Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Interesting use of Cone of Cold

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 4:08:16 AM

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

So...

This evening, the party was mopping up the end bits of Goodman Games'
"The Sunless Garden". At one point in the module, there is a trap that
basically uses a torrent of water from an underground river to flood the
party down a very long staircase for several rounds, doing 2d6 damage
per round.

As luck would have it, the entire party got swept up by this trap (lots
of failed saves), except for the party mage and his cohort who had the
good sense to get out of the stairwell when they heard the "click" of
the trap activating.

The party mage is a Sheen Mage (homebrew PrC), with a fair score in
Disable Device. As the party got swept down the stairs, and it became
clear to him (watching from the room at the top of the stairs on the
other side of the torrent of water) that it was going to go on for an
indeterminate period of time, he got the bright idea of trying to freeze
up the downpour with his last remaining Cone of Cold spell.

I didn't know if Cone of Cold instantly froze running water or not, but
I figured it was kind of a fun schtick especially since he had a decent
Disable Device skill. I let him have a go with the spell, warning him
that if he failed by enough to cause a mishap he would make things worse
for the PCs downstream as they got buffeted with chunks of solid ice.
He made the Disable Device check, staunched the flow of water with an
ice plug, and made for a bit of dramatic tension as the PCs scrambled up
the stairs to safety while the ice plug groaned and cracked (finally
giving way just as the last of them dashed through the doorway).

I just thought it was kinda fun, and something that wasn't likely to
have happened in many games (what kind of a wizard has lots of ranks in
Disable Device?)

- Ron ^*^

More about : interesting cone cold

Anonymous
May 31, 2005 7:00:08 AM

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

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:08:16 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> scribed
> into the ether:
>
> >
> >So...
> [snip]
> >I just thought it was kinda fun, and something that wasn't likely to
> >have happened in many games (what kind of a wizard has lots of ranks in
> >Disable Device?)
>
> I guess the thing I wonder is why he would even need disable device in
> order to freeze up the opening.

He needed DD in order to *know IC* that freezing the water at that
particular spot will make certain things happen, create an ice plug and
prevent the trap from working.
Just because you, the player, know things, doesn't mean that the
character knows them too.

Silveraxe
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 8:29:30 AM

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

Werebat wrote:

> I just thought it was kinda fun, and something that wasn't likely to
> have happened in many games (what kind of a wizard has lots of ranks in
> Disable Device?)

The smart one, that wants to live to tell the tales of his adventures.

I have always been a fan of disable device SRs, for it also allows
one to set traps as well. A good skill for any character class to
have, even as a cross-class skill.

Re,
Dirk
Related resources
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 8:46:17 AM

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:08:16 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> scribed
into the ether:

>
>So...
[snip]
>I just thought it was kinda fun, and something that wasn't likely to
>have happened in many games (what kind of a wizard has lots of ranks in
>Disable Device?)

I guess the thing I wonder is why he would even need disable device in
order to freeze up the opening.

It was a good idea though.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 11:05:51 AM

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

Silveraxe wrote:

>
> Matt Frisch wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:08:16 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> scribed
>>into the ether:
>>
>>
>>>So...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>I just thought it was kinda fun, and something that wasn't likely to
>>>have happened in many games (what kind of a wizard has lots of ranks in
>>>Disable Device?)
>>
>>I guess the thing I wonder is why he would even need disable device in
>>order to freeze up the opening.
>
>
> He needed DD in order to *know IC* that freezing the water at that
> particular spot will make certain things happen, create an ice plug and
> prevent the trap from working.
> Just because you, the player, know things, doesn't mean that the
> character knows them too.

Right -- it's a matter of implementation. I might know that replacing
the shorn-off wing of a small aircraft will probably enable it to fly
again, but I'm not well-trained enough to try doing the replacement myself.

Note that technically, it takes a few rounds to make a DD attempt, but
given the circumstances I allowed him to do it in one (and while casting
a spell). Probably a penalty to the check was in order (rushed job and
using non-standard tools), but I was being generous.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 2:48:52 PM

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

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%qRme.36243$aB.2324@lakeread03...
>

> I didn't know if Cone of Cold instantly froze running water or not, but
> I figured it was kind of a fun schtick especially since he had a decent
> Disable Device skill. I let him have a go with the spell, warning him
> that if he failed by enough to cause a mishap he would make things worse
> for the PCs downstream as they got buffeted with chunks of solid ice.

I wouldn't have allowed it but that's beside the point. What does Disable
Device have to do with anything? If you wanted a chance of failure ruling
that the CoC needed to do a certain ammount of "damage" to the water would
have been much better.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 3:38:12 PM

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

Dirk Collins:

>I have always been a fan of disable device SRs, for it also allows
>one to set traps as well.

Craft -Trapmaking (and an absurd amount of time) is what you need to
set traps, though you can reset other people's traps and sabotage
things with Disable Device.

Mark
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 12:41:01 AM

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

Symbol wrote:

> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:%qRme.36243$aB.2324@lakeread03...
>
>
>>I didn't know if Cone of Cold instantly froze running water or not, but
>>I figured it was kind of a fun schtick especially since he had a decent
>>Disable Device skill. I let him have a go with the spell, warning him
>>that if he failed by enough to cause a mishap he would make things worse
>>for the PCs downstream as they got buffeted with chunks of solid ice.
>
>
> I wouldn't have allowed it but that's beside the point.

Different styles of DMing. I'm known amongst my friends as being more
of a "fantasy" type DM who lets things happen for theatrical effect,
rather than a rules and realism hardliner. But to each his own.


> What does Disable
> Device have to do with anything? If you wanted a chance of failure ruling
> that the CoC needed to do a certain ammount of "damage" to the water would
> have been much better.

How much cold damage does it take to instantly freeze a cubic foot of
running water?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 4:53:47 AM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>How much cold damage does it take to instantly freeze a cubic foot of
>running water?

Since a wall of ice has 30 hp per inch of thickness for each 5-foot
square, a one-foot square should have around (30/25) hp per inch, or
14 hit points per cubic foot. :) 

The "hardness 10" might work its way into that computation somewhere,
as well...

Donald
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 4:57:31 AM

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

In article <d7j0ur$3n8$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Donald Tsang <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>>How much cold damage does it take to instantly freeze a cubic foot of
>>running water?
>
>Since a wall of ice has 30 hp per inch of thickness for each 5-foot
>square, a one-foot square should have around (30/25) hp per inch, or
>14 hit points per cubic foot. :) 

Whoops. That was Wall of Iron. A Wall of Ice has 3 hit points per
inch of thickness per 10-foot square. So, using the same computation,
a one-foot cube should only have about half of a hit point. Halve
the damage done by cold spells to objects, so each cubit foot should
only require 1 hp or so. :/ 

DOnald
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 3:16:31 PM

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

In article <Nw7ne.3340$rb6.2828@lakeread07>, ranpoirier@cox.net says...

> In the end, there aren't any rules, and since the PC happened to have
> Disable Device I allowed him to try. Again, in retrospect I think a
> penalty to his check would have been in order, but oh well. I did think
> it was a pretty cool caper on his part.

I don't think a penalty was in order. A disable device check, I can see,
but I'd probably allow it even without the skill if the PC didn't have
it.

It's was a cool move, the trap ate up their resources (5th-level slot or
hp, it's all the same). So why not?

I don't think it's wise to impose penalties on wacky stunts like that,
since it'll just encourage people to not try wacky stunts. And I, at
least, would have had more fun (both as a player and as a DM) if the
mage froze the downpour than if the party just took the standard,
covered-by-the-rules approach and took the damage and then healed
themselves.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 9:01:58 PM

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

Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:
> In article <Nw7ne.3340$rb6.2828@lakeread07>, ranpoirier@cox.net says...
>
>> In the end, there aren't any rules, and since the PC happened to have
>> Disable Device I allowed him to try. Again, in retrospect I think a
>> penalty to his check would have been in order, but oh well. I did think
>> it was a pretty cool caper on his part.
>
> I don't think a penalty was in order. A disable device check, I can
> see, but I'd probably allow it even without the skill if the PC didn't
> have it.
>
> It's was a cool move, the trap ate up their resources (5th-level slot
> or hp, it's all the same). So why not?
>
> I don't think it's wise to impose penalties on wacky stunts like that,
> since it'll just encourage people to not try wacky stunts. And I, at
> least, would have had more fun (both as a player and as a DM) if the
> mage froze the downpour than if the party just took the standard,
> covered-by-the-rules approach and took the damage and then healed
> themselves.

Same here -- I think it was a reasonable thing to allow, especially
since I like rewarding quick thinking. Using Disable Device was a good
idea, in that it represents him pinpointing the right place to freeze up
for best effect. A Spellcraft check might not have been unreasonable
either, in that he's adapting the spell for rather unusual use.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 9:03:47 PM

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

Symbol <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:%qRme.36243$aB.2324@lakeread03...
>>
>
>> I didn't know if Cone of Cold instantly froze running water or not, but
>> I figured it was kind of a fun schtick especially since he had a decent
>> Disable Device skill. I let him have a go with the spell, warning him
>> that if he failed by enough to cause a mishap he would make things worse
>> for the PCs downstream as they got buffeted with chunks of solid ice.
>
> I wouldn't have allowed it but that's beside the point. What does
> Disable Device have to do with anything? If you wanted a chance of
> failure ruling that the CoC needed to do a certain ammount of "damage"
> to the water would have been much better.

Disable Device fairly nicely represents him pinpointing the right place
to freeze up, and failure indicates that he didn't get it right (with
the possibility of chunks of ice breaking free to hit the rest of the
party).


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:05:04 PM

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

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Fu7ne.3339$rb6.72@lakeread07...
>
>
> Symbol wrote:
>
> > "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:%qRme.36243$aB.2324@lakeread03...
> >
> >
> >>I didn't know if Cone of Cold instantly froze running water or not,
but
> >>I figured it was kind of a fun schtick especially since he had a
decent
> >>Disable Device skill. I let him have a go with the spell, warning him
> >>that if he failed by enough to cause a mishap he would make things
worse
> >>for the PCs downstream as they got buffeted with chunks of solid ice.
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't have allowed it but that's beside the point.
>
> Different styles of DMing. I'm known amongst my friends as being more
> of a "fantasy" type DM who lets things happen for theatrical effect,
> rather than a rules and realism hardliner. But to each his own.

Sure. Its just that other types of spell suit this purpose better and
variety should be encouraged. Stick a "Wall of Foo" spell is the passage,
for example.

> > What does Disable
> > Device have to do with anything? If you wanted a chance of failure
ruling
> > that the CoC needed to do a certain ammount of "damage" to the water
would
> > have been much better.
>
> How much cold damage does it take to instantly freeze a cubic foot of
> running water?

Assuming spherical water.....
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:05:05 PM

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

Symbol wrote:
> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Fu7ne.3339$rb6.72@lakeread07...
>
>>
>>Symbol wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:%qRme.36243$aB.2324@lakeread03...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I didn't know if Cone of Cold instantly froze running water or not,
>
> but
>
>>>>I figured it was kind of a fun schtick especially since he had a
>
> decent
>
>>>>Disable Device skill. I let him have a go with the spell, warning him
>>>>that if he failed by enough to cause a mishap he would make things
>
> worse
>
>>>>for the PCs downstream as they got buffeted with chunks of solid ice.
>>>
>>>
>>>I wouldn't have allowed it but that's beside the point.
>>
>>Different styles of DMing. I'm known amongst my friends as being more
>>of a "fantasy" type DM who lets things happen for theatrical effect,
>>rather than a rules and realism hardliner. But to each his own.
>
>
> Sure. Its just that other types of spell suit this purpose better and
> variety should be encouraged. Stick a "Wall of Foo" spell is the passage,
> for example.

I dunno... Can you see through the running water well enough to seal
the passage off completely? Or are you limited to guesswork? Can a
Wall of Foo ordinarily, say, seal up a channel of water with boats
running through it?

I'd have certainly allowed these, with a DD check of course.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:27:58 PM

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

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd9rqji.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Symbol <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:%qRme.36243$aB.2324@lakeread03...
> >>
> >
> >> I didn't know if Cone of Cold instantly froze running water or not,
but
> >> I figured it was kind of a fun schtick especially since he had a
decent
> >> Disable Device skill. I let him have a go with the spell, warning
him
> >> that if he failed by enough to cause a mishap he would make things
worse
> >> for the PCs downstream as they got buffeted with chunks of solid ice.
> >
> > I wouldn't have allowed it but that's beside the point. What does
> > Disable Device have to do with anything? If you wanted a chance of
> > failure ruling that the CoC needed to do a certain ammount of "damage"
> > to the water would have been much better.
>
> Disable Device fairly nicely represents him pinpointing the right place
> to freeze up,

I don't see that as anything more complicated than "aim for the narrowest
point".

> and failure indicates that he didn't get it right (with
> the possibility of chunks of ice breaking free to hit the rest of the
> party).

I just find it conceptually unpleasing that a higher level mage's huge
cone of cold would be ineffective for freezing water without DD if you are
going to allow this sort of thing. We aren't talking about a precision
spell here.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:27:59 PM

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

Symbol wrote:

> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnd9rqji.s57.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>
>>Symbol <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:%qRme.36243$aB.2324@lakeread03...
>>>
>>>>I didn't know if Cone of Cold instantly froze running water or not,
>
> but
>
>>>>I figured it was kind of a fun schtick especially since he had a
>
> decent
>
>>>>Disable Device skill. I let him have a go with the spell, warning
>
> him
>
>>>>that if he failed by enough to cause a mishap he would make things
>
> worse
>
>>>>for the PCs downstream as they got buffeted with chunks of solid ice.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't have allowed it but that's beside the point. What does
>>>Disable Device have to do with anything? If you wanted a chance of
>>>failure ruling that the CoC needed to do a certain ammount of "damage"
>>>to the water would have been much better.
>>
>>Disable Device fairly nicely represents him pinpointing the right place
>>to freeze up,
>
>
> I don't see that as anything more complicated than "aim for the narrowest
> point".
>
>
>>and failure indicates that he didn't get it right (with
>>the possibility of chunks of ice breaking free to hit the rest of the
>>party).
>
>
> I just find it conceptually unpleasing that a higher level mage's huge
> cone of cold would be ineffective for freezing water without DD if you are
> going to allow this sort of thing. We aren't talking about a precision
> spell here.

Does a fireball burn it all to steam?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 5:18:57 PM

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

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6JBne.5371$rb6.1819@lakeread07...
>
>
> Symbol wrote:

> > I just find it conceptually unpleasing that a higher level mage's huge
> > cone of cold would be ineffective for freezing water without DD if you
are
> > going to allow this sort of thing. We aren't talking about a precision
> > spell here.
>
> Does a fireball burn it all to steam?

No. Water surface acts as a barrier to Line of Effect for fire spell
effects. If you actual cast fireball underwater (and make your spell craft
check) it produces steam to the same volume of a fireball on land so you
could argue that in those circumstances it removes an amount of water
equal to that size.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 5:24:31 PM

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

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:D IBne.5370$rb6.5019@lakeread07...
>
>
> Symbol wrote:

> > Sure. Its just that other types of spell suit this purpose better and
> > variety should be encouraged. Stick a "Wall of Foo" spell is the
passage,
> > for example.
>
> I dunno... Can you see through the running water well enough to seal
> the passage off completely? Or are you limited to guesswork?

You don't need to see in order to set up the wall. So long as you know
where the floor is in order to anchor it.

> Can a
> Wall of Foo ordinarily, say, seal up a channel of water with boats
> running through it?

Boats block line of effect but water doesn't (except for fire effects).

> I'd have certainly allowed these, with a DD check of course.

Why would you need DD? Would you require such a check if a Wizard
attempted to block a non flooded passage in the dark assuming he knew the
dimensions?
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 2:32:52 AM

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

Symbol wrote:

> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:D IBne.5370$rb6.5019@lakeread07...
>
>>
>>Symbol wrote:
>
>
>>>Sure. Its just that other types of spell suit this purpose better and
>>>variety should be encouraged. Stick a "Wall of Foo" spell is the
>
> passage,
>
>>>for example.
>>
>>I dunno... Can you see through the running water well enough to seal
>>the passage off completely? Or are you limited to guesswork?
>
>
> You don't need to see in order to set up the wall. So long as you know
> where the floor is in order to anchor it.
>
>
>> Can a
>>Wall of Foo ordinarily, say, seal up a channel of water with boats
>>running through it?
>
>
> Boats block line of effect but water doesn't (except for fire effects).
>
>
>>I'd have certainly allowed these, with a DD check of course.
>
>
> Why would you need DD? Would you require such a check if a Wizard
> attempted to block a non flooded passage in the dark assuming he knew the
> dimensions?

I wouldn't allow a wizard to set up a wall in a passage he couldn't see, no.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 8:57:22 PM

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

Keith Davies wrote:
> Symbol <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:
>>I wouldn't have allowed it but that's beside the point. What does
>>Disable Device have to do with anything? If you wanted a chance of
>>failure ruling that the CoC needed to do a certain ammount of "damage"
>>to the water would have been much better.
> Disable Device fairly nicely represents him pinpointing the right place
> to freeze up, and failure indicates that he didn't get it right (with
> the possibility of chunks of ice breaking free to hit the rest of the
> party).

Seems like it would be a ranged touch attack, maybe.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 8:58:55 PM

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

Werebat wrote:
>> I just find it conceptually unpleasing that a higher level mage's huge
>> cone of cold would be ineffective for freezing water without DD if you
>> are
>> going to allow this sort of thing. We aren't talking about a precision
>> spell here.
> Does a fireball burn it all to steam?

If you are allowing these spells, wouldn't the physical part of the fireball
burst be effective at just smashing the trap somehow?
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 6:45:18 AM

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

~consul <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:
> Werebat wrote:
>>> I just find it conceptually unpleasing that a higher level mage's huge
>>> cone of cold would be ineffective for freezing water without DD if you
>>> are
>>> going to allow this sort of thing. We aren't talking about a precision
>>> spell here.
>> Does a fireball burn it all to steam?
>
> If you are allowing these spells, wouldn't the physical part of the fireball
> burst be effective at just smashing the trap somehow?

fireball is a spread, IIRC, not a burst.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 6:30:30 PM

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

Keith Davies wrote:
> ~consul <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:
>>If you are allowing these spells, wouldn't the physical part of the fireball
>>burst be effective at just smashing the trap somehow?
> fireball is a spread, IIRC, not a burst.

Ah yes, just reread it, where the spell says that there is almost no pressure
created from the explosion. however, depending on what the material of the trap
is, it does say that it can melt some low melting pt metals, it might be enough
to just jam it.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
!