Feather Falling and Belayed companions

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
newsNale.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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[willie]

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

Wow! A well-thought out, polite flame war.... Gotta love it!

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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'.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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 ^*^

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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>>

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.'

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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