Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Slow and Fly

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 3:36:32 PM

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 ^*^

More about : slow fly

Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:41:30 AM

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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:41:31 AM

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 ^*^
Related resources
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 3:50:40 AM

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 ;) 
July 18, 2005 5:26:56 AM

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&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
July 18, 2005 5:26:59 AM

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&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 7:08:22 AM

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

"Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
news:o QCCe.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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 7:08:23 AM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
> news:o QCCe.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
July 18, 2005 7:08:24 AM

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
>> news:o QCCe.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&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:48:42 AM

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.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:01:25 AM

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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 12:37:13 PM

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
>>>news:o QCCe.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 ^*^
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 12:39:45 PM

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 ^*^
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 12:45:01 PM

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 ^*^
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 3:03:36 PM

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
>> news:o QCCe.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.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 4:30:11 PM

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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 4:34:16 PM

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
>>>> news:o QCCe.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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:06:01 PM

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?
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:49:01 PM

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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:49:02 PM

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 ^*^
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 6:18:31 PM

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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 6:21:03 PM

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
July 18, 2005 6:30:26 PM

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&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 6:38:22 PM

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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 6:42:21 PM

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
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:44:16 PM

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

Alex Gervasio <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote:

>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

Leaving aside the most blatant idiocies above, your 3rd level wizard
can only cast the Web to a range of 120 feet. But since you're
going for the "perfect storm" type of situation, let's say
he's on top of a mountain and sees the dragon off to one side
over a 300+ foot drop. Let's also say the dragon is blind
and deaf and otherwise unable to detect the mage first, which I
would definitely expect if this scenario were playing out anywhere
other than inside your head.

So the mage casts the web on the dragon's wings (which is what
I'd call the most blatant of your idiocies, but let that pass
for the sake of argument) and everything happens the way you
say it does. Then we get to your step 7:

>7. Dragon takes 50 points of damage and fails its Massive
>Damage check

You do realize that's only going to happen on a 1 for any
dragon of Adult age or older, yes? I mean, literally only
on a 1. It's a DC 15 Fortitude check, and all adult dragons
have a +15 or above.

So what you've done here is misapply a spell effect in a
patently ridiculous way and stack the deck completely
in favor of your hypothetical 3rd level mage, at which
point he has a 1 in 20 chance of killing a dragon. We'll
just ignore the 1 in 1,000 or worse chance of the scenario
actually playing out the way you say it would. And you've
decided that that a 1 in 20 chance makes the spell completely
overpowered, and so obviously the spell doesn't work against
flying creatures. Is that pretty much the gist of it?

Out of curiousity, at what point would you say that a spell
that could conceivably, in a one in a million chance kill
an adult dragon is NOT overpowered? Look at the Poison spell,
for example. Third level Druid spell:

****
Calling upon the venomous powers of natural predators,
you infect the subject with a horrible poison by making
a successful melee touch attack. The poison deals 1d10
points of temporary Constitution damage immediately and
another 1d10 points of temporary Constitution damage 1
minute later. Each instance of damage can be negated by
a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 your caster level + your
Wis modifier).
****

I mean, that's obviously completely overpowered, right?
Up to 20 points of Con damage! Adult Black, White, Brass
and Copper dragons only have a 19 Con! A 5th level Druid
could sneak into an adult dragon's lair and cast this
spell on them. If he rolls a 10 for the first bit of Con
damage and then evades the dragon for a full minute (and
how hard could that be, really?) and then rolls another
10 for the next bit of Con damage, and the dragon rolls
a natural 1 on both his saves, we've got ourselves a dead
dragon and a 5th level Druid with a TON of XP!

And good lord, now I'm looking at the cantrips list. If
a first level spellcaster finds a dragon doing power dives
for fun or practice, he can use a Message spell to distract
the dragon at the crucial moment and cause him to not pull
out of his dive and crash into the ground at a jillion miles
per hour. TON of XP!

Man, I'm going to have to go over the entire spell list with
a fine tooth comb.

Pete
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:44:17 PM

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

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> And good lord, now I'm looking at the cantrips list. If
> a first level spellcaster finds a dragon doing power dives
> for fun or practice, he can use a Message spell to distract
> the dragon at the crucial moment and cause him to not pull
> out of his dive and crash into the ground at a jillion miles
> per hour. TON of XP!

How about using Hallutionary Terrain to make him think he is diving into a gully?

It's probably an easy save for him, once he interacts. But does the save only comes into
play when he interacts with it, and is that when he first looks at it, or when he tries to
fly to/through it? At diving speed, it maybe enough to let him plough into the ground.

Range is 400 ft + 40 ft per level, so he can reach it and still be far away from the
dragon itself.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:53:11 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

> <raises hand> Are there not increased massive damage thresholds for big
>monsters?

Are there? Makes perfect sense, but I didn't notice that when I was
looking through the SRD just now. Where's that explained, out of
curiousity?

Pete
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:54:25 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1121721511.328136.104160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Of course slow would affect a flier. Hope they can fly at half speed.
>
> Even clumsy and poor fliers need only move one half of one move per
> round. Conveniently, this is exactly what Slow permits. Of course, this
> means that a Slowed flier can do nothing *but* fly - which makes this
> actually a very cogent defense.

There's always encumberance. Not entirely sure how encumberance
affects a slowed character though (especially without bothering to look
it up).

> I'm having a brain fart - if you burn your
> standard action to cast Dispel (or haste) on the slow spell affecting you ..
> since you were slowed while you were casting are you done for the round, or
> do you 'recover' a move action as a result?
>

Uh, this is MSB?!?! Wow, brain tumor?

Of course you don't. You just spent your whole round casting a spell
(while plumiting to the ground - unless you can hover).

- Justisaur
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:02:18 PM

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

"Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
news:nSQCe.78677$Fv.47484@lakeread01...
> > 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:
> 3. <PC wizard casts Web centered on dragon, using its wings for anchors>

"These masses must be anchored by two or more solid and diametrically
opposed points - floor and ceiling, opposte walls, or the like - or else the
web collapses upon itself and disappears."
Yet, the contention here is that the spell can somehow be made to affect
a creature in midair.
Hmm.

> 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

Here is another funny part. The reason the spell retards movement is
that the victims are in an area of webs (which are fixed in place), and
cannot move through them easily. In fact, that is repeatedly the phrase in
the text: "MOVE *THROUGH* THE WEB".
Yet Alex would have his cake and eat it too - that despite the fact that
his webs are anchored (granting his first premise for the sake of further
evisceration) only *to the dragon* ... (who is in midair) ... the dragon is
somehow only able to move itself *through the air* (with the webs attached
to itself) at the same rate that a creature _in_ the webs could move
*through* them, despite the fact that the dragon is not moving *through* the
webs at all in this case as they are carried on its back! And - here is
another interesting twist - Alex's version of the web spell prevents the
dragon from moving forward according to the rules for moving through them,
but does not seem to prevent the dragon from falling *downwards* according
to the rules for moving through them. This is, of course, somewhat
hypocritical; if the spell actually holds the dragon in place, then it
should not fall - and if it does not, then it should not prevent the
dragon's forward movement by those rules.

In addition - and here is another interesting bit of amusement for
you - the spell's description of how its Reflex save works allows one to
determine whether or not the webs are "stuck" to the people in the area. So
if the dragon is intended to be the anchor - ie; to have the webs "stuck" to
its wings - and yet it makes the saving throw that prevents it from being
"stuck" ... why, that's a bit of a conflict, isn't it? Again, Alex is
hypocritical in his use of the game mechanics. Apparently he believes that
the dragon has no choice whatsoever to be affected by Web if it is selected
as the anchor point - which is ironic, given that Alex's complaint about Web
was rooted in concerns that an effect would be too powerful - because making
*WEB* a NO-SAVE entangling spell (which can be directed against any
creature's "opposing limbs" - or two creatures, for that matter) has some
rather profound consequences in the fairness department.

The only reason to contend that a dragon cannot fly with webs [somehow,
given the two conceptual flaws here] anchored to its wings would be that it
is unable to maintain its wings in at least a gliding configuration as a
result of having them stuck there; but given that webs can be torn with
strength checks and given that the dragon need not move _through_ them, then
one strength check should be more than adequate to put the wings where they
are needed; the situation would be akin to "escaping a grapple", which is
about the only relevant analogue. A standard action to free the limbs, a
move action to fly. As soon as the wings are pulled more than 40 feet
apart, the web spell fails to obey even Alex's "creative" interpretation of
its functioning.

> 6. SPLAT! Dragon hits the ground before it even gets to act.

And yet another error - you cannot be made to fall before resolving
*your* turn. A creature that doesn't maintain its minimum forward speed
(half of one move action; that's a minimum of 100' per _round_ for an
ancient red and the dragon can go 200' in one move action) stalls and falls
150 feet, with a chance to recover from the stall (if still falling) on its
next turn - if it does not recover then, add 300' to the fall.

Consequently, the dragon has its entire turn to undertake the relevant
movement, and even if it does not do so, it only takes *zero*, or 15d6 or
less damage depending on its original altitude. With only 15d6 at stake, we
average all of 52 hp damage - and the DMG recommends an *80* point massive
damage threshold for Gargantuan monsters (but that's a variant - of course,
so is webbing the dragon in the first place).

As another little twist for Alex, since he is postulating not only the
use of a 2nd level spell but its employment from a 3rd level wizard, Web's
range is Medium, which is only 130 feet for that caster (though it can be up
to 300 for a 20th level wizard ... who would inflict .. no damage, since
this gets the dragon high enough for it to 'miss the ground' completely).
This means that the _best_ the wizard could hope for is 13d6 (which, is only
possible if he ambushes the dragon somehow from *directly beneath*) and
which doesn't even average _any_ massive damage threshold, official or
variant.

Presuming we warp the universe to allow the 3rd level wizard to hit the
130-foot-or-less altitude dragon with his unavoidable Webs, which for some
reason CANNOT BE BROKEN physically enough to let the dragon continue to fly
or glide ... the actual outcome is that the dragon breathes on itself (60
foot cone of webs, destroyed) with a standard action and takes a move action
to continue flying. However, this is "cheating" in a way as it only works
for fire breathing dragons, we could change to a white dragon and have the
original complaint. Dragons are powerful spellcasters, however - so the
actual outcome is that the dragon CASTS A SPELL (such as dispel magic, or
fireball, or, or, or) to free itself and takes a move action to continue
flying. And on top of all *that*, no intelligent combat flier creature
would take off without a feather fall or a Fly spell in its quiver as
protection against mishaps (or healing magic to make up for them), so even
if *all those other issues failed*, the dragon would still have protection,
either from arresting the fall or mitigating the damage.

> 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

As an ADDITIONAL bit of funny, since the wizard can only 'get' the
dragon at a high enough altitude to even approach massive damage if it is
*directly* overhead ... the dragon (20x20) will fall on the wizard.

Hmm. "This is why I only play with people who know the rules"...

You should be more careful who you call 'Peahead' in the future, for it
has become *your* new nickname, Peahead.

-Michael
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:02:19 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> "Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
> news:nSQCe.78677$Fv.47484@lakeread01...
>
>>>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:
>>3. <PC wizard casts Web centered on dragon, using its wings for anchors>
>
>
> "These masses must be anchored by two or more solid and diametrically
> opposed points - floor and ceiling, opposte walls, or the like - or else the
> web collapses upon itself and disappears."
> Yet, the contention here is that the spell can somehow be made to affect
> a creature in midair.
> Hmm.
>
>
>>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
>
>
> Here is another funny part. The reason the spell retards movement is
> that the victims are in an area of webs (which are fixed in place), and
> cannot move through them easily. In fact, that is repeatedly the phrase in
> the text: "MOVE *THROUGH* THE WEB".

Thanks for proving my point. The dragon cannot move "through" the web
if it is holding the web up, and therefore has NO chance of getting out.


> Yet Alex would have his cake and eat it too - that despite the fact that
> his webs are anchored (granting his first premise for the sake of further
> evisceration) only *to the dragon* ... (who is in midair) ... the dragon is
> somehow only able to move itself *through the air* (with the webs attached
> to itself) at the same rate that a creature _in_ the webs could move
> *through* them, despite the fact that the dragon is not moving *through* the
> webs at all in this case as they are carried on its back! And - here is
> another interesting twist - Alex's version of the web spell prevents the
> dragon from moving forward according to the rules for moving through them,
> but does not seem to prevent the dragon from falling *downwards* according
> to the rules for moving through them. This is, of course, somewhat
> hypocritical; if the spell actually holds the dragon in place, then it
> should not fall - and if it does not, then it should not prevent the
> dragon's forward movement by those rules.

You are a nitwit, peahead. The dragon's wings are gummed up by the web
spell, they cannot flap, and it is trapped and plummets. This is why I
disallow the use of the spell to affect fliers.


> In addition - and here is another interesting bit of amusement for
> you - the spell's description of how its Reflex save works allows one to
> determine whether or not the webs are "stuck" to the people in the area. So
> if the dragon is intended to be the anchor - ie; to have the webs "stuck" to
> its wings - and yet it makes the saving throw that prevents it from being
> "stuck" ... why, that's a bit of a conflict, isn't it? Again, Alex is
> hypocritical in his use of the game mechanics.

No, I am just using the rules as written. YOU are making up all kinds
of situational nonsense in a sad little effort to "prove" that you are
right.


> Apparently he believes that
> the dragon has no choice whatsoever to be affected by Web if it is selected
> as the anchor point - which is ironic, given that Alex's complaint about Web
> was rooted in concerns that an effect would be too powerful - because making
> *WEB* a NO-SAVE entangling spell (which can be directed against any
> creature's "opposing limbs" - or two creatures, for that matter) has some
> rather profound consequences in the fairness department.

The spell is what it is. My refusal to allow it to affect flying
creatures is partly because it is overpowered to begin with, you might say.


> The only reason to contend that a dragon cannot fly with webs [somehow,
> given the two conceptual flaws here] anchored to its wings would be that it
> is unable to maintain its wings in at least a gliding configuration as a
> result of having them stuck there; but given that webs can be torn with
> strength checks

True enough, but the wings need to spread at least as far as the dragon
would need to "move" to get out of the web spell anyway... soo...


> and given that the dragon need not move _through_ them, then
> one strength check should be more than adequate to put the wings where they
> are needed;

Codswallop. The wings can part 5 feet per 5 points over 10 that the
dragon makes its strength check, just like someone trying to move
through the webs. And this is if they are NOT trapped in the webs!


> the situation would be akin to "escaping a grapple", which is
> about the only relevant analogue. A standard action to free the limbs, a
> move action to fly.

Except that Web is a magical effect, not a grappling creature. Peabrain.


> As soon as the wings are pulled more than 40 feet
> apart, the web spell fails to obey even Alex's "creative" interpretation of
> its functioning.

40 feet would require a natural 20 combined with a strength of 50. Even
dragons don't get that.


>>6. SPLAT! Dragon hits the ground before it even gets to act.
>
>
> And yet another error - you cannot be made to fall before resolving
> *your* turn.

Oh, now THIS is rich! So Regdar is standing over a button-activated pit
trap, and is being spied on by Lidda the rogue. Lidda pushes the button
to activate the pit trap, and Regdar magically HANGS IN THE AIR until
his turn?

I suppose if he is surprised, he magically hangs in the air for TWO
ROUNDS until he can act!

BWA HA HA HA HA!!!

You really are priceless, peabrain.


> A creature that doesn't maintain its minimum forward speed
> (half of one move action; that's a minimum of 100' per _round_ for an
> ancient red and the dragon can go 200' in one move action) stalls and falls
> 150 feet, with a chance to recover from the stall (if still falling) on its
> next turn - if it does not recover then, add 300' to the fall.

Bull. The dragon's wings stop flapping, it plummets to the ground like
a rock. End of story.


> Consequently, the dragon has its entire turn to undertake the relevant
> movement, and even if it does not do so, it only takes *zero*, or 15d6 or
> less damage depending on its original altitude. With only 15d6 at stake, we
> average all of 52 hp damage - and the DMG recommends an *80* point massive
> damage threshold for Gargantuan monsters (but that's a variant - of course,
> so is webbing the dragon in the first place).

I see you trying to slip that one in, like the weasel you are. Your
*variant* really is one, mine is not. I am using the rules as written.


> As another little twist for Alex, since he is postulating not only the
> use of a 2nd level spell but its employment from a 3rd level wizard, Web's
> range is Medium, which is only 130 feet for that caster (though it can be up
> to 300 for a 20th level wizard ... who would inflict .. no damage, since
> this gets the dragon high enough for it to 'miss the ground' completely).
> This means that the _best_ the wizard could hope for is 13d6

13d6 now? My you enjoy playing with numbers and pulling things out of
your ass now don't you?

Here's a clue, doofus: 3rd level wizards can also cast a little thing
called Levitate. You might want to read that one sometime.


> (which, is only
> possible if he ambushes the dragon somehow from *directly beneath*) and
> which doesn't even average _any_ massive damage threshold, official or
> variant.
>
> Presuming we warp the universe to allow the 3rd level wizard to hit the
> 130-foot-or-less altitude dragon with his unavoidable Webs, which for some
> reason CANNOT BE BROKEN physically enough to let the dragon continue to fly
> or glide ... the actual outcome is that the dragon breathes on itself (60
> foot cone of webs, destroyed) with a standard action and takes a move action
> to continue flying.

Can't happen.

DO try to read the books, peabrain. It makes you at least LOOK less
stupid than you really are.

Page 69 of the Monster Manual (and I quote): "A blast from a breath
weapon always starts at any intersection adjacent to the dragon and
*extends* [moves AWAY FROM the dragon] in a direction of the dragon's
choice."

Looks like you lose, peabrain.


> However, this is "cheating" in a way as it only works
> for fire breathing dragons, we could change to a white dragon and have the
> original complaint. Dragons are powerful spellcasters, however - so the
> actual outcome is that the dragon CASTS A SPELL (such as dispel magic, or
> fireball, or, or, or) to free itself and takes a move action to continue
> flying. And on top of all *that*, no intelligent combat flier creature
> would take off without a feather fall or a Fly spell in its quiver as
> protection against mishaps (or healing magic to make up for them), so even
> if *all those other issues failed*, the dragon would still have protection,
> either from arresting the fall or mitigating the damage.

Lots of ASSumptions that you pulled out of your ASS.


>>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
>
>
> As an ADDITIONAL bit of funny, since the wizard can only 'get' the
> dragon at a high enough altitude to even approach massive damage if it is
> *directly* overhead ... the dragon (20x20) will fall on the wizard.

This is just stupid. Why wouldn't the wizard just cast from somewhere
other than directly under his target? And even if he did, momentum
would keep the dragon moving until it hit the ground some distance away
from the wizard. You know, like how trees don't fall on lumberjacks?


> Hmm. "This is why I only play with people who know the rules"...
>
> You should be more careful who you call 'Peahead' in the future, for it
> has become *your* new nickname, Peahead.

That name has already gone to the OP. YOU I dub "peabrain".

Alex
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:02:19 PM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> "Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
> news:nSQCe.78677$Fv.47484@lakeread01...
>
>>>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:
>>3. <PC wizard casts Web centered on dragon, using its wings for anchors>
>
>
> "These masses must be anchored by two or more solid and diametrically
> opposed points - floor and ceiling, opposte walls, or the like - or else the
> web collapses upon itself and disappears."
> Yet, the contention here is that the spell can somehow be made to affect
> a creature in midair.
> Hmm.
>
>
>>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
>
>
> Here is another funny part. The reason the spell retards movement is
> that the victims are in an area of webs (which are fixed in place), and
> cannot move through them easily. In fact, that is repeatedly the phrase in
> the text: "MOVE *THROUGH* THE WEB".
> Yet Alex would have his cake and eat it too - that despite the fact that
> his webs are anchored (granting his first premise for the sake of further
> evisceration) only *to the dragon* ... (who is in midair) ... the dragon is
> somehow only able to move itself *through the air* (with the webs attached
> to itself) at the same rate that a creature _in_ the webs could move
> *through* them, despite the fact that the dragon is not moving *through* the
> webs at all in this case as they are carried on its back! And - here is
> another interesting twist - Alex's version of the web spell prevents the
> dragon from moving forward according to the rules for moving through them,
> but does not seem to prevent the dragon from falling *downwards* according
> to the rules for moving through them. This is, of course, somewhat
> hypocritical; if the spell actually holds the dragon in place, then it
> should not fall - and if it does not, then it should not prevent the
> dragon's forward movement by those rules.
>
> In addition - and here is another interesting bit of amusement for
> you - the spell's description of how its Reflex save works allows one to
> determine whether or not the webs are "stuck" to the people in the area. So
> if the dragon is intended to be the anchor - ie; to have the webs "stuck" to
> its wings - and yet it makes the saving throw that prevents it from being
> "stuck" ... why, that's a bit of a conflict, isn't it? Again, Alex is
> hypocritical in his use of the game mechanics. Apparently he believes that
> the dragon has no choice whatsoever to be affected by Web if it is selected
> as the anchor point - which is ironic, given that Alex's complaint about Web
> was rooted in concerns that an effect would be too powerful - because making
> *WEB* a NO-SAVE entangling spell (which can be directed against any
> creature's "opposing limbs" - or two creatures, for that matter) has some
> rather profound consequences in the fairness department.
>
> The only reason to contend that a dragon cannot fly with webs [somehow,
> given the two conceptual flaws here] anchored to its wings would be that it
> is unable to maintain its wings in at least a gliding configuration as a
> result of having them stuck there; but given that webs can be torn with
> strength checks and given that the dragon need not move _through_ them, then
> one strength check should be more than adequate to put the wings where they
> are needed; the situation would be akin to "escaping a grapple", which is
> about the only relevant analogue. A standard action to free the limbs, a
> move action to fly. As soon as the wings are pulled more than 40 feet
> apart, the web spell fails to obey even Alex's "creative" interpretation of
> its functioning.
>
>
>>6. SPLAT! Dragon hits the ground before it even gets to act.
>
>
> And yet another error - you cannot be made to fall before resolving
> *your* turn. A creature that doesn't maintain its minimum forward speed
> (half of one move action; that's a minimum of 100' per _round_ for an
> ancient red and the dragon can go 200' in one move action) stalls and falls
> 150 feet, with a chance to recover from the stall (if still falling) on its
> next turn - if it does not recover then, add 300' to the fall.
>
> Consequently, the dragon has its entire turn to undertake the relevant
> movement, and even if it does not do so, it only takes *zero*, or 15d6 or
> less damage depending on its original altitude. With only 15d6 at stake, we
> average all of 52 hp damage - and the DMG recommends an *80* point massive
> damage threshold for Gargantuan monsters (but that's a variant - of course,
> so is webbing the dragon in the first place).
>
> As another little twist for Alex, since he is postulating not only the
> use of a 2nd level spell but its employment from a 3rd level wizard, Web's
> range is Medium, which is only 130 feet for that caster (though it can be up
> to 300 for a 20th level wizard ... who would inflict .. no damage, since
> this gets the dragon high enough for it to 'miss the ground' completely).
> This means that the _best_ the wizard could hope for is 13d6 (which, is only
> possible if he ambushes the dragon somehow from *directly beneath*) and
> which doesn't even average _any_ massive damage threshold, official or
> variant.
>
> Presuming we warp the universe to allow the 3rd level wizard to hit the
> 130-foot-or-less altitude dragon with his unavoidable Webs, which for some
> reason CANNOT BE BROKEN physically enough to let the dragon continue to fly
> or glide ... the actual outcome is that the dragon breathes on itself (60
> foot cone of webs, destroyed) with a standard action and takes a move action
> to continue flying. However, this is "cheating" in a way as it only works
> for fire breathing dragons, we could change to a white dragon and have the
> original complaint. Dragons are powerful spellcasters, however - so the
> actual outcome is that the dragon CASTS A SPELL (such as dispel magic, or
> fireball, or, or, or) to free itself and takes a move action to continue
> flying. And on top of all *that*, no intelligent combat flier creature
> would take off without a feather fall or a Fly spell in its quiver as
> protection against mishaps (or healing magic to make up for them), so even
> if *all those other issues failed*, the dragon would still have protection,
> either from arresting the fall or mitigating the damage.
>
>
>>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
>
>
> As an ADDITIONAL bit of funny, since the wizard can only 'get' the
> dragon at a high enough altitude to even approach massive damage if it is
> *directly* overhead ... the dragon (20x20) will fall on the wizard.
>
> Hmm. "This is why I only play with people who know the rules"...
>
> You should be more careful who you call 'Peahead' in the future, for it
> has become *your* new nickname, Peahead.

Hey no fair! *I* want to be Peahead! He gave the name to me first! :^)

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:02:20 PM

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

Alex Gervasio wrote:

>
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:

>> You should be more careful who you call 'Peahead' in the future,
>> for it
>> has become *your* new nickname, Peahead.
>
>
> That name has already gone to the OP.

YAY! I'm Peahead!


> YOU I dub "peabrain".

I dub you Baron of Graymatter!


> Alex

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:02:21 PM

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

"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:GCUCe.78689$Fv.14788@lakeread01...
> Alex Gervasio wrote:

>> YOU I dub "peabrain".

> I dub you Baron of Graymatter!

Doing that can make you go blind.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:06:58 PM

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

"Peter Meilinger" <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:D bgqa7$li4$2@news3.bu.edu...
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > <raises hand> Are there not increased massive damage thresholds for
big
> >monsters?
>
> Are there? Makes perfect sense, but I didn't notice that when I was
> looking through the SRD just now. Where's that explained, out of
> curiousity?

Near the very beginning of the DMG (page ~20 ish) are some variant
damage rules, such as ways to handle shots to specific limbs - improved DFMD
thresholds are listed there with a compelling rationale (namely, it's silly
to have them be the same for everyone). The suggestion was +/-10 hp for
each size category above/below the small/medium band (60/70/80 for
large/huge/gargantuan).

However, they are just official variants - and DFMD is a violation of
the hit point system anyway (IMO)....

-Michael
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:27:11 PM

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

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> Look at the Poison spell,
> for example. Third level Druid spell:
>
> ****
> Calling upon the venomous powers of natural predators,
> you infect the subject with a horrible poison by making
> a successful melee touch attack. The poison deals 1d10
> points of temporary Constitution damage immediately and
> another 1d10 points of temporary Constitution damage 1
> minute later. Each instance of damage can be negated by
> a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 your caster level + your
> Wis modifier).
> ****
>
> I mean, that's obviously completely overpowered, right?
> Up to 20 points of Con damage! Adult Black, White, Brass
> and Copper dragons only have a 19 Con! A 5th level Druid
> could sneak into an adult dragon's lair and cast this
> spell on them.

This looked interesting, so I wanted to run the numbers on this, to see how
likely it was.

Poison allows Spell Resistance to affect it, so let's work that first.

Adult Black Dragon, SR 18.

5th level Druid, caster level check is DC 20 + level, so, success on a 13 or
better on a D20. (8/20)

Fortitude save. Presume the Druid has an 18 wisdom. DC 10 + 2 + 4 = DC 16.

Dragon has a fortitude save of +15, so, he'll fail only on a 1, and he must
fail twice in a row. (1/20) (1/20)

Con damage, if I'm not mistaken works out to a 3 in 100 chance to account
for two 9/10 pairs plus the one 10/10. (3/100)

Therefore, the odds of killing the dragon (ignoring the survival of the
druid for a moment) in one spell is:

8/20 * 1/20 * 1/20 * 3/100

24 in 800,000 or 3 in 100,000 chance.

You know, that would make a pretty funny Order of the Stick comic...
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:02:22 AM

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

Alex Gervasio <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote:

>> <raises hand> What is a dragon's fortitude save?

>It depends on the age of the dragon, and it can be modified in any
>number of ways. Not all red dragons have through-the-roof Fortitude
>saves, and not all of them have the standard Constitution score either.

Ah. So you've decided that it's a 98 pound weakling dragon, have you?
Asthmatic, no doubt. Possibly suicidal, so he'd deliberately miss
the save.

>> <raises hand> Are there not increased massive damage thresholds for big
>> monsters?

>Only if the DM allows that pissant *variant* rule. If you are allowing
>*variant* rules into this then my argument only gets stronger.

Dude, you're the idiot claiming you can cast a Web spell on two
wings that are in constant motion.

>If you cannot use creatures as anchors, what happens when someone tries
>to cast a Web spell using two big statues as anchors, and those statues
>later turn out to be stone golems? Huh? Riddle me that, peabrain!

Well, he's got us there. My little pea brain just exploded into
dust.

>> *and* you are assuming it fails a massive damage saving
>> throw (DC 15), nevermind that the dragon in question has a PLUS TWENTY EIGHT
>> on the throw.

>SOME dragons would get that, not ALL of them. You are forgetting the rules.

>There is always Prayer and other spells could be waiting for the dragon
>at the bottom of its fall... Uh-oh! No Foritude save!

How the hell is your hypothetical 3rd level mage going to cast a
Prayer spell? Or any other spell that makes any real difference
in whether the dragon will live or die, even assuming your take
on the Web spell is correct?

You started out saying that since a Web spell could cause a dragon
to fall to its death it was too powerful, and thus Web spells don't
work on flying creatures. Now you seem to be saying that because a
Web spell IN CONJUNCTION WITH AT LEAST ONE BUT POSSIBLY SEVERAL
OTHER UNNAMED SPELLS could end up killing a dragon, the Web spell
is overpowered. What the hell, man? That's like saying that since
a Wish and a Meteor Swarm (to take two examples off the top of my
head) could reduce a dragon to the point that a 1st level Magic
Missile could kill it, Magic Missile is way too powerful and thus
it doesn't work on dragons.

Pete
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:15:58 AM

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

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.

Alex, I'm going to honest to God try to put forth what I see as
your argument about this whole Web spell mess, and then I'm going
to ask you a question, okay?

1) Web spells can be cast on the wings of a dragon in flight. I
don't think you're going to find anyone who agrees with you on
that, but okay.

2) Dragons of any age or power aren't necessarily as powerful as
the books say they are.

3) Both of those factors are backed up by the fact that you,
as a DM, can change the rules on Web or Dragon power even if
the books disagree with you, which in this case you don't think
they do.

4) Because of the above 3 steps, it's possible for a 3rd level
wizard to use a Web spell to kill a powerful dragon.

5) Because of that, you think Web is too powerful to allow its
use against flying creatures.

That seems to be the gist of your stated beliefs on this matter.
And now, my question.

You've used your DM As God authority to de-power the dragon in
your example and make the Web spell more powerful than anyone
I've ever even heard of makes it. Then you let your hypothetical
3rd level wizard use it in a way that would almost never occur
in actual play. And based on those factors, you've decided that
the spell itself is broken? I don't think the problem's with the
spell, dude.

Pete
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:19:23 AM

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

Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote:
>You've used your DM As God authority to de-power the dragon in
>your example and make the Web spell more powerful than anyone
>I've ever even heard of makes it. Then you let your hypothetical
>3rd level wizard use it in a way that would almost never occur
>in actual play. And based on those factors, you've decided that
>the spell itself is broken? I don't think the problem's with the
>spell, dude.

Hmm. He's jumping up and down about web, has gone out of his way
to try to rile up MSB, and posts from cox.net... you connect the
dots (oh, and the thread was started by Ron...).

Donald
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:19:24 AM

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

Donald Tsang wrote:

> Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>>You've used your DM As God authority to de-power the dragon in
>>your example and make the Web spell more powerful than anyone
>>I've ever even heard of makes it. Then you let your hypothetical
>>3rd level wizard use it in a way that would almost never occur
>>in actual play. And based on those factors, you've decided that
>>the spell itself is broken? I don't think the problem's with the
>>spell, dude.
>
>
> Hmm. He's jumping up and down about web, has gone out of his way
> to try to rile up MSB, and posts from cox.net... you connect the
> dots (oh, and the thread was started by Ron...).

:^)

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:19:25 AM

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

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in news:3KUCe.78691$Fv.22625
@lakeread01:

>
>
> Donald Tsang wrote:
>
>> Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>You've used your DM As God authority to de-power the dragon in
>>>your example and make the Web spell more powerful than anyone
>>>I've ever even heard of makes it. Then you let your hypothetical
>>>3rd level wizard use it in a way that would almost never occur
>>>in actual play. And based on those factors, you've decided that
>>>the spell itself is broken? I don't think the problem's with the
>>>spell, dude.
>>
>>
>> Hmm. He's jumping up and down about web, has gone out of his way
>> to try to rile up MSB, and posts from cox.net... you connect the
>> dots (oh, and the thread was started by Ron...).
>
>:^)
>
> - Ron ^*^
>
>

Well played, Ron. Well played.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:44:28 AM

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:34:16 -0400, Alex Gervasio
<alexgervasio@webeast.net> scribed into the ether:

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

For someone who keeps telling others to read the rules, you desperately
need to do so yourself. You have no authority to call anyone a "peahead",
given your rather embarrasing lacking of functional grey matter.

>1. <PC wizard sees dragon overhead>
>2. "Oh! A dragon!"
>3. <PC wizard casts Web centered on dragon, using its wings for anchors>

Web creates a many-layered mass of strong, sticky strands. These strands
trap those caught in them. The strands are similar to spider webs but far
larger and tougher. These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and
diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and
disappears.

So basically, your wizard wastes a spell slot on an effect which
immediately collapses upon itself and disappears. Wow, that's overpowered
for sure!

>7. Dragon takes 50 points of damage and fails its Massive Damage check

Elder dragons now have less than 100 hp? Please be less dumb.

>8. Dead dragon, and a lone 3rd level wizard with a TON of XP

So, this isn't just a level appropriate wizard casting his low level spell,
but an actual level 3 wizard defeating an elder wyrm? Oh my...

Certain morons participating in this thread and telling other people to
read up on the spell description (that would be you, Alex, since you are
too much of a moron to figure out who I'm talking to by yourself) need to
not be throwing stones in their glass house.

Web:
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
So to even HIT the dragon flying 300 feet above, our wizard needs to be
level 20.

Effect: Webs in a 20-ft.-radius spread
40 feet across, which would likely not even reach between the 2 principle
wing joints on a dragon that size. Effectively you are laying a sticky
blanket across the dragon's back. Net effect: Dragon doesn't even notice.
Of course, the web has already collapsed on itself and dissappeared, but
you already knew that, right?
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:47:28 AM

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

"Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
news:nFTCe.78683$Fv.61001@lakeread01...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Oh really? Kindly show me the cite that says that creatures cannot be
> used as anchors. You can't because IT ISN'T THERE! You are pulling
> this one out of your ass, because you would LIKE it to be true.
> If a dragon's wings on an upbeat are NOT "two solid and diametrically
> opposed points", then pray tell what ARE they?
> Very telling, that the only arguments you can find that support your
> position are the ones you pull out of your ass.

<yawn>
"Two or more solid and diametrically opposed points - FLOOR AND CEILING,
OPPOSITE WALLS, *or the like*.
It's the PhB that is telling you what is a good example of a
web-supporting surface, not me. It's pretty plain English. The only
creature that could possibly be an appropriate anchor would be something
that was *like* a floor and ceiling, or a cavern.

Let's make a list: floor & ceiling, opposite walls, steel cages,
*flapping wings*. One of these is not like the other! Please don't tell us
you actually think that the use of "solid" in this case is strictly in the
context of not-incorporeal.

The spell is designed to spread and fill a structural gap (the final
area of effect, barring other obstacles, is cylindrical between the two
opposing surfaces) - and creatures *in that area* experience entanglement
issues when they try to move *through that area*. The only saving throw
issue is related to being caught _in_ the webs.
As soon as you try to anchor the spell to a creature, you're out of the
box in a very big way. There's no provision for it! For one, it is
overpowered, as it allows you to use Web on someone *without* giving them a
saving throw to avoid the effect. Where are the rules for how one of the
*anchors* can be pulled free of the webs? Where are the rules for how one of
the *anchors* is hampered in action? Since the spell requires anchors (and
no more than 40 feet apart), if one of the anchors is pulled (by strength or
by another) to 41 feet separation, does the spell collapse? Or do the webs
have some kind of elastic property that allows them to stretch out further
thereafter?
Don't you *get it*?

Now, supposing we were extraordinarily generous with the universe, and
allowed the potential anchor to be creatures or a creature's limbs - the
only rational thing to do is to let the Reflex save to avoid being *stuck*
to the webs apply - which means that a successful Reflex save also deprives
the webs of their anchor, and the spell collapses on the spot.

> > 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.
>
> This is not a problem because as DM I do not allow the spell to be
> perverted into gluing swords to arms and the like. Somehow in your
> effort to obfuscate my original comments, you have forgotten my main
> point, that the DM is FINAL ARBITER.

Hmm. So your argument is that no consequences of your interpretation are
relevant to judging its validity ... because you don't allow them in your
campaign? Perhaps you might care to explain to the class why you think it
is reasonable to bind a dragon's wings together with Web but not a man's
arms? There's this pesky little problem on your part if you allow the one
but not the other, then all your assertions are only so much special
pleading.

> >>over again. I'll point you to page 145, Massive Damage, and be done
> >
> > <raises hand> What is a dragon's fortitude save?
>
> It depends on the age of the dragon, and it can be modified in any
> number of ways. Not all red dragons have through-the-roof Fortitude
> saves, and not all of them have the standard Constitution score either.

You raised the example of an *ancient* red dragon, buckwheat. MOVE
THOSE GOALPOSTS!
Also, a rather profound amount of variation in a constitution score is
going to be required to knock a dragon's save down to below +14 (which is
the value for *Juveniles*.
You are, unfortunately, hoist on your own petard on this one. No dragon
for whom it would be "inappropriate" for a low level spell to harm is going
to be killed by Massive Damage with any reliability.

> > <raises hand> Are there not increased massive damage thresholds for
big
> > monsters?
>
> Only if the DM allows that pissant *variant* rule.

Now there's some irony. And I just replaced the irony-meter!

> If you are allowing *variant* rules into this then my argument only gets
stronger.

There are no official variant rules in the DMG that strengthen your
argument.
It is apparent to all of us, however, that "variant" is the appropriate
term for your attempt to misinterpret the Web spell.

Here's a hint: the way you want to use Web is not part of the official
rules.
Here's another hint: the consequences you assert for *your* usage of the
spell are inconsistent with the nature of the 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.
> >
> > <SPROING>!!!!!
> > I hate it when I have to replace that thing.
>
> Cute ad hominem, with no relevance to the argument at hand AT ALL. Is
> this how you try to win all of your arguments? Tsk tsk tsk such a lack
> of skill...

Now there's more irony. Please, do the newsgroup the courtesy of
undestanding the definition of ad hominem in the future.

> If you cannot use creatures as anchors, what happens when someone tries
> to cast a Web spell using two big statues as anchors, and those statues
> later turn out to be stone golems? Huh? Riddle me that, peabrain!

The spell fails, and now we know there's something special about them.
Where's the beef?

> > you are assuming it cannot break its wings free of the
> > webs on its turn ...
>
> Its not an assumption, it's the truth. Even with a +10 to its roll from
> a strength of 30, it moves an average of 10' out of the spell per round.
> And this is assuming it makes its first save! Just read the spell kiddie.

<raises hand> In your scenario, the spell is *attached to the dragon*.

> > (yet, they are the anchors, so moving them out of the
> > webs is trivial)
>
> Show me where in the spell it says that the anchors of the spell have a
> bonus of any kind when it comes to moving through the webs? IT DOESN'T!

<raises hand> Are you at all aware that being on the edges of the web
spell means that moving *through* the webs is unnecessary?

> > *and* you are assuming it fails a massive damage saving
> > throw (DC 15), nevermind that the dragon in question has a PLUS TWENTY
EIGHT
> > on the throw.
>
> SOME dragons would get that, not ALL of them. You are forgetting the
rules.
> There is always Prayer and other spells could be waiting for the dragon
> at the bottom of its fall... Uh-oh! No Foritude save!

<raises hand> Perhaps you could explain to the newsgroup how Prayer will
deprive the dragon of its save?

> >>> 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!
> >
> > I find your reply fascinating, in that it seems to put a great deal
of
> > emotional effort into disagreeing with something that was not stated.
>
> So now you are going back on what you said earlier?

Perhaps you can explain how the observation that your reply has nothing
to do with my statement ... would be a retraction of my statement?

> > Can you read English? The words up there are pretty
self-explanatory.
> > Swim speed is not among them.
>
> You talked about "people" who are swimming. In D&D, "people" can mean
> such diverse creatures as sahuagan, kuo-toa, and locathah. These people
> have swim speeds. Feeling stupid yet, peabrain?

Are you even aware that the words to which you replied are included in
these posts?
"By weakening them, you increase the likelihood that they will drown".
Nothing about swim speed, there.
Hint: Drowning is a function of Swimming skill checks. They are modified
by Strength.

You are rapidly beginning to make me question your ability to pass a
Turing Test.

-Michael
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:50:39 AM

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

"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:D bh2sb$7a$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote:
> Hmm. He's jumping up and down about web, has gone out of his way
> to try to rile up MSB, and posts from cox.net... you connect the
> dots (oh, and the thread was started by Ron...).

Aye. I'm having the same thought.

-Michael
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:55:12 AM

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

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Donald Tsang" <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> Hmm. He's jumping up and down about web, has gone out of his way
>> to try to rile up MSB, and posts from cox.net... you connect the
>> dots (oh, and the thread was started by Ron...).
>
> Aye. I'm having the same thought.

Oh, and both post through "lakeread01"...

Seems... yeah. First time for awhile that I've seen many of the
"regulars" fall... pretty hard... for one of these green, rubbery,
regenerating things, though.

Donald
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:56:06 AM

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:30:11 -0400, Alex Gervasio
<alexgervasio@webeast.net> scribed into the ether:

>
>
>Michael Scott Brown wrote:

>> It's a good thing that a 2nd level spell *can't* do that, therefore.
>
>Oh really?

Yes, 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.

So you are now claiming that dragons hold their wings in vertical lines
during the course of flight?

>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.

By all means, show us your exhaustive research on the nature of dragon
flight.

>> 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.

So, now we need to first lower the SR of the dragon, which means casting a
spell at it...something which the dragon is going to notice. So much for
the surprise of the webs.


>> 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.

He didn't say cast it on fish, twit. People. People who are encumbered are
indeed reliant on their strength scores to avoid drowning.

Pick up some basic reading comprehension while you look up the rules you
claim other people do not understand.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:02:18 AM

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

"Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
news:yzUCe.78687$Fv.37061@lakeread01...
> > Here is another funny part. The reason the spell retards movement
is
> > that the victims are in an area of webs (which are fixed in place), and
> > cannot move through them easily. In fact, that is repeatedly the phrase
in
> > the text: "MOVE *THROUGH* THE WEB".
>
> Thanks for proving my point. The dragon cannot move "through" the web
> if it is holding the web up, and therefore has NO chance of getting out.

The breach of logic required to make this statement proves the jig is
up, as far as I'm concerned.


> > As soon as the wings are pulled more than 40 feet
> > apart, the web spell fails to obey even Alex's "creative" interpretation
of
> > its functioning.
>
> 40 feet would require a natural 20 combined with a strength of 50. Even
> dragons don't get that.

See, here's more too-stupid-to-live.

> > A creature that doesn't maintain its minimum forward speed
> > (half of one move action; that's a minimum of 100' per _round_ for an
> > ancient red and the dragon can go 200' in one move action) stalls and
falls
> > 150 feet, with a chance to recover from the stall (if still falling) on
its
> > next turn - if it does not recover then, add 300' to the fall.
>
> Bull. The dragon's wings stop flapping, it plummets to the ground like
> a rock. End of story.

.. and here is blatant disagreement with the aerial combat rules, which
no even remotely sensible poster would be doing.

> > or glide ... the actual outcome is that the dragon breathes on itself
(60
> > foot cone of webs, destroyed) with a standard action and takes a move
action
> > to continue flying.
>
> Can't happen.DO try to read the books, peabrain. It makes you at least
LOOK less
> stupid than you really are.
> Page 69 of the Monster Manual (and I quote): "A blast from a breath
> weapon always starts at any intersection adjacent to the dragon and
> *extends* [moves AWAY FROM the dragon] in a direction of the dragon's
> choice."

... and a little inappropriate literalism for good measure.

Strange one, Ron. Strange, indeed.

-Michael
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:02:19 AM

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> "Alex Gervasio" <alexgervasio@webeast.net> wrote in message
> news:yzUCe.78687$Fv.37061@lakeread01...
>
>>> Here is another funny part. The reason the spell retards movement
>
> is
>
>>>that the victims are in an area of webs (which are fixed in place), and
>>>cannot move through them easily. In fact, that is repeatedly the phrase
>
> in
>
>>>the text: "MOVE *THROUGH* THE WEB".
>>
>>Thanks for proving my point. The dragon cannot move "through" the web
>>if it is holding the web up, and therefore has NO chance of getting out.
>
>
> The breach of logic required to make this statement proves the jig is
> up, as far as I'm concerned.
>
>
>
>>>As soon as the wings are pulled more than 40 feet
>>>apart, the web spell fails to obey even Alex's "creative" interpretation
>
> of
>
>>>its functioning.
>>
>>40 feet would require a natural 20 combined with a strength of 50. Even
>>dragons don't get that.
>
>
> See, here's more too-stupid-to-live.
>
>
>>>A creature that doesn't maintain its minimum forward speed
>>>(half of one move action; that's a minimum of 100' per _round_ for an
>>>ancient red and the dragon can go 200' in one move action) stalls and
>
> falls
>
>>>150 feet, with a chance to recover from the stall (if still falling) on
>
> its
>
>>>next turn - if it does not recover then, add 300' to the fall.
>>
>>Bull. The dragon's wings stop flapping, it plummets to the ground like
>>a rock. End of story.
>
>
> .. and here is blatant disagreement with the aerial combat rules, which
> no even remotely sensible poster would be doing.
>
>
>>>or glide ... the actual outcome is that the dragon breathes on itself
>
> (60
>
>>>foot cone of webs, destroyed) with a standard action and takes a move
>
> action
>
>>>to continue flying.
>>
>>Can't happen.DO try to read the books, peabrain. It makes you at least
>
> LOOK less
>
>>stupid than you really are.
>>Page 69 of the Monster Manual (and I quote): "A blast from a breath
>>weapon always starts at any intersection adjacent to the dragon and
>>*extends* [moves AWAY FROM the dragon] in a direction of the dragon's
>>choice."
>
>
> ... and a little inappropriate literalism for good measure.
>
> Strange one, Ron. Strange, indeed.

Trying to make it look like you "knew all along", eh?

I've still got the moxy! :^)

- Ron ^*^
July 19, 2005 1:02:20 AM

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:18:32 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> dared
speak in front of ME:

>I've still got the moxy! :^)

"Still"? More like "finally recovered" I'd say. You've been a lame
duck has-been for the last year, tackling the easy marks and getting
'honoured' more for rep than anything else.

Credit where it's due, though; this one wasn't bad. The whole "flame
myself with my sockpuppet" routine was classic old-skool.

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

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:37:58 AM

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

"Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121721511.328136.104160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Of course slow would affect a flier. Hope they can fly at half speed.

Even clumsy and poor fliers need only move one half of one move per
round. Conveniently, this is exactly what Slow permits. Of course, this
means that a Slowed flier can do nothing *but* fly - which makes this
actually a very cogent defense. I'm having a brain fart - if you burn your
standard action to cast Dispel (or haste) on the slow spell affecting you ..
since you were slowed while you were casting are you done for the round, or
do you 'recover' a move action as a result?

-Michael
!