Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Feather Falling and Belayed companions

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 1:12:00 AM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 6:48:15 AM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 7:27:42 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 8:05:33 AM

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p Nale.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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 8:15:08 AM

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 :) 
May 26, 2005 9:04:24 AM

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

Wow! A well-thought out, polite flame war.... Gotta love it!
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 9:23:08 AM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 10:54:10 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 11:07:23 AM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 12:36:46 PM

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'.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 12:36:46 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 12:48:53 PM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 1:42:46 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 1:56:15 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 4:25:07 PM

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 ^*^
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 4:56:14 PM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 5:53:01 PM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 6:00:21 PM

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>>
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 7:16:31 PM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 7:17:52 PM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 8:25:17 PM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 10:22:38 PM

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.'
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 10:37:02 PM

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

"~consul" <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
news:D 75dd6$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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 10:37:58 PM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 10:37:59 PM

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
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 11:50:46 PM

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?
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 11:50:47 PM

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>>
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:27:34 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:32:36 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 5:40:05 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 7:01:34 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 7:52:09 PM

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
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 7:54:07 PM

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
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 8:14:50 PM

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
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 8:42:53 PM

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
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 8:42:54 PM

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
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 8:42:54 PM

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.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 1:56:33 AM

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
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:08:39 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:10:13 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:10:43 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:11:18 AM

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?
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:56:36 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:56:37 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 5:23:30 AM

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
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 5:34:11 AM

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
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 5:49:10 AM

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
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:57:14 AM

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
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:57:15 AM

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
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 8:12:03 AM

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.
    • 1 / 8
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!