Page 14 of 31 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131415161718192021222324 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 420 of 930
  1. - Top - End - #391
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    In fact, everybody who faces proof that an effect is illusionary will always succeed on a save to disbelieve.
    But the trouble is that shadow effects are not holograms. They have substance, weight, the ability to touch and be touched. By the same reasoning, anyone who knew that there was an invisible person in the room would auto-succeed on a save to see the invisible person. Someone who watched me cast Hypnotic Pattern or Phantasmal Killer - and successfully made the spellcraft check to identify the spell - would automatically succeed on their will save, because they know that it's an illusion that's been cast. This seems like a significant nerf to the entire school.

    Skip's article (and the examples of 'proof' from the PH) seems to focus entirely on figments, and I'd suggest that the test of 'proof' only really works with them. Monsters "summoned" by Shadow Conjuration don't have the options of a figment. They aren't incorporeal. They can't disappear and reform later. They have whatever shape they have. Sticking a sword into them shouldn't give you the right to then say "oh, clearly that's an illusion" and then have it disappear. Shadow spells do not rely on belief, or else they'd be noted as mind-affecting.

    Sorry to be argumentative about this, but illusions are half of what Mead does, and "I know that was an illusion, so I can automatically ignore it" is a huge kidney-punch to her ability to do anything.
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  2. - Top - End - #392
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Please tell me more about what your plans are for using Shadow Conjuration. I don't want to restrict Mead, and I certainly don't want to disadvantage your build. I've been ruling illusions like that for some time (and I'm playing a shadowmage, so I'm limiting myself here). I'd love to subscribe to another reasoning, except it really doesn't make sense to me why you'd walk over a bridge you know is not real.

    I think there's an advantage, as well: Mead can telepathically communicate to the party members that she's casting an illusion, and the party will be able to immediately recognize it as such. Stinking Cloud comes to mind, or Glitterdust.

    I think the Shadow spells are still excellent, even if they cannot give you a horse to ride upon.

    HP: I think 75%, IIRC. We started 100%, but then switched.

  3. - Top - End - #393
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    The meme of the magic that is there as long as you don't think too much about it is present in fairy tales, in film, Saturday morning cartoons. Either characters in D&D are savvy about how their world works - in which case the smart ones are accustomed to the usefulness of holding two conflicting truths in their mind at the same time - or else magic is a mysterious force - in which case, why should it matter if the great and powerful wizard who keeps out the zombie horde with a stone wall used Stone Shape, Wall of Stone or Shadow Conjuration to create that effect? Is Shadow Walk less "real" than teleport?

    By the same logic (auto-disbelief of your own spells), I would never be able to use the spells Shadow Cache (pg 183, spell compendium) or Shadow Form (same), since I would obviously know that I'd cast an illusion and be unable to access the results.

    As noted, the 'proof' defense a significant debuff to Shadow Conjuration, a spell that already gives two saving throws when used offensively now has a third step that it has to get through, since a passed spellcraft check now also negates it.

    What do I want to do with it? I want to create things and creatures we need for a short period of time. I want to occasionally have an opportunity to whip out a little direct damage, even if there's a good chance that it will be saved against. I want to be able to summon a hippogriff to lift a colleague out of a gorge. I want it to be my one way to actually create things - if briefly - that have a concrete reality.

    My main reason for concern is that 'proof' is a nebulous and subjective concept, especially in a game which has the range of powers is so broad. My sword just swished through my opponent without resistance. Is that proof that he's an illusion? Saving throws are well established mechanisms for negating the effects of illusions. "Proof" is a return to the 1E 'mechanic' of shouting "I disbelieve" every time you encounter something remotely weird. At what level of evidence does unusual cross over into inexplicable and finally impossible? I don't know, and I don't see making you judge that every time I cast an illusion spell as being particularly enjoyable for either of us.

    How about this? If I were to be facing something and receive evidence that it's an illusion, what penalties do I receive if I treat it as such and it turns out NOT to be an illusion? If, say, there really WERE a horde of goliaths running down the hill? Or if that drow woman really DID just jump up from a prone position, and then relocate instantaneously? This is D&D. Inexplicably weird s**t happens all the time.

    "Not real" is a highly subjective term in a word full of magic. Gabriel has just been flying around as a result of someone else's magic. Is it really so much more convincing to describe that as "I sprinkle tinkerbell dust on you and now you can fly" than it is to say "a horse made of grey smoke stands in front of you, pawing at the ground"? Why is a shadow conjuration of a brick wall less convincing than a wall of force?
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  4. - Top - End - #394
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ladorak's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Here's the new Dunlan
    Spoiler
    Show
    The Human Spirit also by KP. The Raynnverse lives!

    Vagrant and Seal by Smuchmuch

    Vagrant by Darth Raynn

    Sentient #6 Avatar by kpenguin. Clearly the best picture of a M&M character named after a Nevermore song there has ever been.

  5. - Top - End - #395
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Carr0t's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    HP: I think 75%, IIRC. We started 100%, but then switched.
    Ah, that makes sense. I had no idea how I came up with 54 HP for level 7 - fixed to 60 HP at level 8.

    As for the whole believe illusion, disbelieve illusion, argument. I have an idea: How about being able to apply your WILL save as a penalty when you want to believe the illusion? Will save is supposed to represent your willpower and someone who has more willpower would be able to persuade himself into believing an illusion much easier.

    The wizard who casts a shadow bridge and knows his magic would be able to persuade himself that it is safe to cross much easier than the fighter who is told "Yeah that bridge is made of shadows, but don't worry it's perfectly safe."
    Anybody else want to negotiate?
    Korben Dallas

    Gabriel Strazza - Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

  6. - Top - End - #396
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    @Toliudar: I'd like to agree to your reasoning, and in several aspects do, but have to say that Shadow Cache and Shadow Form allow no save to disbelieve.

    My reasoning is based upon the problem of disbelief, i.e. it is a bridge for one person, but another falls through, as well as upon the opinion that a spell that duplicates all offensive lower-level spells from another school is more balanced than a spell that duplicates each and every lower-level spell from another school.

    I'd prefer a consistent ruling, and at the same time I want to make sure Mead has no drawbacks. What are the spells you would like to duplicate via Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation (if you wish, you can PM me the list)?

    Also, everybody, FYI: I'll be offline for most of the next 3-4 weeks. I might be online for short periods of time, and might even find the time to post or reply to a PM, but please don't count on it.

  7. - Top - End - #397
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    @Toliudar: I'd like to agree to your reasoning, and in several aspects do, but have to say that Shadow Cache and Shadow Form allow no save to disbelieve.
    Yes, and that's exactly my point. The only aspects of the illusion school referenced in the "disbelief" clause are Figments and Glamers - and not even all of them allow disbelief. What would it mean to 'disbelieve' a shadow walk? Does knowing that a phantasmal killer is 'all in your head' make it any less scary? I'd say not.

    My reasoning is based upon the problem of disbelief, i.e. it is a bridge for one person, but another falls through, as well as upon the opinion that a spell that duplicates all offensive lower-level spells from another school is more balanced than a spell that duplicates each and every lower-level spell from another school.
    Okay, so then there's two issues here, then.

    The first is the idea that inconsistent application of the laws of physics = illusion. Again, in a recent (and epic, and fun) fight, we've had people grow in size, fly, climb walls, create clouds of dust, create balls of darkness, and vanish - and that's just off the top of my head. Why shouldn't the reality of any of these things be called into question?

    For the bridge scenario (incidentally, something that I don't think that I can do with Shadow Conjuration), I respond from the SRD:

    A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spellís result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
    You're suggesting that illusion spells are somehow an exception to this rule, and I'm not sure why.

    The second issue is the introduction of a new mechanic to balance what may be an overpowered spell. If that's what we're doing, then I'd argue that the second saving throw, and the introduction of SR, does that. If you disagree, please give me some understanding about how, say, my shadow conjuration of a fog cloud is perceived as less real than a conjured fog cloud, and we can work from there.

    I'd prefer a consistent ruling, and at the same time I want to make sure Mead has no drawbacks. What are the spells you would like to duplicate via Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation (if you wish, you can PM me the list)?
    I'm okay with Mead having drawbacks, but I prefer to understand them. The very nature of these spells is their open ended nature. Frankly, I have no set idea how I would use this spell, just as I don't know now how I will use Minor Image in the future. I suppose that I could PM you a list of every level 0-3 Conjuration (Creation or Summoning) spell I can find, but what purpose would that serve?

    If there are specific spells that you think Shadow Conjuration shouldn't be able to duplicate, let me know.
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  8. - Top - End - #398
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar View Post
    Yes, and that's exactly my point. The only aspects of the illusion school referenced in the "disbelief" clause are Figments and Glamers - and not even all of them allow disbelief. What would it mean to 'disbelieve' a shadow walk? Does knowing that a phantasmal killer is 'all in your head' make it any less scary? I'd say not.
    My point is that some spells have a saving throw entry. One of the options is Will disbelief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    The first is the idea that inconsistent application of the laws of physics = illusion.
    I'm not arguing with physics, here. The bridge inconsistency has nothing to do with wanting magic to function like physics. It creates an in-game problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    Again, in a recent (and epic, and fun) fight, we've had people grow in size, fly, climb walls, create clouds of dust, create balls of darkness, and vanish - and that's just off the top of my head. Why shouldn't the reality of any of these things be called into question?
    Not at all, unless they allow for Will disbelief. Of course, characters can try to disbelieve real things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    For the bridge scenario (incidentally, something that I don't think that I can do with Shadow Conjuration), I respond from the SRD
    Yes, but there's also:

    A character faced with proof that an illusion isnít real needs no saving throw.

    This is ambiguous and has been used in arguments that state "needs no" is different from "cannot voluntarily fail" -- which I find a bit nitpicky and a motive-driven interpretation (because you could easily interpret it either way). That's where the rules of the game article comes in, and it clarifies exactly this part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    The second issue is the introduction of a new mechanic to balance what may be an overpowered spell. If that's what we're doing, then I'd argue that the second saving throw, and the introduction of SR, does that.
    I'd disagree and I think this shows the problem. Double save and SR really come into play only with attack spells, and I think that was the traditional use (and perhaps intended use) of the shadow line.

    When you use the spell to duplicate utility spells, there is no balancing factor, because the double save and SR often does not come into play.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    If you disagree, please give me some understanding about how, say, my shadow conjuration of a fog cloud is perceived as less real than a conjured fog cloud, and we can work from there.
    No problem at all. You can perfectly use Shadow Conjuration to create a fog cloud, a stinking cloud and so on, except you'd automatically disbelieve. Thus, you'd not be able to reliably ride your shadow conjured Mount, and you'd not have to save against slipping in your own shadow conjured Grease.

    Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work.

    A creature that succeeds on its save sees the shadow conjurations as transparent images superimposed on vague, shadowy forms.
    Last edited by Malachei; 2012-06-05 at 12:20 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #399
    Orc in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Mal, in the meantime we can destroy the bridge, grab the loot, sort out the loot (we still need the loot from the dragon and the demon sorcerer. I want to know what that staff does ), dissect the dragon for science and hang out in Rita's Rope Trick, which now lasts 16 hours (more than enough time to prepare it again and thus keep it up indefinitely; it can be the party's home away from home) due to her levelup.

    I'll describe what it's like in there. It's nice.

    Levelup!

    Changes
    Spoiler
    Show

    +1 HD
    +6HP (new total: 54)
    +1 INT (+1 spell DC, +1 L1 spell slot, +1 L5 spell slot, +1 more skill point per level (new total: 7))
    +1 L3 spell slot
    +1 L4 spell slot
    +1 Concentration/Knowledge Arcana/Knowledge Nature/Knowledge Planes/Knowledge Religion/Spellcraft (save one skill point)
    Expanded Spellbook 2 (see below)
    Learn spell: ???
    Learn spell: ???
    Learn Transmutation spell: ???

    Candidate Spells:

    Dimension Door
    Scrying
    ASR

    Baleful Blink


    L8 Rita
    Spoiler
    Show
    Rita Daledare
    Female NG Strongheart Halfling Focused Transmuter/Master Transmuter, Level 3/5, Init +4, HP 41/54, Speed 20
    AC 20, Touch 15, Flat-footed 16, Fort +7, Ref +8, Will +9, Base Attack Bonus 4
    Masterwork Light Crossbow (99) +10 (1d8, 19-20/x2)
    Mage Armour, Ring of Protection +1 (+4 Armor, +1 Shield, +4 Dex, +1 Size)
    Abilities Str 6, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 20, Wis 8, Cha 10
    Condition Message (170'), Fly (60', good maneuverability), Mirror Image (6 images)
    Spells Prepared

    -L0-
    Mage Hand
    Message
    Message
    Detect Magic
    Detect Magic
    Prestidigitation

    -L1-
    Feather Fall
    Ray of Clumsiness
    Swift Expeditious Retreat
    Grease
    Benign Transposition
    Extended Mage Armour (rod)
    Summon Monster I
    [Open]

    -L2-
    Animalistic Power
    Extended Rope Trick (MMSF)
    Extended Mirror Image (rod)
    Escalating Enfeeblement
    Chain of Eyes
    Glitterdust
    Web

    -L3-
    Extended Fly (rod)
    Extended Slow (MMSF)
    Extended Haste (MMSF)
    Dispel Magic
    Summon Monster III
    [Open]

    -L4-
    Polymorph
    Polymorph
    Polymorph
    Evard's Black Tentacles
    [Open]

    Durations

    Extended Haste (on Dunlan, Makul, Joseph, Jasmine, Nicolas, Gabriel and Aria): 12/14 rounds
    Animalistic Power (7 minutes, on Dunlan): 55/70 rounds
    Extended Fly (14 minutes): 126/140 rounds
    Extended Mirror Image (14 minutes, 6 images): 127/140 rounds
    Message (1 hour 10 minutes, on everyone but CO, Mead and Jasmine, 170'): 684/700 rounds
    Chain of Eyes (7 hours, on Riven): 4184/4200 rounds



    She gained that HP due to the levelup and because Polymorph heals a little.

    Still not sure about the spells. Need to check my resources again.
    Last edited by Psydon; 2012-06-05 at 01:28 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #400
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Quote Originally Posted by Psydon View Post
    Mal, in the meantime we can destroy the bridge, grab the loot, sort out the loot (we still need the loot from the dragon and the demon sorcerer. I want to know what that staff does ), dissect the dragon for science and hang out in Rita's Rope Trick, which now lasts 16 hours (more than enough time to prepare it again and thus keep it up indefinitely; it can be the party's home away from home) due to her levelup.

    I'll describe what it's like in there. It's nice.
    Sure. Note that you need to at least exit to cast Rope Trick again. Otherwise, you're creating an extradimensional space inside an extradimensional space, which might pose the problem, that you have no exit once the first one runs out.

  11. - Top - End - #401
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Carr0t's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Wouldn't the effect of that be more like dropping a Bag of Holding into a Portable hole?
    If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in the space: Bag and hole alike are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane: The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process.
    Kind of very inadvisable.
    Anybody else want to negotiate?
    Korben Dallas

    Gabriel Strazza - Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

  12. - Top - End - #402
    Orc in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Yes, of course we would have to leave, and then spend 10 minutes waiting for Rita to finish casting the next one.

  13. - Top - End - #403
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Quote Originally Posted by Carr0t View Post
    Wouldn't the effect of that be more like dropping a Bag of Holding into a Portable hole?

    Kind of very inadvisable.
    Well. It's complicated. As per the SRD Bag of Holding is a nondimensional space, a Portable Hole is an extradimensional space.

    And actually, Bags of Holding are sometimes also referred to as extradimensional spaces, and this is not clearly separated from nondimensional spaces.

    The term extradimensional space is not really defined in the rules, and the general hazardous clause does not give any specific consequences in game terms, i.e. DM fiat.

    The exit issue is one of many issues that are a problem with Rope Trick's wording, a spell which generations of players have just cast without second thought until... they re-read the text.

    For instance, see the dispel debate (i.e. can you dispel Rope Trick?)

    But in general: Yes, you're right. A spellcaster should be very cautious in overlapping effects that create extradimensional spaces, because you never know what happens, and you never know you get out.
    Last edited by Malachei; 2012-06-05 at 02:10 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #404
    Orc in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    As I understand it, the only way to dispel Rope Trick is to do so across planes. As far as I know, there's no such thing as a Transplanar Dispel Magic.

  15. - Top - End - #405
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Quote Originally Posted by Psydon View Post
    As I understand it, the only way to dispel Rope Trick is to do so across planes. As far as I know, there's no such thing as a Transplanar Dispel Magic.
    It's a huge debate.

    And then, well, there is transdimensional dispel magic.

  16. - Top - End - #406
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Spoilering this conversation, for the sake of those not quite so smitten with it as me:

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    My point is that some spells have a saving throw entry. One of the options is Will disbelief.
    Ah! Then that makes much more sense.

    I'm not arguing with physics, here. The bridge inconsistency has nothing to do with wanting magic to function like physics. It creates an in-game problem.
    It's only a problem if its screwing up your ability to tell the story.

    Not at all, unless they allow for Will disbelief. Of course, characters can try to disbelieve real things.

    Yes, but there's also:

    A character faced with proof that an illusion isnít real needs no saving throw.
    Yes, but there's no mechanic for 'proof'. And not needing a saving throw is not the same thing as automatically saving. The recipient of a cure light wounds spell needs no saving throw, either.

    This is ambiguous and has been used in arguments that state "needs no" is different from "cannot voluntarily fail" -- which I find a bit nitpicky and a motive-driven interpretation (because you could easily interpret it either way). That's where the rules of the game article comes in, and it clarifies exactly this part.
    Except that Skip Williams is notoriously hit and miss in his rules interpretations, and his article doesn't in any way deal with phantasms or other shadow spells.

    I'd disagree and I think this shows the problem. Double save and SR really come into play only with attack spells, and I think that was the traditional use (and perhaps intended use) of the shadow line.

    When you use the spell to duplicate utility spells, there is no balancing factor, because the double save and SR often does not come into play.
    We have no way to know "rules as intended" and "rules as traditionally played." I'd rather talk about "rules as they make sense to us" and "rules as we'd like the game to unfold."

    No problem at all. You can perfectly use Shadow Conjuration to create a fog cloud, a stinking cloud and so on, except you'd automatically disbelieve. Thus, you'd not be able to reliably ride your shadow conjured Mount, and you'd not have to save against slipping in your own shadow conjured Grease.

    Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work.

    A creature that succeeds on its save sees the shadow conjurations as transparent images superimposed on vague, shadowy forms.
    Actually, the quoted passage suggests that, even if I automatically save/disbelieve, the shadow conjuration still works on me 20% of the time. So there's a twenty percent chance that I slip on my own grease, or can't see through my own fog.

    Mal, I think you're doing an amazing job on this game. If having Mead take this spell means that it's going to be a source of wrangling between us, it's just not worth it for me. I'll start to look into alternatives.
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  17. - Top - End - #407
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar View Post
    Spoilering this conversation, for the sake of those not quite so smitten with it as me
    I'm so smitten. But I'll spoiler as well.

    Spoiler
    Show


    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    Yes, but there's no mechanic for 'proof'. And not needing a saving throw is not the same thing as automatically saving. The recipient of a cure light wounds spell needs no saving throw, either.
    Regarding the first, I'd say we have no game mechanic for selective perception and a lot of other things.

    Regarding the second: Yes, I've actually addressed the exact thing further down in my previous post, i.e. the issue that does not need a saving throw is ambiguous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    Except that Skip Williams is notoriously hit and miss in his rules interpretations, and his article doesn't in any way deal with phantasms or other shadow spells.
    I'd rather not argue based on individual game designer's perceived competence. We know little about that, and in fact its highly subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    We have no way to know "rules as intended" and "rules as traditionally played." I'd rather talk about "rules as they make sense to us" and "rules as we'd like the game to unfold."
    Yes, that's why I had that in parenthesis. I did not want to base my point on rules as intended, and I'd certainly not claim knowing rules as intended, but I'm pointing out that RAW often leave us in the dark.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    Actually, the quoted passage suggests that, even if I automatically save/disbelieve, the shadow conjuration still works on me 20% of the time. So there's a twenty percent chance that I slip on my own grease, or can't see through my own fog.
    And indeed that was the exact meaning of my paragraph:

    Thus, you'd not be able to reliably ride your shadow conjured Mount, and you'd not have to save against slipping in your own shadow conjured Grease. (Emphasis mine)

    -> Mount: reliably, because you'd have 20% failure
    -> Grease: you'd not have to save, but have 20% chance to be affected

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    Mal, I think you're doing an amazing job on this game.
    Thank you. Likewise! In fact, you are doing such a wonderful job as a player in this game that I consider Mead almost part of my social environment. In fact, the whole team of players makes this an outstanding experience for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    If having Mead take this spell means that it's going to be a source of wrangling between us, it's just not worth it for me. I'll start to look into alternatives.
    I'd like to work this out differently. I'll have to think about it some more.


  18. - Top - End - #408
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Tiny contribution:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Originally Posted by Toliudar
    We have no way to know "rules as intended" and "rules as traditionally played." I'd rather talk about "rules as they make sense to us" and "rules as we'd like the game to unfold."
    Originally Posted by Malachei
    Yes, that's why I had that in parenthesis. I did not want to base my point on rules as intended, and I'd certainly not claim knowing rules as intended, but I'm pointing out that RAW often leave us in the dark.
    I like this part.


    Ladorak - I'll only get around to replying on the weekend most probably. Bear with me. Although everyone else can get going as well and doesn't have to wait for me, obviously.

  19. - Top - End - #409
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    And on and on:

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    Regarding the first, I'd say we have no game mechanic for selective perception and a lot of other things.
    Interesting. I'd suggest that we have lots of game mechanics for selective perception, or at least the manipulation of it, through the use of the bluff skill and other mind-affecting effects. What's much less clear to me is a mechanic for proof that something is or isn't an illusion.

    Regarding the second: Yes, I've actually addressed the exact thing further down in my previous post, i.e. the issue that does not need a saving throw is ambiguous.
    I don't see the ambiguity. Saying that something isn't required is not the same thing as saying that it isn't allowed.

    I think that you're suggesting that proof is a game term, the presence of which disallows the possibility of a saving throw vs an illusion with the (disbelief) designation. Is that correct?

    To put this into a semblance of a logical progression, I see the following:

    * I cast an illusion spell that gives a Will save (Disbelief).
    * Anyone interacting with the illusion has the option of making a will save.
    * Anyone with 'proof' that the illusion is an illusion has the option to automatically make their saving throw.
    * All regular modifiers to the will save apply.

    Whereas you, I think, are suggesting the following progression:

    * I cast an illusion spell that gives a will save (Disbelief).
    * There is a check for the condition "has proof that the spell is an illusion)". If this condition applies, the subject is treated as having made their saving throw.
    * If that condition does not apply, the will save carries on as usual.

    My reason for preferring the former is that it doesn't contradict the other rule about always having the option to fail a save. Both rules are satisfied. With the latter interpretation, only one of the two rules is upheld.

    As an interesting side note, what happens to the 'proof' that it's an illusion if the disbeliever then lands in the 20% of cases for shadow conjuration in which they're affected anyway? They then have 'proof' that they can be affected by an illusion spell. Does this change their future interactions with illusions?

    I'd rather not argue based on individual game designer's perceived competence. We know little about that, and in fact its highly subjective.
    You're the one who brought in advice from outside the rulebooks. I was pointing out the several reasons why I don't see that text as canon.

    Yes, that's why I had that in parenthesis. I did not want to base my point on rules as intended, and I'd certainly not claim knowing rules as intended, but I'm pointing out that RAW often leave us in the dark.
    Fair enough!

    My reason for asking about shadow conjuration vs fog cloud was not to ask about how it would affect me, but rather how you see 'proof' functioning in that context. I still don't understand what would constitute proof that something is a shadow conjuration instead of, for example, a magical creature that is sometimes insubstantial and sometimes not.

    You've mentioned the need to have a 'balancing' effect for utility functions of the spell. May I ask why? We are, after all, still talking about a finite resource (4th level spell slots), and a finite if varied number of spell effects. With Shadow Conjuration, I'm not building smoke castles and drawing on the spell-like abilities of shadow-summons. I'm just trying to expand the functionality of a tier 3 caster. I think we might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

    You asked me to give some examples of how I'd see this spell being used. Maybe I can turn that around and ask what you see as unacceptable uses?
    Last edited by Toliudar; 2012-06-06 at 04:17 PM.
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  20. - Top - End - #410
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    More spoilered fun.

    Spoiler
    Show


    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    Interesting. I'd suggest that we have lots of game mechanics for selective perception, or at least the manipulation of it, through the use of the bluff skill and other mind-affecting effects. What's much less clear to me is a mechanic for proof that something is or isn't an illusion.
    I would not consider that a game mechanic for selective perception, but for the manipulation of perception. If you think of a mechanic as something that can be operationalized ("A ∧ B"), then indeed, proof has no game mechanic (but we can determine its results). Walking has no game mechanic (but we can determine its results), breathing has no game mechanic (but drowning does, and we can determine its results), acting not in accordance to an alignment.
    Why is there no game mechanic for certain aspects? Either the game designers felt they are basic and need not be defined (something that a lot of rules lawyering is done over), or the game designersgave examples instead, because they found the aspect had broad possibilities and thereby eluded a clearcut mechanic. I think many game elements elude clear-cut mechanics, and illusions is one of the most prominent that needs assumption and adjudication.


    The player's handbook gives examples for proof. I think it is important to read rules text in context. A paragraph can change the literal interpretation of a sentence. The context of the "needs no saving throw" paragraph is:

    A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isnít real needs no saving throw. A character who falls through a section of illusory floor into a pit knows something is amiss, as does one who spends a few rounds poking at the same illusion. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

    The paragraph above states:

    *If you fail your save, you fail to notice something is amiss
    *If you have proof, you need no saving throw
    * Falling through a floor (example for having proof) means you know something is amiss
    * If you have successfully disbelieved, you can inform others ...

    In context, I think the paragraph tells us that somebody having proof is considered to have succeeded on his/her save. IMO, this supports the reasoning of the Rules of the Game article's clarification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    As an interesting side note, what happens to the 'proof' that it's an illusion if the disbeliever then lands in the 20% of cases for shadow conjuration in which they're affected anyway? They then have 'proof' that they can be affected by an illusion spell. Does this change their future interactions with illusions?
    I'd say no, it does not. There is no game mechanic for it. For the caster, it means he knows the shadow spell has some quasi-reality. He knew this in advance. For others, it means they may still want to avoid interacting with something they have identified is an illusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    My reason for asking about shadow conjuration vs fog cloud was not to ask about how it would affect me, but rather how you see 'proof' functioning in that context. I still don't understand what would constitute proof that something is a shadow conjuration instead of, for example, a magical creature that is sometimes insubstantial and sometimes not.
    Usually, you have to interact with illusions to even get a Will save to disbelieve. Thus, proof need something more significant: If interaction leads to something that . The examples in the player's handbook are helpful: Using a pole while exploring will grant you a saving throw, while falling through an illusory pit equals proof. If you spend time to carefully investigate the floor, you can also gain this proof (this may require a search check, if it is not straightforward). This also fits the reasoning that illusions delay enemies and force them to invest time that the Rules of the Games article elaborates on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    My reason for asking about shadow conjuration vs fog cloud was not to ask about how it would affect me, but rather how you see 'proof' functioning in that context. I still don't understand what would constitute proof that something is a shadow conjuration instead of, for example, a magical creature that is sometimes insubstantial and sometimes not.
    Duplicating a spell effect is somewhat more interesting (see below). However, in general, the possibility of a magical effect does not prohibit proof. Yes, you may not actually fall but could be in a Reverse Gravity and if the two room sections look similar, you could argue that you'd actually be falling upwards. And a door that you could stick your hands through could be a phase door for which you have just met the triggering conditions. Magic can provide truly wondrous results, but in a magical world, there is still the examples the PHB gives us on proof that something is an illusion, even though there may be different ways to achieve the same effect without an illusion (and, eventually, limited wish and wish).

    If an illusion duplicates a spell effect, proof is usually very hard hard to achieve. Regarding a Silent Image Fog, or a Shadow Conjured Fog, you'd get a saving throw when you interacted with the fog, but you'd not get proof. You might get proof if you'd used another effect to counter the spell effect (fireball versus ice if the rules say the ice would disappear, a torch still burning in what is supposed to be underwater).

    The spellcaster, however, always knows that the effect is illusionary. Auto-suggestion will not work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    You've mentioned the need to have a 'balancing' effect for utility functions of the spell. May I ask why? We are, after all, still talking about a finite resource (4th level spell slots), and a finite if varied number of spell effects. With Shadow Conjuration, I'm not building smoke castles and drawing on the spell-like abilities of shadow-summons.
    What other spell gives you the ability to cast any spell from a different school? Limited Wish. Except it can duplicate all schools and costs XP. And Limited Wish can duplicate a spell from a prohibited school only 4th level or lower, i.e. at least three levels bellow its own level.

    For a prepared caster (so-called "tier 1"), it is usually very hard to achieve flexibility. For a spontaneous caster, it is usually very hard to achieve versatility. Both are delivers by the shadow line.

    Having a spell that can duplicate a large number of spells from another school is outstanding. Having a spell that can duplicate each and every spell from another school without having a chance of failure is priceless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    I'm just trying to expand the functionality of a tier 3 caster. I think we might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
    I don't believe in the tier system. I actually think it leads to stereotyping and is mostly a labeling exercise, which, in a good case, tells us something we have already known, but in the worst case leads us towards false assumptions. I think it is a very bad approach towards a possible issue that can be fixed rather easily. I also find it biased, not only because its lead author is a person who has banned wizards from his game.

    Regarding Beguilers, I think they are underrated in general, and in the tier system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    You asked me to give some examples of how I'd see this spell being used. Maybe I can turn that around and ask what you see as unacceptable uses?
    Yes. In general, uses in which the caster has to trick himself into believing his own illusionary effect in order to achieve the desired effect. For instance, Greater Shadow Evocation will not duplicate Contingency (because Shadow Evocation effects that are saved against have no effect).


  21. - Top - End - #411
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    More spoilered fun.

    Spoiler
    Show


    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    Interesting. I'd suggest that we have lots of game mechanics for selective perception, or at least the manipulation of it, through the use of the bluff skill and other mind-affecting effects. What's much less clear to me is a mechanic for proof that something is or isn't an illusion.
    I would not consider that a game mechanic for selective perception, but for the manipulation of perception. If you think of a mechanic as something that can be operationalized ("A ∧ B"), then indeed, proof has no game mechanic (but we can determine its results). Walking has no game mechanic (but we can determine its results), breathing has no game mechanic (but drowning does, and we can determine its results), acting not in accordance to an alignment.
    Why is there no game mechanic for certain aspects? Either the game designers felt they are basic and need not be defined (something that a lot of rules lawyering is done over), or the game designersgave examples instead, because they found the aspect had broad possibilities and thereby eluded a clearcut mechanic. I think many game elements elude clear-cut mechanics, and illusions is one of the most prominent that needs assumption and adjudication.


    The player's handbook gives examples for proof. I think it is important to read rules text in context. A paragraph can change the literal interpretation of a sentence. The context of the "needs no saving throw" paragraph is:

    A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isnít real needs no saving throw. A character who falls through a section of illusory floor into a pit knows something is amiss, as does one who spends a few rounds poking at the same illusion. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

    The paragraph above states:

    *If you fail your save, you fail to notice something is amiss
    *If you have proof, you need no saving throw
    * Falling through a floor (example for having proof) means you know something is amiss
    * If you have successfully disbelieved, you can inform others ...

    In context, I think the paragraph tells us that somebody having proof is considered to have succeeded on his/her save. IMO, this supports the reasoning of the Rules of the Game article's clarification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    As an interesting side note, what happens to the 'proof' that it's an illusion if the disbeliever then lands in the 20% of cases for shadow conjuration in which they're affected anyway? They then have 'proof' that they can be affected by an illusion spell. Does this change their future interactions with illusions?
    I'd say no, it does not. There is no game mechanic for it. For the caster, it means he knows the shadow spell has some quasi-reality. He knew this in advance. For others, it means they may still want to avoid interacting with something they have identified is an illusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    My reason for asking about shadow conjuration vs fog cloud was not to ask about how it would affect me, but rather how you see 'proof' functioning in that context. I still don't understand what would constitute proof that something is a shadow conjuration instead of, for example, a magical creature that is sometimes insubstantial and sometimes not.
    Usually, you have to interact with illusions to even get a Will save to disbelieve. Thus, proof need something more significant: If interaction leads to something that . The examples in the player's handbook are helpful: Using a pole while exploring will grant you a saving throw, while falling through an illusory pit equals proof. If you spend time to carefully investigate the floor, you can also gain this proof (this may require a search check, if it is not straightforward). This also fits the reasoning that illusions delay enemies and force them to invest time that the Rules of the Games article elaborates on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    My reason for asking about shadow conjuration vs fog cloud was not to ask about how it would affect me, but rather how you see 'proof' functioning in that context. I still don't understand what would constitute proof that something is a shadow conjuration instead of, for example, a magical creature that is sometimes insubstantial and sometimes not.
    Duplicating a spell effect is somewhat more interesting (see below). However, in general, the possibility of a magical effect does not prohibit proof. Yes, you may not actually fall but could be in a Reverse Gravity and if the two room sections look similar, you could argue that you'd actually be falling upwards. And a door that you could stick your hands through could be a phase door for which you have just met the triggering conditions. Magic can provide truly wondrous results, but in a magical world, there is still the examples the PHB gives us on proof that something is an illusion, even though there may be different ways to achieve the same effect without an illusion (and, eventually, limited wish and wish).

    If an illusion duplicates a spell effect, proof is usually very hard hard to achieve. Regarding a Silent Image Fog, or a Shadow Conjured Fog, you'd get a saving throw when you interacted with the fog, but you'd not get proof. You might get proof if you'd used another effect to counter the spell effect (fireball versus ice if the rules say the ice would disappear, a torch still burning in what is supposed to be underwater).

    The spellcaster, however, always knows that the effect is illusionary. Auto-suggestion will not work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    You've mentioned the need to have a 'balancing' effect for utility functions of the spell. May I ask why? We are, after all, still talking about a finite resource (4th level spell slots), and a finite if varied number of spell effects. With Shadow Conjuration, I'm not building smoke castles and drawing on the spell-like abilities of shadow-summons.
    What other spell gives you the ability to cast any spell from a different school? Limited Wish. Except it can duplicate all schools and costs XP. And Limited Wish can duplicate a spell from a prohibited school only 4th level or lower, i.e. at least three levels bellow its own level.

    For a prepared caster (so-called "tier 1"), it is usually very hard to achieve flexibility. For a spontaneous caster, it is usually very hard to achieve versatility. Both are delivers by the shadow line.

    Having a spell that can duplicate a large number of spells from another school is outstanding. Having a spell that can duplicate each and every spell from another school without having a chance of failure is priceless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    I'm just trying to expand the functionality of a tier 3 caster. I think we might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
    I don't believe in the tier system. I actually think it leads to stereotyping and is mostly a labeling exercise, which, in a good case, tells us something we have already known, but in the worst case leads us towards false assumptions. I think it is a very bad approach towards a possible issue that can be fixed rather easily. I also find it biased, not only because its lead author is a person who has banned wizards from his game.

    Regarding Beguilers, I think they are underrated in general, and in the tier system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    You asked me to give some examples of how I'd see this spell being used. Maybe I can turn that around and ask what you see as unacceptable uses?
    Yes. In general, uses in which the caster has to trick himself into believing his own illusionary effect in order to achieve the desired effect. For instance, Greater Shadow Evocation will not duplicate Contingency (because Shadow Evocation effects that are saved against have no effect).


  22. - Top - End - #412
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    More spoilered fun.

    I would not consider that a game mechanic for selective perception, but for the manipulation of perception. If you think of a mechanic as something that can be operationalized ("A ∧ B"), then indeed, proof has no game mechanic (but we can determine its results). Walking has no game mechanic (but we can determine its results), breathing has no game mechanic (but drowning does, and we can determine its results), acting not in accordance to an alignment.
    Things that don't impact game mechanics don't need to have mechanics. Peeing doesn't need a mechanic in D&D. Breathing does in fact have a mechanic - the drowning rules (flawed though they are). Walking has a mechanic - it's the default land movement for legged creatures, and has a speed associated with it. When a condition alters the way a spell happens, I'd suggest that there needs to be some common understanding of how it applies.

    Why is there no game mechanic for certain aspects? Either the game designers felt they are basic and need not be defined (something that a lot of rules lawyering is done over), or the game designersgave examples instead, because they found the aspect had broad possibilities and thereby eluded a clearcut mechanic. I think many game elements elude clear-cut mechanics, and illusions is one of the most prominent that needs assumption and adjudication.
    I think we've agreed that speculating on the reasons for designer decisions is not particularly helpful.

    snip

    The paragraph above states:

    *If you fail your save, you fail to notice something is amiss
    *If you have proof, you need no saving throw
    * Falling through a floor (example for having proof) means you know something is amiss
    * If you have successfully disbelieved, you can inform others ...

    In context, I think the paragraph tells us that somebody having proof is considered to have succeeded on his/her save. IMO, this supports the reasoning of the Rules of the Game article's clarification.
    I don't see that at all in the paragraph, but I'm just saying that to flag an area of ongoing disagreement. This is especially relevant with Shadow Conjuration, since nothing it can do will be as straightforward a dichotomy as a floor that's not there.

    Usually, you have to interact with illusions to even get a Will save to disbelieve. Thus, proof need something more significant: If interaction leads to something that . The examples in the player's handbook are helpful: Using a pole while exploring will grant you a saving throw, while falling through an illusory pit equals proof. If you spend time to carefully investigate the floor, you can also gain this proof (this may require a search check, if it is not straightforward). This also fits the reasoning that illusions delay enemies and force them to invest time that the Rules of the Games article elaborates on.
    The PH statement does not say that falling through the floor equals proof. Part of my difficulty with this is that, as you allude, there are lots of ways for people to fall through solid floors that have nothing to do with an illusion. If the physical experience can be attributed to a number of possible causes, the experience itself cannot constitute 'proof'.

    If an illusion duplicates a spell effect, proof is usually very hard hard to achieve. Regarding a Silent Image Fog, or a Shadow Conjured Fog, you'd get a saving throw when you interacted with the fog, but you'd not get proof. You might get proof if you'd used another effect to counter the spell effect (fireball versus ice if the rules say the ice would disappear, a torch still burning in what is supposed to be underwater).
    Yes, I'd accept that having an inanimate object interact with the shadow creature in a way that can't otherwise be explained could constitute proof.

    The spellcaster, however, always knows that the effect is illusionary. Auto-suggestion will not work.
    Again, this comes down to a disagreement about whether 'no save is needed' means that a save cannot be foregone. I don't really understand why that is.

    What other spell gives you the ability to cast any spell from a different school? Limited Wish. Except it can duplicate all schools and costs XP. And Limited Wish can duplicate a spell from a prohibited school only 4th level or lower, i.e. at least three levels bellow its own level.
    No spell gives you the ability to cast any spell from a different school, period. All of them have level restrictions and, in the case of Shadow Conjuration, it is restricted to two of the five subschools of a school. Anyspell and Greater Anyspell are approximate analogues - yes, you have to choose the spell in advance, but you're also not restricted to a school or subschool, and there are no additional saves/SR considerations.

    For a prepared caster (so-called "tier 1"), it is usually very hard to achieve flexibility. For a spontaneous caster, it is usually very hard to achieve versatility. Both are delivers by the shadow line.
    They are also delivered by the polymorph line of spells, the summon monster line, and by Miracle. There are a lot of spells that have broad application (protection from evil, telekinesis, disintegrate, fly, dimension door, etc). Unfortunately, the only one of those tools that Mead has open to her is Shadow Conjuration, or else I'd be offering to take another.

    Having a spell that can duplicate a large number of spells from another school is outstanding. Having a spell that can duplicate each and every spell from another school without having a chance of failure is priceless.
    It certainly would be. It's a shame that Shadow Conjuration doesn't do that.

    I don't believe in the tier system. I actually think it leads to stereotyping and is mostly a labeling exercise, which, in a good case, tells us something we have already known, but in the worst case leads us towards false assumptions. I think it is a very bad approach towards a possible issue that can be fixed rather easily. I also find it biased, not only because its lead author is a person who has banned wizards from his game.
    Again, I think we are best served by avoiding ad hominem in this. I've also banned Tier 1 casters for one of my games, and had no regrets about doing so.

    Regarding Beguilers, I think they are underrated in general, and in the tier system.
    That's certainly a defensible opinion.

    Yes. In general, uses in which the caster has to trick himself into believing his own illusionary effect in order to achieve the desired effect. For instance, Greater Shadow Evocation will not duplicate Contingency (because Shadow Evocation effects that are saved against have no effect).
    As noted in our first exchange, I can work with that. It's all this stuff about proof that drives me bonkers.
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  23. - Top - End - #413
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Spoiler
    Show


    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    They are also delivered by the polymorph line of spells, the summon monster line, and by Miracle. There are a lot of spells that have broad application (protection from evil, telekinesis, disintegrate, fly, dimension door, etc). Unfortunately, the only one of those tools that Mead has open to her is Shadow Conjuration, or else I'd be offering to take another.
    None of this duplicates a full school of magic that you could have banned. Miracle is a 9th level spell. Polymorph is arguably a problem-spell and requires meta-gaming to work (how would a spellcaster know every creature's stat block in advance).

    The examples for broad application spells you gave are very limited compared to having every 1st-3rd Conjuration spell at your disposal, spontaneously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    The PH statement does not say that falling through the floor equals proof. Part of my difficulty with this is that, as you allude, there are lots of ways for people to fall through solid floors that have nothing to do with an illusion. If the physical experience can be attributed to a number of possible causes, the experience itself cannot constitute 'proof'.
    My argument is, and remains, that the paragraph in the PH implies that falling through the illusionary floor results in having proof. In the PH text, it uses "something is amiss" several times to indicate the failed saving throw and the proof (which then equals a succeeded saving throw).

    I especially disagree that the possibility that an effect could be the result of magic means it cannot be disbelieved. By this reasoning, you could never disbelieve an illusionary monster that you strike through with your sword, because it could also be a blinking / incorporeal foe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    Again, I think we are best served by avoiding ad hominem in this. I've also banned Tier 1 casters for one of my games, and had no regrets about doing so.
    Well. Don't know how to put this, but let me gently say it was you who committed an ad hominem against Skip Williams, which focused on his abilities as a game designer.

    I simply gave a reason why I feel the tier system does not reflect my understanding of the D&D game and how I find the author's stated preferences mirrored in the system. I don't find my comment any more an ad hominem than saying a member of a team's fanclub would probably not be a good referee for a match involving this team. On casters and balance, the tier system's author has declared he does not stand on neutral ground.

    Last edited by Malachei; 2012-06-07 at 09:43 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #414
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Spoiler
    Show
    EDIT:

    You know what? I've screwed up. All of the fun that I might have gotten out of using this spell has been sucked out - and I suspect that it would be no more fun for you to adjudicate. I know that all I'll be thinking about are the rules. The heck with that.

    What I really wanted was a way to do a little damage, and there are more stress-free ways to get that. May I change my request, and ask if we could make beguilers eligible for the same Eclectic Learning ACF as the warmage? (PH2, pg 68). Then I'll just take fireball or Summon Monster III or something, and we'll be fine.
    Last edited by Toliudar; 2012-06-07 at 11:35 AM.
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  25. - Top - End - #415
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Spoiler
    Show


    If there's a screw-up, then we did it jointly, spoilered, hand in hand. ;)

    I'm still not really understanding how that ruling limits you. For all of the battlefield control spells and the debuffs, it is not bad, because you have high chances of not being affected yourself. Only for spells that would be personal buffs or some utility spells, you'd have a low chance of this working. So we're talking about things like mount, or mage armor.

    I have no problem with you taking another spell, but Shadow Conjuration will just work fine with SM III, and Shadow Evocation will get you Fireball, Lightning Ball etc. -- and you can even stand in your own Shadow Evoked Fireball, easier than in your normal fireball.


  26. - Top - End - #416
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Spoiler
    Show
    I think you're underestimating how much the addition of SR and a second save hoses Shadow Conjuration's offensive capability.

    Mead already has a variety of battlefield control tools and debuffs to use against minion-types. What she doesn't have is direct damage and utility.

    Of the (if I'm adding up correctly) seven non-minions that we've faced so far in this game, at least four have had SR. If we assume, for the sake of round numbers, that each save and SR check halves the chance of the spell taking full effect, that means that against opponents with SR, shadow conjuration has a 87% chance of either not working, or working in a reduced way. Distinctly meh. Even in situations where SR/saves only kick in a third of the time each, the spell only takes effect 30% of the time. At that point, I might as well use Hesitate or something similar.

    How about Melf's Unicorn Arrow (PH2, pg 119)? Ranged touch attacks, one or two targets, damage that's okay but not overwhelming, medium range (most beguiler spells are close range). It seems to fit the shopping list. Sound okay to you?
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  27. - Top - End - #417
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Malachei's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Spoiler
    Show


    [QUOTE=Toliudar;13359154]
    Spoiler
    Show
    I think you're underestimating how much the addition of SR and a second save hoses Shadow Conjuration's offensive capability.


    I find that a very reasonable limitation for a spell that can spontaneously duplicate dozens of others. And this is only in Core.

    And one more reason why I think the tradition of the shadow line matters: IMO, the spells were designed to give illusionists a versatile combat capability, which is limited in effect (reliability).

    Yes, chances are lower, but where the wizard will prepare perhaps one or two fireballs together with his battlefield and debuffs, Mead would be able (with Shadow Evocation) to call upon fireball, lightning bolt, ice storm, fire shield, wall of fire or ice etc. and the full range of non-core sources.

    I think the value of having the right effect (and descriptor) when you need it is often undervalued.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    Of the (if I'm adding up correctly) seven non-minions that we've faced so far in this game, at least four have had SR.
    You're taking out boss monster with targeted spells, mostly. Even hesitate is a win spell, because the boss losing actions equals the enemies losing the fight.

    Damage area spells, such as shadow evoked fireballs, would be primarily used against minions, IMO, which would have worse saves and regularly no SR.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toliudar
    How about Melf's Unicorn Arrow (PH2, pg 119)? Ranged touch attacks, one or two targets, damage that's okay but not overwhelming, medium range (most beguiler spells are close range). It seems to fit the shopping list. Sound okay to you?
    No problem. Looking at what Shadow Conjuration can do for you, I'd still go for it, though. Just looking at the 1st-3rd level Conjuration spells in Spell Compendium and CM makes me want that spell.


  28. - Top - End - #418
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    No problem. Looking at what Shadow Conjuration can do for you, I'd still go for it, though. Just looking at the 1st-3rd level Conjuration spells in Spell Compendium and CM makes me want that spell.
    Thanks, Mal. I'll stick with Melf. Fewer ulcers. Have a great trip!
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

  29. - Top - End - #419
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    RaggedAngel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    I just wanted to say that I'm really enjoying this discussion. Partially because of the subject matter, which I find interesting, and partially because it's an extremely rare sight to see people have such a long and well-articulated disconcurance on the internet without it ever becoming an argument.
    LGBTitP

    Thank you to Akrim.elf for my beautiful avatar.

  30. - Top - End - #420
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Toliudar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada

    Default Re: [OOC] Malachei's Red Hand of Doom

    Back to the important stuff...loot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malachei View Post
    Oh, yes, treasure.

    Let's start with the drow (assumes you identify all items)
    Spoiler
    Show


    Soft, black velvet gloves (Dex+4) - Gabriel - 16,000
    A necklace of dull gray platinum with a black pearl (Wis+2) - 4,000
    A matching headband of dull gray platinum (Concentration+5) - 2,500
    A black cloak (Hide+10) - 10,000
    Black boots (Jump+10, Tumble+5) - 12,500
    A black hood (Shadow Hand Hood, 3/day activate 2 SH stances) - 6,000 (approximating the value of two Crowns of the White Raven. If the hood allows the simultaneous activation of two stances, or can be used in conjunction with stances gained from initiator classes, the value is much higher).
    Three vials of silvery liquid (Invisibility) - 900
    Three vials of light green liquid (Exp. Retreat) - 150
    One vial of yellow liquid (Haste) - 750

    Subtotal: 52,800
    I'll post mundane stuff later on.
    Hobgoblin leader:
    Spoiler
    Show
    A golden headband (Concentration+5) - 2,500
    Heavy brown leather boots with fur (Jumping+5,) - 2,500
    A scimitar of black metal (Unholy Scimitar +2) - 32,300
    A fine silvery chain shirt (Chain Shirt +2) - 4,250
    Heavy battle gauntlets (Ogre Power+2) - 4,000
    A fine, dark brown fur cloak (Resistance+3) - 9,000
    2 steel javelins (of Lightning (5d6, Ref14)) - 3,000

    Subtotal: 57550


    That leaves anything that we recover from tents/towers/hobgoblins, the fiendish spellcaster, and any dragon hoard we might be able to locate.

    I'm listing book values not because I think we need to exactly balance (indeed some items, like the unholy scimitar, will have much less value to us since its major power will be unlikely to be of much use in this game), but to give all of us a bit of a guide to balancing our requests.

    For her part, Mead would be most interested in the cloak of resistance, but it might also be of most use in the hands of a front-liner.
    Currently climbing out of a heckofa two weeks at work/RL. Now working to catch up. Thanks for your patience.

    Peridot avatar (complete with demon consorts) courtesy of the very talented Telasi.

    Despair favours the status quo. It is a luxury we cannot afford. ~ Andrew Nikiforuk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •