Slow and Fly

[Guest]

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

If you are Slowed (as the spell) and you are Flying, is your flight
speed slowed?

Does it matter if you are flying with a flight speed or with a spell or
spell-like ability?

Last night that our DM ruled that because Slow only allows you to move
at half your "normal movement rate", you can still move unhindered by
the Slow spell if you are using a movement rate other than your *normal*
one (for example, flying with the spell Fly).

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:

>Last night that our DM ruled that because Slow only allows you to move
>at half your "normal movement rate", you can still move unhindered by
>the Slow spell if you are using a movement rate other than your *normal*
>one (for example, flying with the spell Fly).

Sounds like a fair house rule to me. A sadistic DM might rule
that you can only react half as fast as normal, though, so
you'd be in trouble if an obstacle appeared in your way before
you could react. Sort of like driving too fast at night, outspeeding
the headlights. I doubt there's anything to support that in the
rules, but it's a nice mental image.

Pete

 

[Guest]

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

Peter Meilinger wrote:

> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Last night that our DM ruled that because Slow only allows you to move
>>at half your "normal movement rate", you can still move unhindered by
>>the Slow spell if you are using a movement rate other than your *normal*
>>one (for example, flying with the spell Fly).
>
>
> Sounds like a fair house rule to me. A sadistic DM might rule
> that you can only react half as fast as normal, though, so
> you'd be in trouble if an obstacle appeared in your way before
> you could react. Sort of like driving too fast at night, outspeeding
> the headlights. I doubt there's anything to support that in the
> rules, but it's a nice mental image.

The creature in question was an ogre mage, in gaseous form and under the
effects of a Faerie Fire spell, Slowed and reduced to a strength of
zero. It couldn't turn invisible while gaseous (and the Faerie Fire
would have negated it anyway), but the DM ruled that it could move about
with a strength of zero because it was weightless as a gas, and that it
could fly unhindered by the Slow spell because flight isn't "normal"
movement.

He later recanted the bit about being able to fly unhindered by the Slow
spell because the ogre mage has a flight speed listed in the MM, and did
not fly because of the effects of a spell or spell-like ability.

The wording of the Slow spell is that those affected can move at "half
their normal move". I think the DM was opening a can of worms in trying
to make a distinction between "normal" movement and other KINDS of
movement, when the intent of the spell seems to be that all forms of
movement are half of what they *normally* would be. Otherwise you end
up going on a ride around the rhetorical ranch about what "normal
movement" is... What about swimming or climbing speeds? Burrowing?
The monk or barbarian fast movement abilities? The effects of the
Expeditious Retreat spell? The effects of the Jump spell? The effects
of a pair of Wings of Flying? The effects of a Ring of Swimming? And
so on and so forth.

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

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

"Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
news:lhFCe.78629$Fv.26001@lakeread01...

> And you put up with mid-combat questioning from your players? Either you
> are a hypocrite, or you must run a very boring game that is interrupted by
> rules disputes every five minutes.


Wow - it's almost like he is THERE

 

[KAOS]

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:36:26 -0400, Alex Gervasio
<alexgervasio@webeast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>> He later recanted the bit about being able to fly unhindered by the Slow
>> spell because the ogre mage has a flight speed listed in the MM, and did
>> not fly because of the effects of a spell or spell-like ability.
>
>No, flight is always exempt from slow, web, or other hindrances,
>otherwise the flier would plummet to the ground. This makes those
>spells too powerful.

What makes you think it would necessarily plummet?

>> The wording of the Slow spell is that those affected can move at "half
>> their normal move". I think the DM was opening a can of worms in trying
>> to make a distinction between "normal" movement and other KINDS of
>> movement, when the intent of the spell seems to be that all forms of
>> movement are half of what they *normally* would be. Otherwise you end
>> up going on a ride around the rhetorical ranch about what "normal
>> movement" is... What about swimming or climbing speeds? Burrowing? The
>> monk or barbarian fast movement abilities? The effects of the
>> Expeditious Retreat spell? The effects of the Jump spell? The effects
>> of a pair of Wings of Flying? The effects of a Ring of Swimming? And
>> so on and so forth.
>
>What is your point?

Obviously, his point is that he's uncertain about the justification
for the ruling. (Or, since it's Ron, it's possible his point is just
to fish for argument.)

>He's the DM in your campaign, what he says, goes.

<sigh>

>Period. If its a problem then he decides on a case by case basis, and
>there are no arguments. You don't like it, there's the door.

How's about "We don't like jackass DMs who let the 'DM is God' meme go
to their heads, as evidenced by complete disregard for player input as
to the rules, and show *him* the door?"

Sure, under normal circumstances in D&D he has the final say. That is
not carte blanche to reject all questions of his ruling with "DM is
god, stfu."

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[KAOS]

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:23:51 -0400, Alex Gervasio
<alexgervasio@webeast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>Werebat wrote:
>>
>> Alex Gervasio wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Werebat wrote:
>>>
>>>> The creature in question was an ogre mage, in gaseous form and under
>>>> the effects of a Faerie Fire spell, Slowed and reduced to a strength
>>>> of zero. It couldn't turn invisible while gaseous (and the Faerie
>>>> Fire would have negated it anyway), but the DM ruled that it could
>>>> move about with a strength of zero because it was weightless as a
>>>> gas, and that it could fly unhindered by the Slow spell because
>>>> flight isn't "normal" movement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, although remember that in gaseous
>>> form you only have a base move of 10.
>>
>>
>> Actually the text for Ogre Mage says that they can move their full
>> flight speed (40 feet) when in gaseous form.
>>
>>
>>>> He later recanted the bit about being able to fly unhindered by the
>>>> Slow spell because the ogre mage has a flight speed listed in the MM,
>>>> and did not fly because of the effects of a spell or spell-like ability.
>>>
>>> No, flight is always exempt from slow, web, or other hindrances,
>>> otherwise the flier would plummet to the ground. This makes those
>>> spells too powerful.
>>
>>
>> So a crow that flies into a Web spell just passes right through with no
>> trouble? Flight grants you automatic Free Action? :^\
>
>No, and stop putting words in my mouth. The crow is easy because it is
>small enough to flit in between the strands of the web spell. A better
>example would be an eagle or condor, and yes they would have to make a
>save as normal but would be immune to the movement-based effects of the
>spell if they were flying when they hit the web.

So... they hit the web, and then fly right out of it. Then Alex makes
up something to explain how they managed to do it.

I smell bullshit.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Guest]

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

"Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
newsQCCe.78619$Fv.14051@lakeread01...
> No, flight is always exempt from slow, web, or other hindrances,
> otherwise the flier would plummet to the ground. This makes those
> spells too powerful.

This is a fascinating set of assertions. Perhaps you should read the
flight rules on the wotc website before posting again.
Further, the idea that certain binding spells are bad for fliers and are
therefore "too powerful" ... is ludicrous.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
> newsQCCe.78619$Fv.14051@lakeread01...
>
>>No, flight is always exempt from slow, web, or other hindrances,
>>otherwise the flier would plummet to the ground. This makes those
>>spells too powerful.
>
>
> This is a fascinating set of assertions. Perhaps you should read the
> flight rules on the wotc website before posting again.

It's a little something called common sense, and Rule Zero. The DM is
final arbiter and spells that can knock out an ancient red dragon with a
2nd level spell are out of the question in my book.


> Further, the idea that certain binding spells are bad for fliers and are
> therefore "too powerful" ... is ludicrous.

Only as ludicrous as your assertion that it is fine for 3rd level
characters to take down elder wyrms with 2nd level spells. 300 feet of
falling damage from a Web spell, anyone?

Alex

 

[KAOS]

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:17:11 -0400, Alex Gervasio
<alexgervasio@webeast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>> "Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
>> newsQCCe.78619$Fv.14051@lakeread01...
>>
>>>No, flight is always exempt from slow, web, or other hindrances,
>>>otherwise the flier would plummet to the ground. This makes those
>>>spells too powerful.
>>
>>
>> This is a fascinating set of assertions. Perhaps you should read the
>> flight rules on the wotc website before posting again.
>
>It's a little something called common sense, and Rule Zero. The DM is
>final arbiter and spells that can knock out an ancient red dragon with a
>2nd level spell are out of the question in my book.

Given the spell resistance and saves of an ancient red dragon, I don't
think you really need to worry about these ones.

But even that aside, you've not described the use of common sense -
you've described the invocation of Rule Zero to override common sense
in pursuit of a sketchy notion of mechanical balance.

>> Further, the idea that certain binding spells are bad for fliers and are
>> therefore "too powerful" ... is ludicrous.
>
>Only as ludicrous as your assertion that it is fine for 3rd level
>characters to take down elder wyrms with 2nd level spells. 300 feet of
>falling damage from a Web spell, anyone?

How?
Elder Wyrm hits web.
Elder Wyrm either a) tears through web like it's cotton candy, owing
to massive strength, or b) gets stuck in web and is suspended in air.

Now, while B makes it a bit of a sitting duck it's nowhere near dead.
And if you subsequently dispell the web, it's got 300 feet worth
opportunity to take flight again.
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:17:11 -0400, Alex Gervasio
<alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote:


>Only as ludicrous as your assertion that it is fine for 3rd level
>characters to take down elder wyrms with 2nd level spells. 300 feet of
>falling damage from a Web spell, anyone?

A web spell needs to be anchored, you are very unlikely to be able to
anchor a web spell to catch a flying dragon. Certainly not one 300
feet in the air.

 

[Guest]

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

"Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
news:9bFCe.78628$Fv.71066@lakeread01...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >>No, flight is always exempt from slow, web, or other hindrances,
> >>otherwise the flier would plummet to the ground. This makes those
> >>spells too powerful.
> >
> > This is a fascinating set of assertions. Perhaps you should read the
> > flight rules on the wotc website before posting again.
>
> It's a little something called common sense, and Rule Zero. The DM is
> final arbiter and spells that can knock out an ancient red dragon with a
> 2nd level spell are out of the question in my book.

It's a good thing that a 2nd level spell *can't* do that, therefore.
You might care to do the newsgroup the courtesy of posting from an INFORMED
perspective on such topics before ranting about how you believe yourself to
be the arbiter of common sense. Why don't you re-read the description of
the Web spell for us, you ignorant buffoon? Here's a hint: IT NEEDS
*ANCHORS*. So there is no bagging a flier with it unless the flier is
flying between two opposing structures, in which case the flier is *caught*
and does not fall. Here's a second hint: should a dragon encounter a 2nd
level spell, it has ample ability to defeat its effects with saves and
resistances. Here's a third hint: should a dragon somehow encounter a Web
spell anchored 300 feet of the ground, *and* become entangled by it, then it
is strong enough to tear the webs apart and get on with its life. Here's a
fourth hint: the maximum damage from falling is 20d6. This doesn't make a
dent in an ancient red dragon's hit points.
Now, would you like to pontificate again on just how "ancient red
dragons" are going to be in trouble from the "overpowered" web spell?

Here's another news flash: ENTANGLING FLIERS IS A TRIED AND TRUE TACTIC
FOR DEFEATING THEM. Hold Monster is a particularly nasty spell to
experience while flying (that's right! A 5th level spell can take out a
small dragon!). Does that somehow make it "too powerful"? What are you
going to do? Raise its level? Make it impossible to use against fliers? Or
are you just going to accept, like a sensible person, that some tactics
might actually *work*? Flying is dangerous. You become VULNERABLE to certain
misfortunes that would be largely irrelevant to your immediate survival on
the ground. On the other hand, you become extremely hard to engage in
melee. It's a tradeoff.

Common sense? My ass. Next thing, you'll tell us that Ray of
Enfeeblement has no effect on people who are swimming, because by weakening
them you increase the likelihood that they will drown.
<shakes head sadly>


-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Kaos wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:17:11 -0400, Alex Gervasio
> <alexgervasio@webeast.net> dared speak in front of ME:
>
>
>>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>>>"Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
>>>newsQCCe.78619$Fv.14051@lakeread01...
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, flight is always exempt from slow, web, or other hindrances,
>>>>otherwise the flier would plummet to the ground. This makes those
>>>>spells too powerful.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a fascinating set of assertions. Perhaps you should read the
>>>flight rules on the wotc website before posting again.
>>
>>It's a little something called common sense, and Rule Zero. The DM is
>>final arbiter and spells that can knock out an ancient red dragon with a
>>2nd level spell are out of the question in my book.
>
>
> Given the spell resistance and saves of an ancient red dragon, I don't
> think you really need to worry about these ones.
>
> But even that aside, you've not described the use of common sense -
> you've described the invocation of Rule Zero to override common sense
> in pursuit of a sketchy notion of mechanical balance.
>
>
>>> Further, the idea that certain binding spells are bad for fliers and are
>>>therefore "too powerful" ... is ludicrous.
>>
>>Only as ludicrous as your assertion that it is fine for 3rd level
>>characters to take down elder wyrms with 2nd level spells. 300 feet of
>>falling damage from a Web spell, anyone?
>
>
> How?
> Elder Wyrm hits web.
> Elder Wyrm either a) tears through web like it's cotton candy, owing
> to massive strength, or b) gets stuck in web and is suspended in air.
>
> Now, while B makes it a bit of a sitting duck it's nowhere near dead.

Heh heh... Yeah, all it really has to do is breathe on the webs and
it's pretty much home free... :^)

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

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

Master Grunthros the Flatulent wrote:

> "Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
> news:lhFCe.78629$Fv.26001@lakeread01...
>
>
>>And you put up with mid-combat questioning from your players? Either you
>>are a hypocrite, or you must run a very boring game that is interrupted by
>>rules disputes every five minutes.
>
>
>
> Wow - it's almost like he is THERE

LOL I was thinking the same thing...

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

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

Alex Gervasio wrote:

>
>
> Werebat wrote:

>> So a crow that flies into a Web spell just passes right through with
>> no trouble? Flight grants you automatic Free Action? :^\
>
>
> No, and stop putting words in my mouth. The crow is easy because it is
> small enough to flit in between the strands of the web spell. A better
> example would be an eagle or condor, and yes they would have to make a
> save as normal but would be immune to the movement-based effects of the
> spell if they were flying when they hit the web. The other stuff like
> loss of dexterity would apply normally as the get their wings gummed up
> a bit with the webs on the way through.

Why not just let the eagle get stuck in the web and stop moving? That
seems the most sensible solution.


>> FWIW I disagreed with the DM at the table, stated my case, and then
>> let him make his ruling. It was 3:00 am or thereabouts, and I didn't
>> feel like pushing the point.
>
>
> And yet you wasted time disagreeing with the DM in the middle of a
> combat. You must have very forgiving people who play with you if they
> invite you back after wasting their time all night. I know you wouldn't
> be invited back for a second night with my group.

Well, I'll just have to live with that knowledge, then. :^)


>> I think you're right, to a point -- dragging the game down about every
>> little rules call wastes a lot of time. OTOH, sometimes the DM is
>> just plain wrong, and more often than that he/she just isn't
>> considering something that they probably should take into
>> consideration and maybe should be reminded about.
>
>
> What part of FINAL ARBITER do you not understand?

The part that's spelled "A-S-S-H-O-L-E". And actually, I *understand*
it just fine, I just don't *agree* with it.


>>> If you don't like it, YOU run a game and feel free to rule how you
>>> see fit.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do... On Monday nights... :^)
>
>
> And you put up with mid-combat questioning from your players? Either
> you are a hypocrite, or you must run a very boring game that is
> interrupted by rules disputes every five minutes.

Tell you what -- my players are coming by this evening. I'll ask them
if they'd prefer a faster-paced game where they aren't allowed to
question any of my rules calls, not even for three seconds. We'll see
what everyone prefers.

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:17:11 -0400, Alex Gervasio
<alexgervasio@webeast.net> scribed into the ether:

>
>
>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>> "Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
>> newsQCCe.78619$Fv.14051@lakeread01...
>>
>>>No, flight is always exempt from slow, web, or other hindrances,
>>>otherwise the flier would plummet to the ground. This makes those
>>>spells too powerful.
>>
>>
>> This is a fascinating set of assertions. Perhaps you should read the
>> flight rules on the wotc website before posting again.
>
>It's a little something called common sense, and Rule Zero. The DM is
>final arbiter and spells that can knock out an ancient red dragon with a
>2nd level spell are out of the question in my book.

They are also out of the question according to THE book.

>> Further, the idea that certain binding spells are bad for fliers and are
>> therefore "too powerful" ... is ludicrous.
>
>Only as ludicrous as your assertion that it is fine for 3rd level
>characters to take down elder wyrms with 2nd level spells. 300 feet of
>falling damage from a Web spell, anyone?

An elder wyrm will effortlessly save against such effects, and a web spell
doesn't have the surface area to substantially hinder something that
large/strong.

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> "Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
> news:9bFCe.78628$Fv.71066@lakeread01...
>
>>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>>>>No, flight is always exempt from slow, web, or other hindrances,
>>>>otherwise the flier would plummet to the ground. This makes those
>>>>spells too powerful.
>>>
>>> This is a fascinating set of assertions. Perhaps you should read the
>>>flight rules on the wotc website before posting again.
>>
>>It's a little something called common sense, and Rule Zero. The DM is
>>final arbiter and spells that can knock out an ancient red dragon with a
>>2nd level spell are out of the question in my book.
>
>
> It's a good thing that a 2nd level spell *can't* do that, therefore.

Oh really?


> You might care to do the newsgroup the courtesy of posting from an INFORMED
> perspective on such topics before ranting about how you believe yourself to
> be the arbiter of common sense. Why don't you re-read the description of
> the Web spell for us, you ignorant buffoon? Here's a hint: IT NEEDS
> *ANCHORS*. So there is no bagging a flier with it unless the flier is
> flying between two opposing structures, in which case the flier is *caught*
> and does not fall.

Maybe you have a different PHB than I do, but the one I have states on
page 301 that the web needs to be anchored between two solid and
diametrically opposed points. Unless dragons in your games somehow fly
without wings or are incorporeal, their wings qualify quite nicely as
anchor points for the web spell.

And as an aside, you'd do well to do your own research before making a
fool of yourself in front of everyone in the future.


> Here's a second hint: should a dragon encounter a 2nd
> level spell, it has ample ability to defeat its effects with saves and
> resistances.

"Ample Ability" doesn't mean "invulnerability". SR isn't really that
hard to overcome, especially not with spells like Lower SR or whatever
it is from Draconomicon. And with the Web spell, even if you save you
are still trapped within and unable to move well (a dragon with a
strength of 30 will move an average of 10 feet per round through the
webs, meanwhile it is plummeting to the ground).


> Here's a third hint: should a dragon somehow encounter a Web
> spell anchored 300 feet of the ground, *and* become entangled by it, then it
> is strong enough to tear the webs apart and get on with its life.

No it isn't. See above, and get a clue you obnoxious moron.


> Here's a
> fourth hint: the maximum damage from falling is 20d6. This doesn't make a
> dent in an ancient red dragon's hit points.

This is why I don't play with people who don't know the rules. It is
tiring to have to trot out the same basic concepts for them over and
over again. I'll point you to page 145, Massive Damage, and be done
with it. Do try and catch up to the rest of us, and take your foot out
of your mouth.

You might want to leave this discussion to those of us who actually know
the rules, kiddie.


> Now, would you like to pontificate again on just how "ancient red
> dragons" are going to be in trouble from the "overpowered" web spell?

I've already eleborated above. Now that I've spanked you down, will you
recant? Probably not, since you're obviously a flaming egophile.


> Here's another news flash: ENTANGLING FLIERS IS A TRIED AND TRUE TACTIC
> FOR DEFEATING THEM. Hold Monster is a particularly nasty spell to
> experience while flying (that's right! A 5th level spell can take out a
> small dragon!). Does that somehow make it "too powerful"? What are you
> going to do? Raise its level? Make it impossible to use against fliers? Or
> are you just going to accept, like a sensible person, that some tactics
> might actually *work*? Flying is dangerous. You become VULNERABLE to certain
> misfortunes that would be largely irrelevant to your immediate survival on
> the ground. On the other hand, you become extremely hard to engage in
> melee. It's a tradeoff.

Yeah, a tradeoff. And ancient red dragons (who will be dead on the
ground before they can burn the webs away) should not be getting killed
with 2nd level spells.


> Common sense? My ass. Next thing, you'll tell us that Ray of
> Enfeeblement has no effect on people who are swimming, because by weakening
> them you increase the likelihood that they will drown.

It has no effect on swimming speed, no, because a creature's swim speed
and its strength are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, you moron! That's why minnows
can swim as well as whales.


> <shakes head sadly>

You should be, since you have no concept of the rules and how to
implement them.

Alex

 

[Guest]

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

Werebat wrote:

>
>
> Kaos wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:17:11 -0400, Alex Gervasio
>> <alexgervasio@webeast.net> dared speak in front of ME:
>>
>>
>>> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
>>>> newsQCCe.78619$Fv.14051@lakeread01...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No, flight is always exempt from slow, web, or other hindrances,
>>>>> otherwise the flier would plummet to the ground. This makes those
>>>>> spells too powerful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a fascinating set of assertions. Perhaps you should read the
>>>> flight rules on the wotc website before posting again.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a little something called common sense, and Rule Zero. The DM
>>> is final arbiter and spells that can knock out an ancient red dragon
>>> with a 2nd level spell are out of the question in my book.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the spell resistance and saves of an ancient red dragon, I don't
>> think you really need to worry about these ones.
>> But even that aside, you've not described the use of common sense -
>> you've described the invocation of Rule Zero to override common sense
>> in pursuit of a sketchy notion of mechanical balance.
>>
>>
>>>> Further, the idea that certain binding spells are bad for fliers
>>>> and are
>>>> therefore "too powerful" ... is ludicrous.
>>>
>>>
>>> Only as ludicrous as your assertion that it is fine for 3rd level
>>> characters to take down elder wyrms with 2nd level spells. 300 feet
>>> of falling damage from a Web spell, anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>> How? Elder Wyrm hits web.
>> Elder Wyrm either a) tears through web like it's cotton candy, owing
>> to massive strength, or b) gets stuck in web and is suspended in air.
>>
>> Now, while B makes it a bit of a sitting duck it's nowhere near dead.
>
>
> Heh heh... Yeah, all it really has to do is breathe on the webs and
> it's pretty much home free... :^)

It never gets the chance, peahead. Here's how it works:

1. <PC wizard sees dragon overhead>
2. "Oh! A dragon!"
3. <PC wizard casts Web centered on dragon, using its wings for anchors>
4. Dragon makes its save
5. Even though dragon makes its save, it can't move more than 10' or so
per round, not fast enough to stay in flight
6. SPLAT! Dragon hits the ground before it even gets to act.
7. Dragon takes 50 points of damage and fails its Massive Damage check
8. Dead dragon, and a lone 3rd level wizard with a TON of XP

Alex

 

[Guest]

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

Alex Gervasio <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in
news:nSQCe.78677$Fv.47484@lakeread01:


> It never gets the chance, peahead. Here's how it works:
>
> 1. <PC wizard sees dragon overhead>
> 2. "Oh! A dragon!"
> 3. <PC wizard casts Web centered on dragon, using its wings for
> anchors> 4. Dragon makes its save
> 5. Even though dragon makes its save, it can't move more than 10' or
> so per round, not fast enough to stay in flight
> 6. SPLAT! Dragon hits the ground before it even gets to act.
> 7. Dragon takes 50 points of damage and fails its Massive Damage check
> 8. Dead dragon, and a lone 3rd level wizard with a TON of XP

First off you deal with SR before making a saving throw.

Secondly how does a 3rd level wizard overcome a SR of 28 for an ancient red
dragon?

Lastly if you did some how over come both SR then a saving throw, have you
ever heard of gliding to the ground?

 

[Guest]

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:

>The wording of the Slow spell is that those affected can move at "half
>their normal move". I think the DM was opening a can of worms in trying
>to make a distinction between "normal" movement and other KINDS of
>movement, when the intent of the spell seems to be that all forms of
>movement are half of what they *normally* would be. Otherwise you end
>up going on a ride around the rhetorical ranch about what "normal
>movement" is... What about swimming or climbing speeds? Burrowing?
>The monk or barbarian fast movement abilities? The effects of the
>Expeditious Retreat spell? The effects of the Jump spell? The effects
>of a pair of Wings of Flying? The effects of a Ring of Swimming? And
>so on and so forth.

I agree that it's tricky, but I do think it could be useful to
distinguish between types of movement affected by a Slow spell
and those that aren't. I'm not sure where to draw the line, though,
or if it's worth making things that complicated. A couple of strange
examples come to mind, though.

One note - I'm not as familiar with the rules as I should be
for this sort of discussion, but I've just looked at the SRD
and I think I've got it right. If I make any mistakes, someone
please correct me. Since we're just talking about movement
here, in our example a normal unslowed character could take
two Move actions per round. Under the effects of the Slow spell
he could only take one Move action, and his movement speed would
also be halved. So he goes a LOT slower than normal, really.

1) A human wizard casts a Fly spell on round one, which allows
him to move at 60 feet, per the SRD. Then he gets Slowed on
round two, and that changes to 30 feet, and he can only take
one Move action per round instead of two. Why did the Slow spell
affect the Fly spell, exactly?

2) A human wizard gets Slowed on round one. On round two, he
casts a Fly spell on himself in order to escape. Why would the
pre-existing Slow spell affect the brand new Fly spell?

Am I making my confusion clear? I understand that a Slow spell
changes the natural movement speed of a creature, but a Fly
spell seems like an outside source to me. If a Slowed creature
got into a car and started driving away, the spell wouldn't
affect the speed of the car, right?

Now, I can think of two things that might explain it, but
neither works perfectly for me.

1) The Slow spell doesn't actually change the speed of the Fly
spell, it just makes it too dangerous to fly at normal speed
because the character's reaction times are decreased. I can
easily think of situations where a character would be more
than willing to take the risk of flying as fast as possible,
though.

2) The Fly spell isn't an outside source - once the spell takes
effect, the flight ability is treated just like any natural
movement. Works for me, but I still don't like the idea that
a Slow spell cast in round one can affect a Fly spell cast
in round three. It does make at least some sense, though,
especially considering the "It's magic. Deal." factor.

Okay, I think I've convinced myself. So never mind.

Pete

 

[Guest]

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

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The wording of the Slow spell is that those affected can move at "half
>>their normal move". I think the DM was opening a can of worms in trying
>>to make a distinction between "normal" movement and other KINDS of
>>movement, when the intent of the spell seems to be that all forms of
>>movement are half of what they *normally* would be. Otherwise you end
>>up going on a ride around the rhetorical ranch about what "normal
>>movement" is... What about swimming or climbing speeds? Burrowing?
>>The monk or barbarian fast movement abilities? The effects of the
>>Expeditious Retreat spell? The effects of the Jump spell? The effects
>>of a pair of Wings of Flying? The effects of a Ring of Swimming? And
>>so on and so forth.
>
>
> I agree that it's tricky, but I do think it could be useful to
> distinguish between types of movement affected by a Slow spell
> and those that aren't. I'm not sure where to draw the line, though,
> or if it's worth making things that complicated. A couple of strange
> examples come to mind, though.
>
> One note - I'm not as familiar with the rules as I should be
> for this sort of discussion, but I've just looked at the SRD
> and I think I've got it right. If I make any mistakes, someone
> please correct me. Since we're just talking about movement
> here, in our example a normal unslowed character could take
> two Move actions per round. Under the effects of the Slow spell
> he could only take one Move action, and his movement speed would
> also be halved. So he goes a LOT slower than normal, really.
>
> 1) A human wizard casts a Fly spell on round one, which allows
> him to move at 60 feet, per the SRD. Then he gets Slowed on
> round two, and that changes to 30 feet, and he can only take
> one Move action per round instead of two. Why did the Slow spell
> affect the Fly spell, exactly?
>
> 2) A human wizard gets Slowed on round one. On round two, he
> casts a Fly spell on himself in order to escape. Why would the
> pre-existing Slow spell affect the brand new Fly spell?
>
> Am I making my confusion clear? I understand that a Slow spell
> changes the natural movement speed of a creature, but a Fly
> spell seems like an outside source to me. If a Slowed creature
> got into a car and started driving away, the spell wouldn't
> affect the speed of the car, right?

I think a distinction between moving via the Fly spell and riding a
Flying Carpet isn't too hard to make... Similar to running as opposed
to riding a running horse. You don't ride a Fly spell, the Fly spell
grants you a new type of movement that you can utilize as part of your
action.


> Now, I can think of two things that might explain it, but
> neither works perfectly for me.
>
> 1) The Slow spell doesn't actually change the speed of the Fly
> spell, it just makes it too dangerous to fly at normal speed
> because the character's reaction times are decreased. I can
> easily think of situations where a character would be more
> than willing to take the risk of flying as fast as possible,
> though.
>
> 2) The Fly spell isn't an outside source - once the spell takes
> effect, the flight ability is treated just like any natural
> movement. Works for me, but I still don't like the idea that
> a Slow spell cast in round one can affect a Fly spell cast
> in round three. It does make at least some sense, though,
> especially considering the "It's magic. Deal." factor.

Yah -- the thing is, there are a host of other things to consider above
and beyond the Fly spell. What about Jump, for example? Expeditious
Retreat? Water Walk? Air Walk? Etc.

Furthermore, the Slow spell itself says you move at "half normal speed",
not that it only affects the "normal movement rate(s)" (whatever that
means) of the victim(s). That's an *interpretation*, and a problematic
one as I have already explained.

Easiest to say that it just affects all types of movement, for whatever
reason. Otherwise you open up discussions about whether or not a winged
creature can fly with while Slowed, etc. etc. KISS and all that.

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

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

Werebat wrote:
> If you are Slowed (as the spell) and you are Flying, is your flight
> speed slowed?
>
> Does it matter if you are flying with a flight speed or with a spell or
> spell-like ability?
>
> Last night that our DM ruled that because Slow only allows you to move
> at half your "normal movement rate", you can still move unhindered by
> the Slow spell if you are using a movement rate other than your *normal*
> one (for example, flying with the spell Fly).
>

Of course slow would affect a flier. Hope they can fly at half speed.
This really deserves an MSB "RTFM YOU MORON!".

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

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

Werebat wrote:
> Peter Meilinger wrote:
>
> > Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Last night that our DM ruled that because Slow only allows you to move
> >>at half your "normal movement rate", you can still move unhindered by
> >>the Slow spell if you are using a movement rate other than your *normal*
> >>one (for example, flying with the spell Fly).
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a fair house rule to me. A sadistic DM might rule
> > that you can only react half as fast as normal, though, so
> > you'd be in trouble if an obstacle appeared in your way before
> > you could react. Sort of like driving too fast at night, outspeeding
> > the headlights. I doubt there's anything to support that in the
> > rules, but it's a nice mental image.
>
> The creature in question was an ogre mage, in gaseous form and under the
> effects of a Faerie Fire spell, Slowed and reduced to a strength of
> zero. It couldn't turn invisible while gaseous (and the Faerie Fire
> would have negated it anyway), but the DM ruled that it could move about
> with a strength of zero because it was weightless as a gas, and that it
> could fly unhindered by the Slow spell because flight isn't "normal"
> movement.
>
> He later recanted the bit about being able to fly unhindered by the Slow
> spell because the ogre mage has a flight speed listed in the MM, and did
> not fly because of the effects of a spell or spell-like ability.
>
> The wording of the Slow spell is that those affected can move at "half
> their normal move". I think the DM was opening a can of worms in trying
> to make a distinction between "normal" movement and other KINDS of
> movement, when the intent of the spell seems to be that all forms of
> movement are half of what they *normally* would be. Otherwise you end
> up going on a ride around the rhetorical ranch about what "normal
> movement" is... What about swimming or climbing speeds? Burrowing?
> The monk or barbarian fast movement abilities? The effects of the
> Expeditious Retreat spell? The effects of the Jump spell? The effects
> of a pair of Wings of Flying? The effects of a Ring of Swimming? And
> so on and so forth.
>

Sounds like typical newbie DM nonsense trying to interpret everything
convieniently for "his" side.

- Justisaur

 

[KAOS]

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:30:11 -0400, Alex Gervasio
<alexgervasio@webeast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>> the Web spell for us, you ignorant buffoon? Here's a hint: IT NEEDS
>> *ANCHORS*. So there is no bagging a flier with it unless the flier is
>> flying between two opposing structures, in which case the flier is *caught*
>> and does not fall.
>
>Maybe you have a different PHB than I do, but the one I have states on
>page 301 that the web needs to be anchored between two solid and
>diametrically opposed points. Unless dragons in your games somehow fly
>without wings or are incorporeal, their wings qualify quite nicely as
>anchor points for the web spell.

Moving objects hardly qualify for "solid and diametrically opposed
points." And guess what? A dragon in flight is probably moving his
wings.

But even if you do allow this, it moves us straight out of the assumed
usage of the spell anyway - a stationary web. Webs that are
'anchored' to two points on the same moving creature are not going to
have the effect that a web anchored between two trees will have..

>And with the Web spell, even if you save you
>are still trapped within and unable to move well (a dragon with a
>strength of 30 will move an average of 10 feet per round through the
>webs, meanwhile it is plummeting to the ground).

Note, that since you've attached the web to it's wings rather than
some stationary object, we wander out of rules-land and into
interpretation-land. In this circumstance (which I wouldn't allow for
reasons listed above anyway) it makes absolutely no sense for the
dragon to be slowed to a 10 foot crawl.

>> Here's a
>> fourth hint: the maximum damage from falling is 20d6. This doesn't make a
>> dent in an ancient red dragon's hit points.
>
>This is why I don't play with people who don't know the rules. It is
>tiring to have to trot out the same basic concepts for them over and
>over again. I'll point you to page 145, Massive Damage, and be done
>with it.

From the SRD:
Massive Damage: If you ever sustain a single attack deals 50 points of
damage or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15
Fortitude save.

Working again from the SRD, even a *juvenile* red appears to have a
fort save of +14. Odds of failing the check are miniscule.

>> Common sense? My ass. Next thing, you'll tell us that Ray of
>> Enfeeblement has no effect on people who are swimming, because by weakening
>> them you increase the likelihood that they will drown.
>
>It has no effect on swimming speed, no, because a creature's swim speed
>and its strength are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, you moron!

Go read the description for the Swim skill.
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
>>Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> the Web spell for us, you ignorant buffoon? Here's a hint: IT NEEDS
>>> *ANCHORS*.
>>
>> Maybe you have a different PHB than I do, but the one I have states on
>> page 301 that the web needs to be anchored between two solid and
>> diametrically opposed points. Unless dragons in your games somehow fly
>> without wings or are incorporeal, their wings qualify quite nicely as
>> anchor points for the web spell.

> They most certainly do not. The spell is describing structures, not
>*creatures*. If it could target a creature, it would say so. You are
>fundamentally wrong in this. Your belief that the limbs of a creature are
>the "opposing structures" appropriate to anchor webs leads to Web being used
>to bind weapons to hands, arms to sides, legs to one another - yet operation
>in this fashion has no relationship to the "spread" effect the spell is
>actually described as having.

Here's a fun one: Archer with Multishot (depicted in the PHB as firing
two arrow simultaneously) fires a pair of arrows at appropriately
placed targets. Wizard (with readied action): "I cast /web/, anchoring
it on the arrows".

I'm to lazy to check, but if Multishot works with slings, then you could
get even closer to having "point" anchors.

--
--DcB

 

[Guest]

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

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> Alex Gervasio <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote:
>
> A whole lot of stuff that no one seems to agree with. Which might
> serve as a hint of something, but let's not go there.
>

You mean that Alex is an obvious poor troll? Probably Ron.

- Justisaur