Feather Falling and Belayed companions

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The characters are traversing a mountain pass, all of them belayed together
with rope, and one of the characters is wearing the ring of feather falling,
when "all of a sudden at the whim of the DM who wishes to be a prick like
that", something nasty or unexpected knocks the entire mess of them off the
ledge/precipice/whatever. They are, as a group, now in free fall off the
side of a cliff.

What is the effect of feather falling on such a group? The spell, in 3E,
according to the SRD, affects 1 person per level. The magic item says "it
acts exactly like a feather fall spell". According to the LETTER OF THE
RULES, in 3E, it would appear that a 7th level ring wearer could prevent the
fall of 7 relatively close individuals(within the spell's AOE), thus saving
the entire party from a blood-misted demise. On the other hand, I've always
felt that rings affect only the wearer, unless specified otherwise, but I
can't find that little caveat in the SRD.

If the ring actually DOES allow the ring wearer to affect his companions as
well, then the question is over, the party falls to a gentle landing at the
bottom of the cliff, assuming they are all within the AOE at the time of the
fall.

However, if it affects only the wearer, then there are complications to deal
with. The party is tied together, and they all go tumbling off the cliff,
and the feather fall ring wearer is in their midst, he falls at a gentle
pace, while everyone else begins their plummet. Since they are tied
together, either the rope snaps or the feather falling isn't as effective.

Assuming the rope DOESN'T snap, what would YOU rule the effects of feather
falling on the group as a whole, rather than just the individual wearing the
ring? If there are X people attached to the rope, they still travel at
X-1/X% of terminal velocity, sparing themselves a percentage of damage? So,
if there are 4 people tied off, and one has feather falling ring, the actual
impact damage would be 75% of normal?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
366 answers Last reply
More about feather falling belayed companions
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:YKudnRZZqe4svwjfRVn-qA@comcast.com...
    > What is the effect of feather falling on such a group? The spell, in 3E,
    > according to the SRD, affects 1 person per level. The magic item says "it
    > acts exactly like a feather fall spell". According to the LETTER OF THE
    > RULES, in 3E, it would appear that a 7th level ring wearer could prevent
    the
    > fall of 7 relatively close individuals

    You are already wrong. A rings' function does not depend on the level of
    the wearer. Stock rings of feather falling are listed explicitly as CL 1st,
    and thus only arrest a fall for one person (the wearer) for one round.
    Further, the spell description makes it patently clear that the spell can
    only "carry" persons and gear up to their maximum loads. Given that the
    party is tied together, the slowly-falling character would quickly be
    "carrying" all of his companions, their gear, and his own gear - and the
    spell would be overloaded and fail.

    In short, the ring will protect no-one at all. If you were being
    particularly generous, you might shave a little distance off of the fall; in
    one second the feather-faller travels 10 feet while the free-fallers will go
    about 15 (.5 *10m/s2*(1^2)), in another moment any reasonable length of rope
    segments will be taken up, and so if you pretend (rule 0) that the feather
    fall momentarily "arrests" the action as it brakes and breaks then perhaps
    you take 10' off the ringbearer's descent and 20 off of the rest.
    Ironically, the ring wearer free falls the longest distance in this case.

    The same information would allow you to work out what happens to more
    powerful rings of feather fall; if some of the companions cannot be
    protected then - because they are tied together, the additional load can be
    distributed among the Feathered characters to see whether or not there is
    enough "strength" available to hold up the remaining weight and fall slowly,
    or whether they fall to their doom.

    Consider the amusement you are providing the newsgroup by admitting you
    have all the rules at your disposal, and yet could not comprehend them well
    enough to get to the right answer.

    -Michael
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <YKudnRZZqe4svwjfRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
    "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    > Assuming the rope DOESN'T snap, what would YOU rule the effects of feather
    > falling on the group as a whole, rather than just the individual wearing the
    > ring? If there are X people attached to the rope, they still travel at
    > X-1/X% of terminal velocity, sparing themselves a percentage of damage? So,
    > if there are 4 people tied off, and one has feather falling ring, the actual
    > impact damage would be 75% of normal?

    If the ring affects everyone what happens is obvious. I'm not certain
    myself whether it does or not.

    If it doesn't, then instead of a nice gentle fall at a low terminal
    velocity the FFer will get dragged along at the same speed as everyone
    else by the rope. They won't slow the others down materially any more
    than holding feather on a string would slow you down if you jumped off a
    cliff.

    Assuming a few meters of rope between PCs, after the other PCs have gone
    squish the FFer will have maybe three or five meters of distance in
    which to decelarate from full falling speed, but that should be plenty.

    IRL sharp stops kill people and even, rapid deceleration does not.
    That's why people jump onto big air mattress things when they jump out
    of buildings. It allows them to decelerate over a distance of meters
    instead of millimeters and survive just fine.

    I'd say that it is a heck of a ride but the FFer takes no damage.

    For what it is worth I would probably allow them to cut the rope and
    float free if it was a long fall anyway.

    --
    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:PNale.462$IL3.363@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:YKudnRZZqe4svwjfRVn-qA@comcast.com...
    > > What is the effect of feather falling on such a group? The spell, in
    3E,
    > > according to the SRD, affects 1 person per level. The magic item says
    "it
    > > acts exactly like a feather fall spell". According to the LETTER OF THE
    > > RULES, in 3E, it would appear that a 7th level ring wearer could prevent
    > the
    > > fall of 7 relatively close individuals
    >
    > You are already wrong. A rings' function does not depend on the level
    of
    > the wearer. Stock rings of feather falling are listed explicitly as CL
    1st,
    > and thus only arrest a fall for one person (the wearer) for one round.

    Thank you for making that abundantly clear. As a 2E player trying to
    interpret 3E rules without the benefit of thoroughly poring over the
    documentation provided, it was not clear to me that the CL 1 in the final
    line of the magic item description was related to the power of the item,
    since most of the rest of the line dealt with what appeared to be the item
    creation requirements, at least at first glance, and admittedly, I haven't
    gone back to look it up. I assumed that it only took a caster level of 1 to
    create the item, which sounded a bit low to me, but who am I to argue with
    what appears to be the rules that I admittedly don't fully comprehend.
    Which is, not entirely uncoincidentally, why I asked the question in the
    first place.

    So the ring is caster level 1, but that STILL doesn't answer the question of
    what happens when the ring wearer/caster is overloaded to the point of not
    being able to move, as would be the case if he were overloaded with belayed
    characters falling off a mountain. Why would the spell instantaneously fail
    if the character is simply "overloaded"? Where's the rule that says that?

    Of course, even if your interpretation of the spell is correct, it seems
    decidedly strange to me that the ring would react differently when worn by a
    fighter wearing a Girdle of Giant Strength(max str, whatever that is in 3E)
    and is capable of lifting the entire party if he so chooses, as opposed to
    being worn by just a regular joe who can only lift 150 pounds or whatever.
    That seems to be more than slightly counterintuitive.

    On a side note, I find it amusing that you would go to such great lengths to
    point at me and yell for all to hear that I am a moron when it is well known
    that I'm not a 3E player, and as such, have admitted at many times in the
    past that I actually *AM* a moron when it comes to the rules implementation
    in 3E. Just how low *IS* your self-esteem that you would spend the time to
    beat the 3E equivalent of a retarded 4 year old in a spelling contest and
    then brag about your victory to your friends? In short, honestly, I know
    the my understanding of 3E rules is that of a retarded 4 year old, your
    reminding me of that does nothing to assist me in *NOT* being retarded. I'd
    appreciate a bit of assistance in NOT being retarded, but it would appear
    that, despite your obvious knowledge, you are quite simply NOT the person
    who is capable of bringing light to the darkness, and if that's the case,
    I'm truly sorry for you. If, however, your intent is just to belittle and
    harass me, instead of teach me something, then by all means, brag to your
    friends about your victory over the retard. Say, you wouldn't happen to
    know the meaning of "pyrrhic" would you?

    That said, thank you, Kevin, for actually putting thought into your response
    before MSB's knee went down his throat in a psychologically defensive
    reaction that was so fast it needs olympic timers just to catch it on the
    slow motion replay.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kevin Lowe wrote:
    > You could see it as holding up a weight on a rope, or you could see it
    > as being pulled downwards by a rope attached to your waist. It hangs on
    > how you define "equipment", and it is not clear what falls outside the
    > scope of that term.

    I think you have to use a bit of common sense here and realise they
    can't possibly go through every possibility when they write the rules.
    My common sense is telling me to count the tethered companions as if
    they were equipment (although yours may tell you differently).

    > If instead of being attached to a falling party the FFer was being drawn
    > down by a high-speed winch which was bolted to the bottom of the chasm,
    > would that negate the Feather Fall because the FFer is "equipped" with
    > the planet? If an Ogre lassos you and pulls on the rope are you
    > "equipped" with the Ogre?

    Being pulled by a winch isn't falling so IMO it wouldn't work. I know
    that it 'goes against the laws of physics', but that's magic for yer!

    > Okay. I think there are two ambiguities in play here.
    >
    > Firstly, what happens if the subject of a FF experiences a downward
    > force greater than their weight plus their carrying capacity? Does the
    > spell end, or is the spell suppressed while they are experiencing that
    > force, or does the spell have a lesser effect while they are
    > experiencing that force?

    I'd say the effects are just suppressed whilst you're over-encumbered.

    > Secondly, does any downward force count or do only some forces count?

    My first thought about this is that the key is whether you're actually
    falling or whether you're being being pushed / pulled downwards, so
    with that in mind...

    > What about downdrafts,
    No, as it's not falling, it's being pushed downwards. Of course the
    dowdraft would have to be strong enough to make you move more quickly
    than featherfall allows you to fall, otherwise it wouldn't make any
    difference (i.e. consider how fast it would move you if it were blowing
    horizontally and then compare)

    > ball and chains, PCs on ropes,
    Yes - effectively equipment IMO.

    > ogres with lassos, being pulled down by a high
    > speed winch, rocket packs pointing upwards and so on?
    No, as it's not falling, it's being pulled / pushed downwards. Of
    course you're not going to be pulled downwards by the ogres quickly
    enough to actually take damage anyway, so it's kind of irrelevant in
    that case.


    I think this approach works fairly well but I'm sure someone will now
    come up with a scenario where it falls down...


    Also, from your earlier post:

    > Assuming a few meters of rope between PCs, after the other PCs have gone
    > squish the FFer will have maybe three or five meters of distance in
    > which to decelarate from full falling speed, but that should be plenty.

    An excellent point... I'm starting to imagine some sort of DnD extreme
    sport where adventurous folk wearing rings of feather fall start
    jumping off high bridges and tall buildings with anvils tied around
    their ankles :)
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Wow! A well-thought out, polite flame war.... Gotta love it!
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
    news:me-6ED50D.13212226052005@news01.comindico.com.au...
    > If the ring affects everyone what happens is obvious. I'm not certain
    > myself whether it does or not.

    CL1. Spell description says 1 creature/level. Do the math.

    > If it doesn't, then instead of a nice gentle fall at a low terminal
    > velocity the FFer will get dragged along at the same speed as everyone
    > else by the rope. They won't slow the others down materially any more
    > than holding feather on a string would slow you down if you jumped off a
    cliff.

    Wrong. Feather fall does not reduce anyone's mass, it simply controls
    their fall rate. Further, a feather falling person can hold up another
    person (not under the effect of the spell) if they are strong enough to
    carry them. This is decidedly un-feather-like.

    It's all there for you in the spell description. Neither you nor Goslin
    managed to read it. Why?
    Why would you want to have something in common with that idiot?
    Do better.

    -Michael
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <03dle.555$IL3.84@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:me-6ED50D.13212226052005@news01.comindico.com.au...
    > > If the ring affects everyone what happens is obvious. I'm not certain
    > > myself whether it does or not.
    >
    > CL1. Spell description says 1 creature/level. Do the math.

    Fair enough then.

    > > If it doesn't, then instead of a nice gentle fall at a low terminal
    > > velocity the FFer will get dragged along at the same speed as everyone
    > > else by the rope. They won't slow the others down materially any more
    > > than holding feather on a string would slow you down if you jumped off a
    > cliff.
    >
    > Wrong. Feather fall does not reduce anyone's mass, it simply controls
    > their fall rate. Further, a feather falling person can hold up another
    > person (not under the effect of the spell) if they are strong enough to
    > carry them. This is decidedly un-feather-like.

    It does not say what happens if they are tethered to another falling
    object though, so we are kind of on our own if they are tethered to a
    number of objects which together are more than the spell can affect.

    You could say that stuff tethered to you counts as equipment and thus
    that the spell should fail completely, which seems harsh but not unfair.
    They would have to cut themselves loose to Feather Fall.

    Alternatively you could say that the spell takes effect on the caster
    and their gear but that the FFer should be dragged down along with the
    un-FFed stuff. Then it should play out the way I said it did and I
    think this ruling is the most fair and intuitive.

    Alternatively you could decide that FF generates an upward force of X
    newtons, where X is equal to the weight of the subject plus equipment
    minus wind resistance, and try to figure out what the heck that implies
    for the impact velocities of the party and the FFer but that strikes me
    as too complicated.

    Or you could say that the rate of fall of a FFer is absolute, that
    tethered stuff does not count as equipment, and that they can have any
    amount of stuff tethered to them and they will still fall at a constant
    rate. Then everyone is fine but it seems a mite generous.

    > It's all there for you in the spell description. Neither you nor Goslin
    > managed to read it. Why?
    > Why would you want to have something in common with that idiot?
    > Do better.

    The number of people affected is a good catch. No argument there. I
    don't think the text of Feather Fall is unambiguous about what happens
    in the scenario in question though.

    --
    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
    news:me-1A17AF.16475026052005@news01.comindico.com.au...
    > > Wrong. Feather fall does not reduce anyone's mass, it simply
    controls
    > > their fall rate. Further, a feather falling person can hold up another
    > > person (not under the effect of the spell) if they are strong enough to
    > > carry them. This is decidedly un-feather-like.
    >
    > It does not say what happens if they are tethered to another falling
    > object though, so we are kind of on our own if they are tethered to a
    > number of objects which together are more than the spell can affect.

    I fail to see how holding up a weight on a rope is anything other than a
    simple question of encumbrance and carrying capacity. I would go so far as
    to suggest that seeing it any other way is, quite simply, idiotic.

    > You could say that stuff tethered to you counts as equipment and thus
    > that the spell should fail completely, which seems harsh but not unfair.
    > They would have to cut themselves loose to Feather Fall.

    It really can't be done in time; the free-falling characters will become
    "encumbrance" after about a second; killing the spell. Can you draw a
    dagger and slash a rope in that time? Perhaps a generous reflex saving
    throw would do the job. Free fall iaijutsu!

    > Alternatively you could decide that FF generates an upward force of X
    > newtons, where X is equal to the weight of the subject plus equipment
    > minus wind resistance, and try to figure out what the heck that implies
    > for the impact velocities of the party and the FFer but that strikes me
    > as too complicated.

    It is also wrong, given the rules on encumbrance we have available. If
    the wizard is holding up more than he can carry, that's all she wrote. If
    the wizard is holding up less than he can carry, he falls at the proscribed
    rate. Feather fall *fixes* your falling rate as long as you don't exceed
    its capabilities.

    > Or you could say that the rate of fall of a FFer is absolute,

    That's what the spell says, sir!

    -Michael
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 25 May 2005 21:12:00 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
    <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    >However, if it affects only the wearer, then there are complications to deal
    >with. The party is tied together, and they all go tumbling off the cliff,
    >and the feather fall ring wearer is in their midst, he falls at a gentle
    >pace, while everyone else begins their plummet. Since they are tied
    >together, either the rope snaps or the feather falling isn't as effective.
    >
    >Assuming the rope DOESN'T snap, what would YOU rule the effects of feather
    >falling on the group as a whole, rather than just the individual wearing the
    >ring? If there are X people attached to the rope, they still travel at
    >X-1/X% of terminal velocity, sparing themselves a percentage of damage? So,
    >if there are 4 people tied off, and one has feather falling ring, the actual
    >impact damage would be 75% of normal?

    How I would rule:

    The ring protects only the wearer. The others fall normally. However
    they are brought up short by the ropes--that's the whole point of a
    belay is to stop a fall. In the real world it requires someone to
    remain anchored and not fall, but in the magical one a magical
    protection could also do it.

    Once the ropes have reached their limit the effect is as if the one
    character simply had a huge amount of gear. Never mind the gear is on
    the end of ropes, it's still weight. There's no weight limit on a
    ring of feather falling so he should be ok. Everyone falls gently.

    I would assign falling damage to *everyone* involved equal to the what
    they would take for the distance the ropes permitted them to fall but
    I would make it subdual damage. (The ring-wearer gets the worst of
    this as he's going to get the jerks from everyone being stopped
    whereas everyone else will get some of the jerks.)

    To illustrate: We have 5 guys, 20' of rope between each. The ring
    wearer is in the middle. They fall.

    #3 is in effect stationary. #2 reaches the end of his rope. He takes
    20' of falling damage and the ring wearer takes 20'. #4 reaches the
    end, 20' to him, 20' to the ring wearer. #1 and #5 are still
    falling.

    Now #1 reaches the end. He takes 40' of falling damage. He's tied to
    #2 who likewise gets a jerk for 40' of damage as does the ring wearer.
    #5 likewise takes 40', as does #4 and #3.

    End result: #1 takes 40', #2 takes 20' + 40', #3 takes 20' + 20' +
    40' + 40', #4 takes 20' + 40' and #5 takes 40'.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 26 May 2005 04:05:33 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
    <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    >So the ring is caster level 1, but that STILL doesn't answer the question of
    >what happens when the ring wearer/caster is overloaded to the point of not
    >being able to move, as would be the case if he were overloaded with belayed
    >characters falling off a mountain. Why would the spell instantaneously fail
    >if the character is simply "overloaded"? Where's the rule that says that?
    >
    >Of course, even if your interpretation of the spell is correct, it seems
    >decidedly strange to me that the ring would react differently when worn by a
    >fighter wearing a Girdle of Giant Strength(max str, whatever that is in 3E)
    >and is capable of lifting the entire party if he so chooses, as opposed to
    >being worn by just a regular joe who can only lift 150 pounds or whatever.
    >That seems to be more than slightly counterintuitive.

    That's why I assumed there's no weight limit on the ring. There's no
    weight limit in pounds and basing it on load produces this
    unreasonable resullt.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1117106108.291793.138290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Kevin Lowe wrote:
    > > You could see it as holding up a weight on a rope, or you could see it
    > > as being pulled downwards by a rope attached to your waist. It hangs on
    > > how you define "equipment", and it is not clear what falls outside the
    > > scope of that term.
    >
    > I think you have to use a bit of common sense here and realise they
    > can't possibly go through every possibility when they write the rules.
    > My common sense is telling me to count the tethered companions as if
    > they were equipment (although yours may tell you differently).

    Agreed, and my common sense tells me that the name of the spell "feather
    fall" is simply an indication of the effect of the spell, NOT of the actual
    implementation. In other words, despite being the recipient of a feather
    fall spell, a person falls LIKE a feather, and not "as if a feather".
    Certain other posters seemed to focus on how a feather would act if pulled
    down by, say, a large boulder.

    My common sense tells me that feather fall would act even if a person were
    "over-encumbered", even if it acted in a somewhat less effective manner,
    which led me to the conclusion that if a person was "encumbered" with 3
    other party members, that the feather fall would operate at 25% efficiency
    instead of normal 100% efficiency, meaning that the net effect would be only
    a 25% reduction in damage instead of the full 100% damage reduction. That's
    what my common sense told me, but I wanted to see if there was some official
    ruling to the contrary.

    > > Firstly, what happens if the subject of a FF experiences a downward
    > > force greater than their weight plus their carrying capacity? Does the
    > > spell end, or is the spell suppressed while they are experiencing that
    > > force, or does the spell have a lesser effect while they are
    > > experiencing that force?
    >
    > I'd say the effects are just suppressed whilst you're over-encumbered.

    Personally, if I had to make a call on the spot, as DM, I would say that the
    effects were lessened by whatever amount over you are. If you have the
    capability to feather fall yourself alone, and 3 people are hanging on to
    you, then you're going to plummet, but the feather fall would reduce *SOME*
    of the damage from the fall. You wouldn't hit at terminal velocity, but
    instead some high number OTHER than terminal velocity.

    But, like I said, I wanted to know if there was some official ruling on it.
    It would appear, at least from the "I would do X" factor of this thread that
    there is no DEFINITIVE ruling one way or the other, and it's just that
    certain posters seem intent on declaring their position correct, despite
    having no authority, other than what authority exists in their mind, to
    state it with any certainty.

    As such, in our campaign, I'm going to use the "dampened effect" type of
    use. Of course, there are going to be 7 people and a dead body belayed when
    the party crosses the mountain range, so a ring of feather falling isn't
    going to do very much to slow their descent to death, but hey, I suppose
    anything to make sure you just break every bone in your body and not die,
    right? ;)

    > > What about downdrafts,
    > No, as it's not falling, it's being pushed downwards.

    What does gravity do, if not push you downwards? ;)

    > An excellent point... I'm starting to imagine some sort of DnD extreme
    > sport where adventurous folk wearing rings of feather fall start
    > jumping off high bridges and tall buildings with anvils tied around
    > their ankles :)

    Make it *REALLY* extreme and put a Houdini factor in it. Make the dagger
    they are carrying to cut the rope to be peace-bound. ;)

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:neGdnZeKs_IAHgjfRVn-hw@comcast.com:

    > So the ring is caster level 1, but that STILL doesn't answer the
    > question of what happens when the ring wearer/caster is overloaded to
    > the point of not being able to move, as would be the case if he were
    > overloaded with belayed characters falling off a mountain. Why would
    > the spell instantaneously fail if the character is simply
    > "overloaded"? Where's the rule that says that?

    In the description of feather fall. The spell only applies to the target
    and gear up to their maximum capacity: "The spell affects one or more
    Medium or smaller creatures (including gear and carried objects up to each
    creature's maximum load)[...]" The spell duration wouldn't end, it just
    wouldn't apply for a while, so a DM may allow some sort of roll to cut the
    rope. Lose the weight, and feather fall kicks in again.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <LAele.585$IL3.448@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:me-1A17AF.16475026052005@news01.comindico.com.au...
    > > > Wrong. Feather fall does not reduce anyone's mass, it simply
    > controls
    > > > their fall rate. Further, a feather falling person can hold up another
    > > > person (not under the effect of the spell) if they are strong enough to
    > > > carry them. This is decidedly un-feather-like.
    > >
    > > It does not say what happens if they are tethered to another falling
    > > object though, so we are kind of on our own if they are tethered to a
    > > number of objects which together are more than the spell can affect.
    >
    > I fail to see how holding up a weight on a rope is anything other than a
    > simple question of encumbrance and carrying capacity. I would go so far as
    > to suggest that seeing it any other way is, quite simply, idiotic.

    You could see it as holding up a weight on a rope, or you could see it
    as being pulled downwards by a rope attached to your waist. It hangs on
    how you define "equipment", and it is not clear what falls outside the
    scope of that term.

    If instead of being attached to a falling party the FFer was being drawn
    down by a high-speed winch which was bolted to the bottom of the chasm,
    would that negate the Feather Fall because the FFer is "equipped" with
    the planet? If an Ogre lassos you and pulls on the rope are you
    "equipped" with the Ogre?

    > > You could say that stuff tethered to you counts as equipment and thus
    > > that the spell should fail completely, which seems harsh but not unfair.
    > > They would have to cut themselves loose to Feather Fall.
    >
    > It really can't be done in time; the free-falling characters will become
    > "encumbrance" after about a second; killing the spell. Can you draw a
    > dagger and slash a rope in that time? Perhaps a generous reflex saving
    > throw would do the job. Free fall iaijutsu!

    I would say a reflex save is fairest but the DC would depend on the
    circumstances of the fall and how much warning they had that they were
    about to take a nosedive.

    > > Alternatively you could decide that FF generates an upward force of X
    > > newtons, where X is equal to the weight of the subject plus equipment
    > > minus wind resistance, and try to figure out what the heck that implies
    > > for the impact velocities of the party and the FFer but that strikes me
    > > as too complicated.
    >
    > It is also wrong, given the rules on encumbrance we have available. If
    > the wizard is holding up more than he can carry, that's all she wrote. If
    > the wizard is holding up less than he can carry, he falls at the proscribed
    > rate. Feather fall *fixes* your falling rate as long as you don't exceed
    > its capabilities.

    That's why X varies to maintain that speed, if you want to go that route.

    > > Or you could say that the rate of fall of a FFer is absolute,
    >
    > That's what the spell says, sir!

    Okay. I think there are two ambiguities in play here.

    Firstly, what happens if the subject of a FF experiences a downward
    force greater than their weight plus their carrying capacity? Does the
    spell end, or is the spell suppressed while they are experiencing that
    force, or does the spell have a lesser effect while they are
    experiencing that force?

    Secondly, does any downward force count or do only some forces count?
    Armour and gear obviously count. What about downdrafts, ball and
    chains, PCs on ropes, ogres with lassos, being pulled down by a high
    speed winch, rocket packs pointing upwards and so on?

    I do not think the FF text gives us a definitive answer to either
    question.

    --
    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Willie wrote:
    > Wow! A well-thought out, polite flame war.... Gotta love it!

    Erris can don fancy dress when she so desires.

    - Ron ^*^
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin wrote:
    >
    > My common sense tells me that feather fall would act even if a person were
    > "over-encumbered", even if it acted in a somewhat less effective manner,

    This is why there is a general lack of respect for your
    "common sense" on this newsgroup.

    -Bluto
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin wrote:
    > There's nothing in the spell description that indicates what happens to the
    > spell if the character IS overloaded, ONLY that the spell will only affect
    > up to the characters maximum weight capacity. Beyond that, it isn't clear
    > if the effect of the spell works on that weight while overloaded, or if it
    > simply stops working altogether.

    Horsepucky. The spell description makes it very clear what the
    parameters of the spell's operation are. If these are violated THE
    SPELL DOES NOT WORK. *That's how D&D magic works*. When a spell is
    asked to do something it cannot do, cue the fizzle. Cast Charm Person
    on a dog, and NOTHING HAPPENS. Cast Magic Missile at an object, and
    NOTHING HAPPENS. Try to use feather fall hanging onto an anvil ...
    NOTHING HAPPENS.

    > I can't see why the spell would simply
    > cease to function at 501 pounds when 500 pounds is the character's
    > encumbrance limit.

    So do you now wish to tell us that you can't see how all the *other*
    spells in the game with weight limits stop working when one extra pound
    is added that takes them over the top? Teleport has a weight limit. Fly
    has a weight limit. Levitate has a weight limit. Tenser's Floating
    Disk has a weight limit.
    And what about Stoneskin? Do you have a problem when it takes one
    more point of damage than its capacity allows, too? How long should
    this new echelon of "weaker" DR persist, since you "can't see why the
    spell would simply cease to function at 101 points of damage when 100
    points if the spell's damage limit".

    Really, Goslin. You're being a bloody, gibbering idiot. There are
    maximum capacities for many spells. Crossing such boundaries ends
    them. That's just how it is - there is no "graceful degradation" in
    capability required. How much lower to the ground does a Tenser's Disk
    start to float if you overload it? Hmm?


    -Michael
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin wrote:
    > Assuming the rope DOESN'T snap, what would YOU rule the effects of feather
    > falling on the group as a whole, rather than just the individual wearing the
    > ring? If there are X people attached to the rope, they still travel at
    > X-1/X% of terminal velocity, sparing themselves a percentage of damage? So,
    > if there are 4 people tied off, and one has feather falling ring, the actual
    > impact damage would be 75% of normal?

    Everyone falls fast, and the guy with the fether fall is ripped in half by the
    rope because he was too dumb and tied himself to the dead weights. Rope doesn't
    snap. :)
    --
    "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
    --till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
    news:me-B6FC5C.19494526052005@news01.comindico.com.au...
    > If instead of being attached to a falling party the FFer was being drawn
    > down by a high-speed winch which was bolted to the bottom of the chasm,
    > would that negate the Feather Fall because the FFer is "equipped" with
    > the planet? If an Ogre lassos you and pulls on the rope are you
    > "equipped" with the Ogre?

    Feather fall only affects *Free falling* targets. Please, Kevin. READ
    THE SPELL DESCRIPTION. Goslin is an idiot for not reading it before
    posting, and you are now doubly so. Every single one of your but-ifs is
    decisively settled by the simple expedient of reviewing the rule!

    > > It really can't be done in time; the free-falling characters will
    become
    > > "encumbrance" after about a second; killing the spell. Can you draw a
    > > dagger and slash a rope in that time? Perhaps a generous reflex saving
    > > throw would do the job. Free fall iaijutsu!
    >
    > I would say a reflex save is fairest but the DC would depend on the
    > circumstances of the fall and how much warning they had that they were
    > about to take a nosedive.

    Unfortunately, doing so sets a quickdraw-negating precedent; if one can
    draw and slash in one second during a fall...

    > Firstly, what happens if the subject of a FF experiences a downward
    > force greater than their weight plus their carrying capacity?

    If it ain't free fall, it ain't feather fall.

    > I do not think the FF text gives us a definitive answer to either
    question.

    Except that it did.

    -Michael
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1PGdnW3idNGYWwjfRVn-2g@comcast.com...
    > My common sense tells me that feather fall would act even if a person were
    > "over-encumbered", even if it acted in a somewhat less effective manner,

    <points>
    <laughs>

    -Michael
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Chipacabra" <chipb@efn.org> wrote in message
    news:Xns96624E75F6AEBchipbefnorg@216.196.97.131...
    > "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
    > news:neGdnZeKs_IAHgjfRVn-hw@comcast.com:
    >
    > > So the ring is caster level 1, but that STILL doesn't answer the
    > > question of what happens when the ring wearer/caster is overloaded to
    > > the point of not being able to move, as would be the case if he were
    > > overloaded with belayed characters falling off a mountain. Why would
    > > the spell instantaneously fail if the character is simply
    > > "overloaded"? Where's the rule that says that?
    >
    > In the description of feather fall. The spell only applies to the target
    > and gear up to their maximum capacity: "The spell affects one or more
    > Medium or smaller creatures (including gear and carried objects up to each
    > creature's maximum load)[...]" The spell duration wouldn't end, it just
    > wouldn't apply for a while, so a DM may allow some sort of roll to cut the
    > rope. Lose the weight, and feather fall kicks in again.

    There's nothing in the spell description that indicates what happens to the
    spell if the character IS overloaded, ONLY that the spell will only affect
    up to the characters maximum weight capacity. Beyond that, it isn't clear
    if the effect of the spell works on that weight while overloaded, or if it
    simply stops working altogether. I can't see why the spell would simply
    cease to function at 501 pounds when 500 pounds is the character's
    encumbrance limit.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:mvmdnWkY28xgrQvfRVn-rA@comcast.com:

    > There's nothing in the spell description that indicates what happens
    > to the spell if the character IS overloaded, ONLY that the spell will
    > only affect up to the characters maximum weight capacity. Beyond
    > that, it isn't clear if the effect of the spell works on that weight
    > while overloaded, or if it simply stops working altogether. I can't
    > see why the spell would simply cease to function at 501 pounds when
    > 500 pounds is the character's encumbrance limit.
    >

    It doesn't need to say what happens when the character is overloaded,
    because NOTHING happens. Why tie it to carrying capacity? Playability only.
    This way, feather fall is approximately the same relative effectiveness,
    whether you're tiny or collossal, without having to have an extra table of
    weight allowances for different sizes. If you ever need to justify that
    particular cutoff point (You probably won't), then stick with 'It's magic.'
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "~consul" <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
    news:d75dd6$h30$2@gist.usc.edu...
    > Everyone falls fast, and the guy with the fether fall is ripped in half by
    the
    > rope because he was too dumb and tied himself to the dead weights. Rope
    doesn't
    > snap. :)

    Like in Damien: The Omen II, when the guy's in the elevator and the cable
    cuts him clean in half. That scene's great!

    Yeah, I know the rope wouldn't snap, but hey, maybe there's a fray or
    something, who knows. I guess it depends on how charitable you're being as
    the DM. ;)

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Senator Blutarsky" <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:429629DE.4BA3A266@comcast.net...
    > Jeff Goslin wrote:
    > >
    > > My common sense tells me that feather fall would act even if a person
    were
    > > "over-encumbered", even if it acted in a somewhat less effective manner,
    >
    > This is why there is a general lack of respect for your
    > "common sense" on this newsgroup.

    Not so much, really. There is a SPECIFIC lack of respect, from one person,
    but he's a cock to everyone, so there is that.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin wrote:
    >
    > "Senator Blutarsky" <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:429629DE.4BA3A266@comcast.net...
    > > Jeff Goslin wrote:
    > > >
    > > > My common sense tells me that feather fall would act even if a person
    > were
    > > > "over-encumbered", even if it acted in a somewhat less effective manner,
    > >
    > > This is why there is a general lack of respect for your
    > > "common sense" on this newsgroup.
    >
    > Not so much, really. There is a SPECIFIC lack of respect, from one person,
    > but he's a cock to everyone, so there is that.

    I'm not a cock to everyone.

    I think you've miscounted. By a lot.

    -Bluto
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:YKudnRZZqe4svwjfRVn-qA@comcast.com...
    > The characters are traversing a mountain pass, all of them belayed
    together
    > with rope, and one of the characters is wearing the ring of feather
    falling,
    > when "all of a sudden at the whim of the DM who wishes to be a prick like
    > that", something nasty or unexpected knocks the entire mess of them off
    the
    > ledge/precipice/whatever. They are, as a group, now in free fall off the
    > side of a cliff.

    After quickly reading the 3E SRD and looking over the books for 3.5, I think
    I have a legal answer.

    The ring takes effect in 3E after the first 3 feet. In 3.5, it is 5 feet.
    Minor
    difference but in this case it could stop the splat.

    Initially, the ring functions and slows the wearer. However, it only works
    briefly if the ring wearer is first or last in line. If in the middle of the
    group
    then the spell is immediately overloaded and fails. This is really
    meaningless
    but included for completeness. The feather fall ring wearer eventually
    becomes
    last in the string regardless of where he started.

    The next part depends on whether or not it has limited charges. I'll assume
    unlimited charges. Because the trigger is falling X number of feet, you
    could
    empty all the charges in a long fall as feather fall is triggered every X
    number
    of feet if overloaded. Also the description doesn't seem to limit charges.
    Charges stop firing if the spell takes effect if charges are limited.

    Now, Regardless of what position our ring wearer started, all who were
    tied together eventually go splat. Apply falling damage as needed. The
    exception is for those that are wearing the feather fall ring. As each body
    hits the ground, the weight stops pulling on the rope. If there is more than
    3 or 5 feet between each of them, depending on which set of rules, then
    the ring takes effect and saves the ring wearer from damage.

    For the reality fans, there is no allowance for deceleration. The effect is
    instantaneous and I would assume that the spell effect prevents damage
    from any sudden deceleration due to falling acceleration before the spell
    is activated.

    There. I think that fits within 3E and 3.5 rules. Where was that rules
    lawyer
    guy when you needed him?
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    CryptWolf wrote:
    > For the reality fans, there is no allowance for deceleration. The effect is
    > instantaneous and I would assume that the spell effect prevents damage
    > from any sudden deceleration due to falling acceleration before the spell
    > is activated.
    > There. I think that fits within 3E and 3.5 rules. Where was that rules
    > lawyer guy when you needed him?

    I don't have the books at work, but I thought when the spell is working, it's a
    gentle fall, but after it ends, it's a speedy pickup to regular distance fall
    damage.

    From the srd3.5, of the spell Feather Fall:

    "The affected creatures or objects fall slowly. Feather fall instantly changes
    the rate at which the targets fall to a mere 60 feet per round (equivalent to
    the end of a fall from a few feet), and the subjects take no damage upon landing
    while the spell is in effect. However, when the spell duration expires, a normal
    rate of falling resumes."
    --
    "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
    --till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> writes:

    > "Senator Blutarsky" <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:429629DE.4BA3A266@comcast.net...
    >> Jeff Goslin wrote:
    >> >
    >> > My common sense tells me that feather fall would act even if a person
    > were
    >> > "over-encumbered", even if it acted in a somewhat less effective manner,
    >>
    >> This is why there is a general lack of respect for your
    >> "common sense" on this newsgroup.
    >
    > Not so much, really. There is a SPECIFIC lack of respect, from one person,
    > but he's a cock to everyone, so there is that.

    No.

    Because it is *obvious* to anyone with a reading ability above that of
    a 12-year old that you don't read and understand the rules.

    The rules are simple: you don't meet the prerequisites for a spell,
    the spell doesn't work at all, unless the spell description says
    otherwise.

    The fact that you are trying to discuss something that is so obvious
    it doesn't need discussing paints you as, quite frankly, an idiot.

    And yes, I know I have stated that I usually agree with MSB, so you'll
    probably disregard my opinion. That still means that your statement
    that only one person disrespects you is *provably* false, again
    proving that, yes, Jeff, you *are* an idiot.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> writes:

    > Jeff Goslin wrote:
    >>
    >> "MisterMichael" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >> news:1117140781.644614.221230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >> >
    >> > So do you now wish to tell us that you can't see how all the *other*
    >> > spells in the game with weight limits stop working when one extra pound
    >> > is added that takes them over the top? Teleport has a weight limit. Fly
    >> > has a weight limit. Levitate has a weight limit. Tenser's Floating
    >> > Disk has a weight limit.
    >>
    >> So, in your game, what you're telling us is that if you has some situation
    >> where a PC was levitating and being laden up with stuff, the instant he hit
    >> X+1 pounds(whatever the limit is), he would plummet out of the sky, until
    >> such a point where he dropped the oil flask that put him over the top, at
    >> which point, he comes to a screeching levitatinous halt. And somehow *I* am
    >> the one without common sense here, righty-o there, Mikey.
    >
    > Leaving aside the "screeching" hyperbole, THAT'S
    > EXACTLY CORRECT, you twit!

    IMO it still isn't correct.

    The spell has fizzled. The fact that the conditions that caused the
    fizzle don't exist anymore does not reinstate the spell's effect
    (unless the spell description notes that the effect can be temporarily
    suppressed).

    The only way to reinstate a fizzled spell's effect is by recasting it,
    according to my reading of the rules.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 27 May 2005 07:27:34 +0200, Mart van de Wege
    <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

    >Because it is *obvious* to anyone with a reading ability above that of
    >a 12-year old that you don't read and understand the rules.
    >
    >The rules are simple: you don't meet the prerequisites for a spell,
    >the spell doesn't work at all, unless the spell description says
    >otherwise.
    >
    >The fact that you are trying to discuss something that is so obvious
    >it doesn't need discussing paints you as, quite frankly, an idiot.
    >
    >And yes, I know I have stated that I usually agree with MSB, so you'll
    >probably disregard my opinion. That still means that your statement
    >that only one person disrespects you is *provably* false, again
    >proving that, yes, Jeff, you *are* an idiot.

    The rules make it very clear what happens when you *CAST* such an
    impossible spell.

    They do not address what happens when the spell becomes overloaded
    while it's running.

    Also, the strict interpretation being promoted on here has another
    problem: The ring doesn't work for someone with more than 100 pounds
    of gear. It's very easy for a fighter to exceed that.

    As I see it, trying to impose a weight limit on what the guy can lift
    while under the spell just causes too many headaches. Thus I think
    the more sensible ruling is that there is no weight limit beyond the
    fact that the guy with the ring is going to be holding an awful lot of
    weight on those ropes.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <jLlle.145$q4.144@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:me-B6FC5C.19494526052005@news01.comindico.com.au...
    > > If instead of being attached to a falling party the FFer was being drawn
    > > down by a high-speed winch which was bolted to the bottom of the chasm,
    > > would that negate the Feather Fall because the FFer is "equipped" with
    > > the planet? If an Ogre lassos you and pulls on the rope are you
    > > "equipped" with the Ogre?
    >
    > Feather fall only affects *Free falling* targets. Please, Kevin. READ
    > THE SPELL DESCRIPTION. Goslin is an idiot for not reading it before
    > posting, and you are now doubly so. Every single one of your but-ifs is
    > decisively settled by the simple expedient of reviewing the rule!

    I read that, but my thinking is that if you interpret "free falling" too
    strictly you get unwanted results. My example of a downdraft is one.
    It seems daft on the face of it that a 5kph downdraft makes feather
    falling impossible for anyone, but a feather falling giant can carry an
    elephant.

    If we are reading "free falling" that strictly, then holding up an
    umbrella as you fell would also cancel a Feather Fall, and you could
    prevent someone from feather falling by attaching a piece of thin string
    to their back and letting it run through your hand as they fell.

    I strongly suspect the intention of that clause was to close off the
    trick from earlier editions of using Feather Fall on non-falling targets
    for various purposes. Normally I'm a strict literalist when it comes to
    spell effects, but I am finding the language on this one fuzzy enough
    that I have to fall back on trying to divine writer intent to some
    extent in this case, and my inclination is to believe that the intent
    with the 3e rewrite was that you could get around falling damage even if
    there is a downdraft or you had an umbrella, but you absolutely couldn't
    use Feather Fall for anything other than controlling a rapid descent.

    > > I would say a reflex save is fairest but the DC would depend on the
    > > circumstances of the fall and how much warning they had that they were
    > > about to take a nosedive.
    >
    > Unfortunately, doing so sets a quickdraw-negating precedent; if one can
    > draw and slash in one second during a fall...

    I disagree, I think it would only be such a precedent if you let them
    get around the actions-per-round limits by making such a save. If they
    fell in combat I would be happy to allow a suitable save to let someone
    resolve their draw-and-slash before we resolve them hitting the ground,
    but that would be their move action and their standard action used up.

    > > Firstly, what happens if the subject of a FF experiences a downward
    > > force greater than their weight plus their carrying capacity?
    >
    > If it ain't free fall, it ain't feather fall.

    Okay, but if you cast the spell and then after it has taken effect you
    encounter a downward (or upward) non-equipment force is the Feather Fall
    dispelled, suppressed, or does it have a partial effect?

    > > I do not think the FF text gives us a definitive answer to either
    > question.
    >
    > Except that it did.

    I can see how you can plausibly get a definitive answer to the question
    of what subjects are legitimate targets for a Feather Fall, although I
    do not like that reading myself and I think it is questionable. It
    certainly doesn't tell us what happens when a happy Feather Faller
    encounters an unexpected downward force, or for that matter an upward
    one.

    --
    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    news:87is15me61.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    > Because it is *obvious* to anyone with a reading ability above that of
    > a 12-year old that you don't read and understand the rules.

    You're right, I haven't fully read and admittedly don't fully understand the
    rules. Hence the question.

    > The rules are simple: you don't meet the prerequisites for a spell,
    > the spell doesn't work at all, unless the spell description says
    > otherwise.


    This seems like an appropriate time for a statement. I asked a rules
    question, for a definitive answer from the rules about a specific situation,
    and for the time being, nobody has given me a rule quote that would cause me
    to think that anything that has been said is anything BUT personal
    interpretation, and I can personally interpret on my own just fine.

    Many people have been saying that if the conditions of the spell are not met
    at the time of casting, the spell fails, and this I would agree with, but in
    this particular instance, at the time of casting, spell conditions are NOT
    being exceeded, so I am therefore seeking a FURTHER rule that indicates what
    happens DURING a spell when the spell limits are exceeded, and it would
    APPEAR that there is no specific rule that indicates what happens to a spell
    when the conditions are exceeded. Does it completely stop functioning
    forever, as many people have indicated? If so, where's that rule? Does it
    get completely supressed until the conditions cease to be exceeded, and then
    resume for the duration? If so, where's THAT rule? Does it cease to
    function as effectively, working progressively worse as the condition is
    exceeded by more and more? If so, where is THAT rule? Do ya see what I'm
    getting at?

    > The fact that you are trying to discuss something that is so obvious
    > it doesn't need discussing paints you as, quite frankly, an idiot.

    If this is so patently obvious, if it's very clearly in the rules, find the
    rule. So far, what I've been hearing is interpretation and conjecture, NOT
    rules. I'm fully happy to declare myself an idiot and concede to the
    respective superior knowledges of every poster, if only what was being told
    to me was an explicit rule.

    > And yes, I know I have stated that I usually agree with MSB, so you'll
    > probably disregard my opinion. That still means that your statement
    > that only one person disrespects you is *provably* false, again

    Well it wasn't so much that only one person disrespects me, it's that one
    person is unduly influencing the jury, if you will. But hey, that's
    alright, if I'm such an idiot, it should be a trivial matter to PROVE me
    wrong. And honestly, I'd like it very much if there were a definitive
    answer to this, as it would seriously make my life easier.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    news:87ekbtmdxn.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    > The spell has fizzled. The fact that the conditions that caused the
    > fizzle don't exist anymore does not reinstate the spell's effect
    > (unless the spell description notes that the effect can be temporarily
    > suppressed).
    >
    > The only way to reinstate a fizzled spell's effect is by recasting it,
    > according to my reading of the rules.

    So, by that line of reasoning, I take it that if a large creature locks you
    up when in mid air, any weight based spell would suddenly cease, even if the
    time of that contact is only the briefest of moments? That's pretty silly,
    dude.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Kevin Lowe" <me@private.net> wrote in message
    news:me-D8AAB2.00551328052005@news01.comindico.com.au...
    > > Feather fall only affects *Free falling* targets. Please, Kevin.
    READ
    > > THE SPELL DESCRIPTION. Goslin is an idiot for not reading it before
    > > posting, and you are now doubly so. Every single one of your but-ifs is
    > > decisively settled by the simple expedient of reviewing the rule!
    >
    > I read that, but my thinking is that if you interpret "free falling" too
    > strictly you get unwanted results. My example of a downdraft is one.
    > It seems daft on the face of it that a 5kph downdraft makes feather
    > falling impossible for anyone, but a feather falling giant can carry an
    > elephant.

    A fine subtlety, but an irrelevant one, to my thinking. As long as the
    individuals in question are behaving as projectiles in that airstream would,
    they're freely falling. Holding an umbrella or even a parachute is
    perfectly ok, the fact that you're draggy is a non-issue with respect to
    whether or not you are falling freely. Being tied to a winch that is
    pulling you down, however ...

    > > If it ain't free fall, it ain't feather fall.
    >
    > Okay, but if you cast the spell and then after it has taken effect you
    > encounter a downward (or upward) non-equipment force is the Feather Fall
    > dispelled, suppressed, or does it have a partial effect?

    If the conditions for FF to operate are violated, it ends.

    -Michael
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:8ghe91ppd3egnnpijfl8o9iaphrrojpf66@4ax.com...
    > >here: (1) the dragon continues flying, taking the
    > >wizard along with him whether the wizard likes it or
    > >not, or (2) the dragon chooses to stop flying and
    > >become "dead weight," in which case both it *and the
    > >wizard* drop like stones.
    >
    > That doesn't look like what he's saying at all.
    > I think what he's saying is that if the flying guy is grappled the fly
    > spell remains in effect, it's just unable to overcome the dragon.
    > When released he can fly off rather than plummet.

    While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_ is
    irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries himself
    out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is no
    encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
    encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.

    -Michael
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:h6Ile.734$s64.182@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_
    is
    > irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries
    himself
    > out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is no
    > encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
    > encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.

    At LEAST be internally consistent. You have said, multiple times in the
    past that if the conditions for casting a spell are somehow exceeded, even
    during the duration of the spell, it instantaneously and irrevocably fails,
    ceasing to function altogether.

    By this rationale, despite your having said that feather falling would fail,
    as soon as you cut the ropes that belay your companions, the feather fall
    would kick in again. This runs contrary to everything you have thus far
    said about spell failure.

    So which is it? Does the spell fail completely(as you originally stated),
    or is it just supressed(as in the case of this fly spell example)? If so,
    find that rule, quote it, and call me an idiot. If not, admit you were
    simply providing your interpretation, and call me an idiot(since I'm sure
    that's the only thing you're really interested in doing anyways).

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:42:53 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

    >"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:8ghe91ppd3egnnpijfl8o9iaphrrojpf66@4ax.com...
    >> >here: (1) the dragon continues flying, taking the
    >> >wizard along with him whether the wizard likes it or
    >> >not, or (2) the dragon chooses to stop flying and
    >> >become "dead weight," in which case both it *and the
    >> >wizard* drop like stones.
    >>
    >> That doesn't look like what he's saying at all.
    >> I think what he's saying is that if the flying guy is grappled the fly
    >> spell remains in effect, it's just unable to overcome the dragon.
    >> When released he can fly off rather than plummet.
    >
    > While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_ is
    >irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries himself
    >out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is no
    >encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
    >encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.

    Dragon folds his wings momentarily then drops the wizard.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jeff Goslin" wrote
    > "Mart van de Wege" wrote
    > > The spell has fizzled. The fact that the conditions that caused the
    > > fizzle don't exist anymore does not reinstate the spell's effect
    > > (unless the spell description notes that the effect can be temporarily
    > > suppressed).
    > >
    > > The only way to reinstate a fizzled spell's effect is by recasting it,
    > > according to my reading of the rules.
    >
    > So, by that line of reasoning, I take it that if a large creature locks
    you
    > up when in mid air, any weight based spell would suddenly cease, even if
    the
    > time of that contact is only the briefest of moments? That's pretty
    silly,
    > dude.

    Its very silly, and would only apply if the Large Creature was not flying on
    its own and depended on the flying PC to hold it up. Now, if the flying
    creature just grabbed on and kept flying the spell would not stop as the PC
    is not carrying any extra weight.
    But you already know this, don't you?

    John
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:54:07 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
    scribed into the ether:

    >"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    >news:87ekbtmdxn.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    >> The spell has fizzled. The fact that the conditions that caused the
    >> fizzle don't exist anymore does not reinstate the spell's effect
    >> (unless the spell description notes that the effect can be temporarily
    >> suppressed).
    >>
    >> The only way to reinstate a fizzled spell's effect is by recasting it,
    >> according to my reading of the rules.
    >
    >So, by that line of reasoning, I take it that if a large creature locks you
    >up when in mid air, any weight based spell would suddenly cease, even if the
    >time of that contact is only the briefest of moments? That's pretty silly,
    >dude.

    Yes, your example is very silly.
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 27 May 2005 13:40:05 -0700, Loren Pechtel
    <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> scribed into the ether:

    >On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:42:53 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    ><mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    >>"Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>news:8ghe91ppd3egnnpijfl8o9iaphrrojpf66@4ax.com...
    >>> >here: (1) the dragon continues flying, taking the
    >>> >wizard along with him whether the wizard likes it or
    >>> >not, or (2) the dragon chooses to stop flying and
    >>> >become "dead weight," in which case both it *and the
    >>> >wizard* drop like stones.
    >>>
    >>> That doesn't look like what he's saying at all.
    >>> I think what he's saying is that if the flying guy is grappled the fly
    >>> spell remains in effect, it's just unable to overcome the dragon.
    >>> When released he can fly off rather than plummet.
    >>
    >> While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_ is
    >>irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries himself
    >>out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is no
    >>encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
    >>encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.
    >
    >Dragon folds his wings momentarily then drops the wizard.

    Splat goes the wizard.
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:02:27 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
    scribed into the ether:

    >"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >news:h6Ile.734$s64.182@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >> While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_
    >is
    >> irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries
    >himself
    >> out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is no
    >> encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
    >> encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.
    >
    >At LEAST be internally consistent. You have said, multiple times in the
    >past that if the conditions for casting a spell are somehow exceeded, even
    >during the duration of the spell, it instantaneously and irrevocably fails,
    >ceasing to function altogether.

    Grappling with dragon != carrying weight of dragon.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:52:09 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
    scribed into the ether:

    >"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
    >news:87is15me61.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
    >> Because it is *obvious* to anyone with a reading ability above that of
    >> a 12-year old that you don't read and understand the rules.
    >
    >You're right, I haven't fully read and admittedly don't fully understand the
    >rules.

    So why do you persist in arguing with those that do?
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> writes:

    > On Fri, 27 May 2005 07:27:34 +0200, Mart van de Wege
    > <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
    >
    >>Because it is *obvious* to anyone with a reading ability above that of
    >>a 12-year old that you don't read and understand the rules.
    >>
    >>The rules are simple: you don't meet the prerequisites for a spell,
    >>the spell doesn't work at all, unless the spell description says
    >>otherwise.
    >>
    >>The fact that you are trying to discuss something that is so obvious
    >>it doesn't need discussing paints you as, quite frankly, an idiot.
    >>
    >>And yes, I know I have stated that I usually agree with MSB, so you'll
    >>probably disregard my opinion. That still means that your statement
    >>that only one person disrespects you is *provably* false, again
    >>proving that, yes, Jeff, you *are* an idiot.
    >
    > The rules make it very clear what happens when you *CAST* such an
    > impossible spell.
    >
    > They do not address what happens when the spell becomes overloaded
    > while it's running.
    >
    Same as what happens when someone casts an opposing spell, I guess? It
    is the most logical and sane reading of the rules, and D&D magic has
    always worked in that binary on/off manner.

    > Also, the strict interpretation being promoted on here has another
    > problem: The ring doesn't work for someone with more than 100 pounds
    > of gear. It's very easy for a fighter to exceed that.
    >
    Then perhaps:

    1. The standard ring isn't targeted at Fighters? Or...

    2. The Fighter should splurge out more cash for a higher-level
    version?

    > As I see it, trying to impose a weight limit on what the guy can lift
    > while under the spell just causes too many headaches.

    We're not trying to *impose* a weight limit. The weight limit is a
    *prerequisite* for the spell, and it's right there in the description.

    > Thus I think the more sensible ruling is that there is no weight
    > limit beyond the fact that the guy with the ring is going to be
    > holding an awful lot of weight on those ropes.

    That would make the standard CL1 ring *way* too powerful. Sorry,
    that's by no means a sensible reading of the rules.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:56:36 +0200, Mart van de Wege
    <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

    >> The rules make it very clear what happens when you *CAST* such an
    >> impossible spell.
    >>
    >> They do not address what happens when the spell becomes overloaded
    >> while it's running.
    >>
    >Same as what happens when someone casts an opposing spell, I guess? It
    >is the most logical and sane reading of the rules, and D&D magic has
    >always worked in that binary on/off manner.

    It can be argued either way.

    >> Also, the strict interpretation being promoted on here has another
    >> problem: The ring doesn't work for someone with more than 100 pounds
    >> of gear. It's very easy for a fighter to exceed that.
    >>
    >Then perhaps:
    >
    >1. The standard ring isn't targeted at Fighters? Or...
    >
    >2. The Fighter should splurge out more cash for a higher-level
    > version?

    If this were the case I think the book would have said something in
    the item description. Since it doesn't mention this all-to-likely
    possibility I can only conclude that the minimum weight limit is his
    max encumberance.

    >> Thus I think the more sensible ruling is that there is no weight
    >> limit beyond the fact that the guy with the ring is going to be
    >> holding an awful lot of weight on those ropes.
    >
    >That would make the standard CL1 ring *way* too powerful. Sorry,
    >that's by no means a sensible reading of the rules.

    How often will people be belayed together. Note, also, that my
    proposed solution bangs people up pretty well.
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:a70f91p6bh2t0n7csp8fp9m7les6sfgcc9@4ax.com...
    > The rules make it very clear what happens when you *CAST* such an
    > impossible spell.
    >
    > They do not address what happens when the spell becomes overloaded
    > while it's running.

    This is the exact point I've been trying to get across. Yes, it's obvious
    that a person cannot cast feather fall while they are laden down with 1000
    pounds of "stuff"(adventurers and their gear), that much is handled by the
    rules. But in the instance I provided, there is only the briefest moment
    where the character actually weighs that much, and that would be at the
    EXACT moment the character is pulled off the mountain by the other tumbling
    characters. Since that moment is over in a fraction of a second, being the
    charitable DM that I am, I will grant a PC the fact that the spell will NOT
    fail based on that criteria, because any wizard who has learned feather fall
    would probably then have been warned as such: "Do it before you fall, or
    while you're falling, but NOT while you're being pulled over the edge."

    So, if there's no rule, I guess I have to make one up to cover that
    situation, and I will NOT be using the "it stops working" interpretation
    provided by MSB.

    However, I'd like to give every opportunity for an actual RULE to be stated,
    since, admittedly, I do not know the rules of 3E well at all. I am a 3E
    moron(or, if you prefer, I'm simply a moron, to make MSB's life a little
    easier).

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "John Phillips" <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:lIMle.257671$cg1.39749@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Its very silly, and would only apply if the Large Creature was not flying
    on
    > its own and depended on the flying PC to hold it up. Now, if the flying
    > creature just grabbed on and kept flying the spell would not stop as the
    PC
    > is not carrying any extra weight.
    > But you already know this, don't you?

    Yes, but if the rule were applied in this manner, and the PC in question WAS
    fighting a dragon, at least in our campaign, dragons are (by definition) of
    super-genius intelligence, and would know the ways to cease a spell from
    functioning, especially one as ubiquitously useful in combat as "Fly".
    Therefore, a smart dragon (as ALL dragons are) would simply latch on, cease
    flying and plummet for a round, and then... let go... poof, end of
    wizard...

    This "immediate spell cessation" bit could potentially lead to many such
    abuses of that little caveat of spell casting, including horrific abuses
    done by the players. For example, since Monster Summoning allows the PC to
    designate their "appearance point"(at least it's that way in 2E), a VERY
    fast way of ending ALL spells of this nature are to have the summoned
    creatures appear about 2 feet ABOVE any affected wizard. A few would latch
    on before they fell(making appropriate saving throws or something), and that
    would be the end of the wizard(not to mention all of your summoned
    creatures). But honestly, to kill a wizard for the cost of a monster
    summoning spell simply because the wizard was flying at the time? That's a
    cheap price if you ask me.

    Yes, I understand that if the conditions of the spell are not met before
    it's even cast, well, that's one thing, but to have spells immediately cease
    functioning altogether if the limits are exceeded, well, that opens up a
    whole can of worms that I DOUBT any DM, even the most experienced one, could
    possibly prepare for, given that (at least in OUR campaign) players tend to
    be crafty little buggars, and would find the ways to exploit spells rather
    easily(like in our flying example). Furthermore, the cessation of spells by
    PC's in the manner described above would, at least in OUR campaign, be cause
    for rather significant mutiny on the part of the players, and I wouldn't
    blame them in the slightest.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
    news:jn6f919jkfljhsjs3g5n5maba88dkt0bg9@4ax.com...
    > >You're right, I haven't fully read and admittedly don't fully understand
    the
    > >rules.
    >
    > So why do you persist in arguing with those that do?

    Well, at first, I had a legitimate question. Then, in a single post, I was
    declared a moron, and then told that the rule was both obvious and
    intelligent, and THEN I was described a "rule" that didn't apply, and told
    that despite the fact that it didn't apply, that the "rule" was obvious, and
    I was stupid.

    Thus far, I haven't seen a *RULE* that supports the interpretation that is
    being put forth, yet somehow the interpretation is being universally
    supported as 100% true and accurate, not to mention supported by the rules,
    but nobody can seem to quote the rule that appears to be universally
    accepted as true.

    At THIS point, I just want to know about this "rule" that supposedly exists
    but nobody can find for me. I fully admit I'm a 3E moron, but nobody can
    find the "rule" that everyone says is both obvious and applicable. As such,
    I'm left to wonder who the real idiot is, the guy calling me a moron for
    missing such an obvious rule that he can't find, or the guy who points out
    that the ones doing the name-calling STILL haven't found this obvious rule
    that supports their position.

    On a side note, I'm *STILL* waiting for an official rule, and not an
    interpretation. Until that time, I'm not really "arguing the rules", I'm
    just pointing out that no rules are being argued, just interpretations.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:150f91lce7j4abtls5fkgd3ua46aplu2vh@4ax.com...
    > > While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*. _Moving_
    is
    > >irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries
    himself
    > >out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is
    no
    > >encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
    > >encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.
    >
    > Dragon folds his wings momentarily then drops the wizard.

    *IRRELEVANT*. Once the wizard is able to move under his own power again,
    he can fly as he pleases when it's his turn to move.

    -Michael
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:e6Rle.1820$MI4.1490@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Loren Pechtel" <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:150f91lce7j4abtls5fkgd3ua46aplu2vh@4ax.com...
    > > > While the wizard is grappled, his fly spell is *irrelevant*.
    _Moving_
    > is
    > > >irrelevant. "Overcoming" the dragon is irrelevant. Until he pries
    > himself
    > > >out of the dragon's grasp, he cannot move under his own power. There is
    > no
    > > >encumbrance to consider. Once he is free to move again, he is also not
    > > >encumbered by the dragon. There is no issue. Goslin is an idiot.
    > >
    > > Dragon folds his wings momentarily then drops the wizard.
    >
    > *IRRELEVANT*. Once the wizard is able to move under his own power again,
    > he can fly as he pleases when it's his turn to move.

    I'm sorry, but you're just being stupid now. Not two posts ago, you were
    saying that encumbrance would cause the instant cessation(not SUSPENSION but
    CESSATION) of a feather fall when the feather fall was overloaded. Then you
    say that a wizard who is wrapped up by a dragon that then plummets for a
    round has a fly spell that does NOT cease, despite the fact that your claim
    of my stupidity rests on the very fact that, in your mind, spells cease
    instantly when they are overloaded. How much do dragons weigh, do you
    think? A few dozen tons? Just how strong ARE your wizards?

    IF you were being consistent in your position, the fly spell would cease the
    INSTANT the dragon stopped flying and basically "rested" on the noggin of
    the wizard(something it could easily do if it successfully grappled the
    wizard). But you're not being consistent now.

    I can see very clearly that you simply want to call me a moron, and you
    either don't know what you're talking about or don't care to tell me what
    you really think. Fine by me. Go right ahead. Here... here's a space for
    you to do it(press the M key, then the O key... that's it... you can do
    it)...


    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > Consequently, when the weight limit is exceeded, the spell ENDS, and
    > the user plummets until an abrupt encounter with the earth (or a feather
    > fall spell) puts and end to his fall.

    Surely then, by the same logic, if 2 targets of the same Haste spell
    were to move further than 30ft from each other the Haste would end as
    they're no longer valid targets. Or a Reduce Animal cast on a small
    animal immediately ceases as the animal is no longer within the allowed
    size range. I'm sure that can't be right.
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games