that it doesn't have.

If you locked someone's chest, that means nothing can enter or leave the chest. Therefore, their esophogus would seal up and their jugular veins that leave their chest through their neck.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-06-05, 11:24 PM
If you locked someone's chest, that means nothing can enter or leave the chest.

No it doesn't.

When you Arcane Lock a door, does it become airtight? Of course not. You are trying to force something that doesn't work. Locking someone's chest doesn't hurt them in any way.

Jack Zander
2008-06-05, 11:26 PM
No it doesn't.

When you Arcane Lock a door, does it become airtight? Of course not. You are trying to force something that doesn't work. Locking someone's chest doesn't hurt them in any way.

Your chest doesn't have to be completely airtight for you to suffocate. If it locks good enough for you to not be able to swallow food, you'll suffocate pretty quickly.

FoE
2008-06-05, 11:49 PM
Maybe I need to say this: If anyone honestly thinks that this would be allowed in an actual session, they probably do not have the intellegence to post on these forums.

This thread is ment to be humorous. It's purpose is to look at loopholes in the spell and say, "If I read RAW as strictly as possible, this is the kind of crazy stuff I can do!"

Jack, you needed to specify that in the OP. I thought you were serious. I had a whole rant about rules lawyering worked up. :smalltongue:

OK, here's the problem: the spell doesn't actually specify what it would do to a human being. And I've never heard of someone having a "locked chest" and I don't honestly know what the hell that would do to a person. You're assuming it would cut off their esophagus, but I don't know, would it?

The only useful loophole I could think of was that the spell would "lock" a person in place, sort of like Hold Person.

Caracol
2008-06-06, 03:43 AM
I don't think it's missed by the people in this forum, just the threads. Character concepts are a lot more subjective than mechanics, so there just isn't as much to discuss with them. If start a thread saying how cool my character concept is, and someone else says that my concept isn't cool at all, what more is there to say? Neither side can prove their point. But if I start a thread saying how my character can do 1,173 damage a round at level 17, and someone else says that I can't, then I can list the spells, feats, and items I'm using, and show my math, and maybe someone else will ask how that works when the material from the Tome of Powerful Überness is disallowed, and someone else can point out that I can increase it to 1,226 damage using some other item, and so on. There's room for discussion, there. So more threads get started for discussion about mechanics, even if people consider the concepts just as important, or more so.

What can I say to these people? Enjoy playing a bunch of numbers.


Maybe I need to say this: If anyone honestly thinks that this would be allowed in an actual session, they probably do not have the intellegence to post on these forums.

Thank you.


This thread is ment to be humorous. It's purpose is to look at loopholes in the spell and say, "If I read RAW as strictly as possible, this is the kind of crazy stuff I can do!"


Even if it's humorous, and I wasn't convinced about that until you clearly said that, that kind wordplay you use is commonly used by people that actually manage to use them is the session. I've had my experiences about it, and because the spells were read "strictly as possible".

This is an humorous thread, but the Gaming section litterally is infested with threads like this, proposing new and original solutions to ruin the next game session. All humorous? Oh, I wish.

This one looked so stupid that I couldn't resist and I went ranting, before realizing that it was a joke thread. Sorry about that, but the problem I pointed out still stands in my opinion.

Graymayre
2008-06-06, 06:47 AM
A better question is whether opening someone's chest does anything to them.

Like I said before, the arcane lock allows you to go through the thing you had locked. This would allow you to shove your arm into his chest and grapple his heart (which probably has a low grapple modifier :smallbiggrin:).

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-06-06, 08:57 AM
Your chest doesn't have to be completely airtight for you to suffocate. If it locks good enough for you to not be able to swallow food, you'll suffocate pretty quickly.

But "locking" someone's chest, doesn't make them unable to swallow food either.

It doesn't do anything, that's the point. Locking someone's chest does absolutely nothing to them. Yes if you claim that it does X then it would kill them, but if casting Mage Armor on someone's arm caused the Armor to appear centered on the arm, and bisect their chest and face, then that would be a no save insta death spell too.

The point is that Mage Armor doesn't do that, and locking someone's chest doesn't do anything to stop them eating or breathing either.

Graymayre
2008-06-06, 09:35 AM
But "locking" someone's chest, doesn't make them unable to swallow food either.

It doesn't do anything, that's the point. Locking someone's chest does absolutely nothing to them. Yes if you claim that it does X then it would kill them, but if casting Mage Armor on someone's arm caused the Armor to appear centered on the arm, and bisect their chest and face, then that would be a no save insta death spell too.


Why is everyone assuming that arcane lock, if cast on something, will only affect that particular part of matter? The flaw in this is the fact that casting this on something like a door or chest does not affect just one material of the target.

Example: Lets say I am in front of a door that is made of iron, with the exception of a single wood piece in the center. If that just happened to be the area I touched when casting arcane lock, is that the only piece that is barred? No, The entire door is under its influence. It would be the same case with a person's chest. It would affect the whole thing, but not the surrounding wall, or in a person's case, the arms, head, etc.

Also, I would like to vouch for Jack, as I was the DM during that campaign. This idea was most definitely a joke that came up and not meant to be taken seriously.

God, this is sooo trying my paladin code of conduct. :smallamused:

AstralFire
2008-06-06, 11:50 AM
This one looked so stupid that I couldn't resist and I went ranting, before realizing that it was a joke thread. Sorry about that, but the problem I pointed out still stands in my opinion.

No, it really doesn't. There is virtually no power gamer over the age of 11 that would pull this crap in a game.

I have created power builds before. I have yet to use a single one in a game, barring that one campaign where the DM asked us all to bring our strongest optimization tricks. And none of us relied on this kind of stupid wordplay, either. Some people enjoy thought exercises. Ever hear of Sudoku?

I DM and I have some people who frequently post optimized builds. None of them -play- anything close to a full optimization build. One of them is an amazing roleplayer, with good concepts and dialog mastery. BUT HE LIKES MATH, TOO.

Caracol
2008-06-06, 12:55 PM
No, it really doesn't. There is virtually no power gamer over the age of 11 that would pull this crap in a game.

I have created power builds before. I have yet to use a single one in a game, barring that one campaign where the DM asked us all to bring our strongest optimization tricks. And none of us relied on this kind of stupid wordplay, either. Some people enjoy thought exercises. Ever hear of Sudoku?

I DM and I have some people who frequently post optimized builds. None of them -play- anything close to a full optimization build. One of them is an amazing roleplayer, with good concepts and dialog mastery. BUT HE LIKES MATH, TOO.

- Could happen. It's happened in some of the session I played. Not something this stupid, of course, but similar enough.

- Builds, optimizations, min-maxing, muchkinery.... Let's call the things with their names please: powergaming. Not that's is a bad thing after all: just, lets try to be honest.
Using the build you made in game or not doesn't really changes the fact that you (and most people in Gaming) spend a lot of time not speculating on your cool character you would like to play, but on how uberpowerful and unbeatable cheesy he could be if you use this or that build or obscure reference material, without spending a single moment on thinking about the character's personality or justifying the powers he has. This is no "thought exercise". Math doesn't matter. You just ABUSE the gaming system.
Honestly, what kind of "thought exercise" is "I lock your chest" (that, still, for the freaking tenth time, doesn't MEAN ANYTHING)?

- A full optimized build doesn't exist. It's impossible to reach. It's poitless.
The game is not "umbalanced" because allows you to do umbalancing builds. The game becomes umbalanced because you do poitless builds.

I know that this thread is not supposed to be about this, it's supposed to be about something you can't really talk about because it doesn't mean anything.
But I don't want to start a new thread in Gaming. I did it only once, asking about some fighter feats builds, hoping to have some flavourful and personal combat styles with the correlate mechanics. The thread became "Powerbuild Uberfighter Extravaganza", with everybody saying "I can do way more damage to you at that level, if you look at this feat it states that..." You know what? I DON'T care. That's not what I was asking for, neither is "thought exercise", because it looks like gaming masturbation.

Sorry if I've been arsh. No offense intented to anyone.

marjan
2008-06-06, 01:10 PM
-
- Builds, optimizations, min-maxing, muchkinery.... Let's call the things with their names please: powergaming.

Yes. Let's do that.



- Cheese: Describes an ability, spell, class, or other rule thought to be problematic in some manner. Sometimes used as a synonym for broken, more often refers to a build or rule that makes a character very powerful but not quite broken (eg. spiked chain cheese, divine meta-cheese), especially if the particular build becomes a dominant option for a particular class. Also often applied if the subject is considered absurd or ridiculous - ie. cheesy. For example, double weapons may be considered cheese as they are statistically sound but realistically improbable or impossible. May also refer to stereotypical fluff or backstory.
- Min/Maxing*: The practice of attempting to derive the maximum benefit for the minimum penalty. Oft times looked down upon as power gaming or munchkinism, but in most cases is merely attempting to build the best character given a certain set of stats and other restrictions. Usually does not attempt to exploit rules loopholes intentionally. Someone who does this is a “min/maxer.”
- Munchkin*: Sometimes a synonym for power gaming, especially when the desire for power overrides all other concerns and is a detriment to the game, more often refers to someone who has the same goals as a power gamer but violates or ignores rules in order to achieve his goals. Also someone who ignores issues of suspension of disbelief, ability to fit into a campaign in a role-play sense, and common sense in their quest for power in game. Can also refer to the process of doing things the way a munchkin would. Munchkinism refers to the mindset that leads to this, or the practice itself.
- Power Gaming*: Varying definitions, but usually refers to attempting to “break” certain aspects of the game in the player’s favor. Also, the intent to gather as much power in game as possible, sometimes to the detriment of the campaign. Someone who does this a “power gamer.” Differs from munchkinism in that a power gamer nominally still works within the system's rules, though they often exploit loopholes and questionable rule interpretations. Sometimes used as a synonym for the given definition of “min/maxing,” and other times as a synonym for “munchkin.”

AstralFire
2008-06-06, 05:47 PM
Using the build you made in game or not doesn't really changes the fact that you (and most people in Gaming) spend a lot of time not speculating on your cool character you would like to play, but on how uberpowerful and unbeatable cheesy he could be if you use this or that build or obscure reference material, without spending a single moment on thinking about the character's personality or justifying the powers he has. This is no "thought exercise". Math doesn't matter. You just ABUSE the gaming system.

You. Are. Wrong.

I am only going to say this once more.

You. Are. Wrong.

I would spend entire nights talking to my girlfriend about character concepts. Entire nights. Multiple nights in a row. She can vouch for me on this. I forget if she has a GitP account or not.

I spend most of my time thinking about character concepts. I don't spend time writing threads about them because there's basically no feedback I want on them from a bunch of strangers. There is virtually no way most of you can make my cool Kobold Mounted Archer, an aged general with faint traces of Song Dragon in his veins, cooler than I already have. And I'm not into making threads just to have my back patted.

I lied, I'll say it again:

You. Are. Wrong.

I'm an author. I should hope I have some sense of what makes a character interesting. Now, kindly shove off and stop pretending you know what's in my (and every other optimizer's) head. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I just frankly don't think Anonymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29) is worthy of the greatness of my story hooks, character concepts, and ideas, nor the time that it would take to convey them. If you wish to continue these incorrect hypotheses, then I warn you to bear in mind the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity).


Honestly, what kind of "thought exercise" is "I lock your chest" (that, still, for the freaking tenth time, doesn't MEAN ANYTHING)?

This wasn't a thought exercise, unlike the Character Optimization boards. This was a "hee hee, I'm being silly with the rules." Or did you already forget that this wasn't a serious thread?

EDIT: You seriously said that I don't spend time thinking about character concepts. This offends me because guess what this nerd passes as an excuse for post-orgasm pillow talk? Character concepts for my books and D&D games. Occasionally pokémon. JFC, if you were any more off-course you'd be "Gilligan's Island In the Playground."

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-06-06, 07:41 PM
Why is everyone assuming that arcane lock, if cast on something, will only affect that particular part of matter? The flaw in this is the fact that casting this on something like a door or chest does not affect just one material of the target.

Example: Lets say I am in front of a door that is made of iron, with the exception of a single wood piece in the center. If that just happened to be the area I touched when casting arcane lock, is that the only piece that is barred? No, The entire door is under its influence. It would be the same case with a person's chest. It would affect the whole thing, but not the surrounding wall, or in a person's case, the arms, head, etc.

Except that the whole point of the argument is that it says "You may lock a door or chest." So no, you can't lock someone's arms. Yes it does affect the whole door, and it affects the whole chest, because those are the things that it says it affects. But it doesn't affect those things that aren't included, such as arms, and walls.

And since all it does is lock someone's chest, it doesn't matter, because locking someone's chest does not negatively impact them in any way.

Jack Zander
2008-06-07, 12:00 AM
Except that the whole point of the argument is that it says "You may lock a door or chest." So no, you can't lock someone's arms. Yes it does affect the whole door, and it affects the whole chest, because those are the things that it says it affects. But it doesn't affect those things that aren't included, such as arms, and walls.

And since all it does is lock someone's chest, it doesn't matter, because locking someone's chest does not negatively impact them in any way.

If you lock a chest, can you put things into it? I don't think so. So how are you going to swallow food and breathe with a locked chest?

Also, if your chest can't move at all then your lungs can't expand. Go ahead, try to inhale without moving your abdonmen.

Aquillion
2008-06-07, 01:20 AM
I noticed something else while searching the SRD for things related to this.


Chime of Opening

A chime of opening is a hollow mithral tube about 1 foot long. When struck, it sends forth magical vibrations that cause locks, lids, doors, valves, and portals to open. The device functions against normal bars, shackles, chains, bolts, and so on. A chime of opening also automatically dispels a hold portal spell or even an arcane lock cast by a wizard of lower than 15th level. Chime of Opening: The D&D equivilent to a defibrillator?

The ironic thing is that this one actually makes a great deal of logical sense (it's a general-purpose chime of opening; why wouldn't it open stuck blood vessels?) And having it used like this is an interesting thematic thing... it's not as though players regularly suffer heart attacks.

And I like the image of a healer shouting "CLEAR!" and then striking a chime of opening at the patient's heart while their Deathwatch spell pings uselessly (unlike our real-world heart-monitoring equipment, deathwatch would ping when the heart is not beating.)

While we're on the subject:

A mimic can assume the general shape of any object that fills roughly 150 cubic feet (5 feet by 5 feet by 6 feet), such as a massive chest"Hey, giantess, nice AAAARGH"

(On the other hand, tame mimics offer hope to female giants who suffer from breast cancer and require mastectomies...)

Caracol
2008-06-07, 04:38 AM
You. Are. Wrong.

I am only going to say this once more.

You. Are. Wrong.

I would spend entire nights talking to my girlfriend about character concepts. Entire nights. Multiple nights in a row. She can vouch for me on this. I forget if she has a GitP account or not.

I spend most of my time thinking about character concepts. I don't spend time writing threads about them because there's basically no feedback I want on them from a bunch of strangers. There is virtually no way most of you can make my cool Kobold Mounted Archer, an aged general with faint traces of Song Dragon in his veins, cooler than I already have. And I'm not into making threads just to have my back patted.

Ok, sorry, I've been too hasty when I wrote it, and I'll quote a correct myself to express what I was really meaning:


Using the build you made in game or not doesn't really changes the fact that you (and most people in Gaming) spend a lot of time on the boardsnot speculating on your cool character you would like to play, but on how uberpowerful and unbeatable cheesy he could be if you use this or that build or obscure reference material, without spending a single moment in the thread thinking about the character's personality or justifying the powers he has. This is no "thought exercise". Math doesn't matter. You just ABUSE the gaming system.

This is what I intended to say. I don't doubt that you or everybody else think about the character you will play. But the problem is that, by these boards, it doesn't seem like this, since we have optimizations and "abusing the game being silly" threads, and not a single one (of if there are, they're like 2 or 3) that talks about your character concept and ask for some way to convey your concept into the mechanics. ALL the threads become "You suck, with Vow of Poverty and other abusable stuff you can do more damage".



I lied, I'll say it again:

You. Are. Wrong.

I'm an author. I should hope I have some sense of what makes a character interesting. Now, kindly shove off and stop pretending you know what's in my (and every other powerplayer's) head. Fixed it for you.



The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I just frankly don't think Anonymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29) is worthy of the greatness of my story hooks, character concepts, and ideas, nor the time that it would take to convey them.

The first sentence is true, but also don't demonstrate anything if you don't give evidences later.
The second sentence, however, is the problem with you and all the others. You do a bad mistake not sharing your character concepts, thinking that Anonymous is not worthy enough and istead running into his arms when it comes to know how damage-dealer and overpowered you can be at level 1.
This is your mistake. Not thinking that concepts have the same discussion value than (messed up) mechanics, and that if you only talk about messed up mechanics, chances are that you don't even mind about what you will play, but only if it's powerful or not. And given the nature of powerplay (detrimental for the game by its definition), allow me to be angry about it, when I see a lot of potential player talk about how to ruin a game, and only about that.



If you wish to continue these incorrect hypotheses, then I warn you to bear in mind the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity).

I have no problem of being mistreated. Don't expect me to run to momma or to the boards admins. I will probably just begin to wonder why I deserved it, since I don't think I offended anyone.


EDIT: You seriously said that I don't spend time thinking about character concepts. This offends me because guess what this nerd passes as an excuse for post-orgasm pillow talk? Character concepts for my books and D&D games. Occasionally pokémon. JFC, if you were any more off-course you'd be "Gilligan's Island In the Playground."

(I don't get the last reference, please explain!!!)
I did say that, but I corrected myself. Sorry about that. But I must insist on the fact that you FAIL at not trying to talk about your concepts in the board, as I fail at getting angry at this thread. But I couldn't help myself, and I will return on the OP's discussion because I don't want to lose sight with this wonderful example of pointlessnessy, giving my contribution.



If you lock a chest, can you put things into it? I don't think so. So how are you going to swallow food and breathe with a locked chest?

Lockying a chest doesn't mean anything. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this, it still doesn't mean anything. Notice that I don't do this for trolling (trolls try to make people angry. As far as I understand, I'm the one that is the most angry by now), but just to point out that lockying a chest doesn't mean anything.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-06-07, 09:09 AM
If you lock a chest, can you put things into it? I don't think so. So how are you going to swallow food and breathe with a locked chest?

Also, if your chest can't move at all then your lungs can't expand. Go ahead, try to inhale without moving your abdonmen.

If you lock a chest can you put things into it? Yes.

Does air enter a locked chest? Yes.

If you lock something that is already open does it automatically close it? No.

Does "locking" someone's chest mean that they can't move their chest? No.

Jack Zander
2008-06-07, 10:06 AM
If you lock a chest can you put things into it? Yes.

Does air enter a locked chest? Yes.

If you lock something that is already open does it automatically close it? No.

Does "locking" someone's chest mean that they can't move their chest? No.

Go crawl inside a chest and have someone lock you inside. See how long it takes you to suffocate. Sure, air gets in, but not nearly enough for you to survive.

AmberVael
2008-06-07, 10:33 AM
If you lock a chest can you put things into it? Yes.

Does air enter a locked chest? Yes.

If you lock something that is already open does it automatically close it? No.

Does "locking" someone's chest mean that they can't move their chest? No.

Go crawl inside a chest and have someone lock you inside. See how long it takes you to suffocate. Sure, air gets in, but not nearly enough for you to survive.

This argument is silly. You try and make examples of what happens to other things when they are locked, and that makes no sense.

A fence gate can be climbed over, moved around, and doesn't even necessarily have an enclosed area. Yet it can be locked.
I could lock just a complete normal lock that isn't connected to anything.
How does that relate to the discussion? It doesn't.

Now, how about a real basis of an argument? Lets see what locking something (in this case a chest) does.

The first definition of locking is:

1.
a. To fasten the lock of.
A chest has no lock, so under this definition nothing would happen. However, Arcane Lock gives us no definition of what a lock IS, so we could easily go with the second part:

b. To shut or make secure with or as if with locks
So as in, metaphorically "lock" something. To SHUT. Which means you could shut someone's chest- but that also seems a bit vague, because how do you shut someone's chest?

Looking through other definitions, I think this one would make the most sense for a biological chest:

3. To fix in place so that movement or escape is impossible; hold fast
So your chest can no longer move (and thus, unless you want some extreme amputation- you're not really moving either).

Roland St. Jude
2008-06-07, 01:23 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it friendly in here. We do not permit any attacks, insults, or belittling of other posters. That includes insulting others based on preferred play styles.

Caracol
2008-06-07, 02:29 PM
Ok, let's put an end to this. It's hopeless anyway.

Jack Zander, sorry if I lead the discussion to another argument. This thread was not supposed to be about it (hey, I bumped up the views, you should thank me anyway! :smalltongue:).

I'm also sorry if I've been offensive. I think I wasn't, but you can never be sure.

And I also have learned a lesson: staying away from the Gaming section. So long! Enjoy having discussion about whatever you prefer.

Jack Zander
2008-06-07, 06:19 PM
So your chest can no longer move (and thus, unless you want some extreme amputation- you're not really moving either).

Which still means you can't breathe. As I said before, you can't breathe without your chest expanding.

Chronos
2008-06-07, 08:39 PM
Which still means you can't breathe. As I said before, you can't breathe without your chest expanding.Speak for yourself. I can breath without my chest expanding, just moving my diaphragm. It'd be even easier if my chest were physically restrained from moving. Mind, I can't breathe very deeply this way, but it's enough to keep going indefinitely.

Jack Zander
2008-06-07, 08:56 PM
Speak for yourself. I can breath without my chest expanding, just moving my diaphragm. It'd be even easier if my chest were physically restrained from moving. Mind, I can't breathe very deeply this way, but it's enough to keep going indefinitely.

If your diaphram moves, your lungs expand and collaspe, and your chest does the same. Even breathing with your stomache will still move your chest some.

Graymayre
2008-06-08, 05:56 PM
And since all it does is lock someone's chest, it doesn't matter, because locking someone's chest does not negatively impact them in any way.

but the wizard may enter something he has locked with this spell. Therefore, much like using the spell to grab the contents of a treasure chest, the wizard can reach in and grab the contents of a human chest (ex. his organs).

God, I've posted that three times; am I all sound and fury signifying nothing? :smallbiggrin:

Worira
2008-06-08, 08:12 PM
Wrong. Arcane Lock says the caster can freely pass his own lock, not freely pass whatever is locked by it. All that means is that a wizard can Arcane Lock a door, then open and close it whenever he wants. If someone else comes along and hangs a padlock on the door afterwards, the wizard doesn't get to ignore the padlock, just the Arcane Lock.

Keld Denar
2008-06-08, 10:18 PM
As a tribute to the new Indiana Jones and in loving memory of the classic "Temple of Doom" the somantic components of this spell must be to shout "KALIMA!" and to hold one hand with fingers extended toward the targets heart.

KALIMA!!!!!

AslanCross
2008-06-08, 10:57 PM
Do you believe that Swordsages get 6* skill points at first level, too?

I do! They never published errata for it. :D But yeah. :P

starwoof
2008-06-09, 12:35 AM
As a tribute to the new Indiana Jones and in loving memory of the classic "Temple of Doom" the somantic components of this spell must be to shout "KALIMA!" and to hold one hand with fingers extended toward the targets heart.

KALIMA!!!!!

I would allow this.:smallbiggrin:

Kompera
2008-06-09, 01:06 AM
Jack, I'm afraid you are just not thinking this through well enough. You're limiting your instant death capability to a class which can cast Arcane Lock. As a 2nd level spell, that takes a 3rd level caster of most classes. I'm pretty sure I've read of a Feat which allows for a higher level spell to be taken earlier than normally allowed, but that still limits you to a spell casting class.

Allow me to direct your attention to Search (Int)

Search (Int)
Check

You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched. The table below gives DCs for typical tasks involving the Search skill.

See also: epic usages of Search.
Action

It takes a full-round action to search a 5-foot-by-5-foot area or a volume of goods 5 feet on a side.
Special

An elf has a +2 racial bonus on Search checks, and a half-elf has a +1 racial bonus. An elf (but not a half-elf) who simply passes within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door can make a Search check to find that door.

If you have the Investigator feat, you get a +2 bonus on Search checks.

The spells explosive runes, fire trap, glyph of warding, symbol, and teleportation circle create magic traps that a rogue can find by making a successful Search check and then can attempt to disarm by using Disable Device. Identifying the location of a snare spell has a DC of 23. Spike growth and spike stones create magic traps that can be found using Search, but against which Disable Device checks do not succeed. See the individual spell descriptions for details.

Active abjuration spells within 10 feet of each other for 24 hours or more create barely visible energy fluctuations. These fluctuations give you a +4 bonus on Search checks to locate such abjuration spells.
Synergy

* If you have 5 or more ranks in Search, you get a +2 bonus on Survival checks to find or follow tracks.
* If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (architecture and engineering), you get a +2 bonus on Search checks to find secret doors or hidden compartments.

Restriction

While anyone can use Search to find a trap whose DC is 20 or lower, only a rogue can use Search to locate traps with higher DCs. (Exception: The spell find traps temporarily enables a cleric to use the Search skill as if he were a rogue.)

A dwarf, even one who is not a rogue, can use the Search skill to find a difficult trap (one with a DC higher than 20) if the trap is built into or out of stone. He gains a +2 racial bonus on the Search check from his stonecunning ability.

Specific examples given:

Search DCs

Task Search DC
Ransack a chest full of junk to find a certain item 10

Build a character with INT 18 (+4) (hey, we're being reasonable here!), is an Elf (+2), takes the Investigator Feat (+2), Skill Focus Feat (by being a Fighter or by taking an UA anti-feat) (+3) and put the maximum of 4 points into Search at 1st level you've got a skill roll of +15. You auto-succeed at any attempt to ransack a chest, even if the GM assigns situational penalties for, say, the subject being unwilling. The word 'junk' is of course highly subjective, so we'll just say that all those organs in a persons chest are junk.

So for a full round action, with the added bonus that you have a 10' range to the target, you can remove someones heart from their chest even on a roll of a 1 on the D20, since skills do not auto-fail on 1s.

So there you have it. A 1st level character who can auto-kill any opponent with an organ he/she/it happens to need to live, at a 10' range, as long as you can take a full action.

Aquillion
2008-06-09, 03:00 AM
So there you have it. A 1st level character who can auto-kill any opponent with an organ he/she/it happens to need to live, at a 10' range, as long as you can take a full action.Disagree. It says that you can find their junk, not remove it. So all you're doing is using the skill as a makeshift stethoscope. (Also, a much more logical interpretation of that line would be that it allows you to search for junk between people's breasts.)

marjan
2008-06-09, 08:26 AM
(Also, a much more logical interpretation of that line would be that it allows you to search for junk between people's breasts.)

Just make sure that you have low enough CHA, and they will kill themselves after that. :smallbiggrin: