| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 31 Jan 2014 : 17:23:55
Sommetimes, I happen to have some question popping up in my head...
For example, Beholder Hive Queens are using Charm against other beholders, right? Isn't it useless ability, when antimagic gaze could possibly dispel the effect? |
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 20 Apr 2014 : 15:34:17
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I‘d thought there was a rule of thumb about elemental-effects-vs-opposed-elementals ... printed in the rules somewhere, probably the general spellcasting preface stuff instead of within specific spell descriptors. Perhaps somewhere within 2E PO: Spells & Magic, where Elementalists are discussed?
In a nutshell, base 1d6 dmg per spell level (not caster level), Save vs half-damage, modified as the ever-magnanimous DM sees fit.
I would think that elemental spells should at the very least affect vulnerable creatures like, say, holy water would affect undead.
But then - would a water elemental take damage from hurled flasks of burning oil?
I'd imagine water elemental would be hurt, since despite popular opinion, their bodies do not get full benefit of element composing them when they are in their normal humanoid form (otherwise you would never be able to hit fire and air elemental with normal weapons), meaning the flask would hit water elemental and burn it. If it would react by turning into body of water, maybe it could be protected from it, maybe not. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 22:34:50
I‘d thought there was a rule of thumb about elemental-effects-vs-opposed-elementals ... printed in the rules somewhere, probably the general spellcasting preface stuff instead of within specific spell descriptors. Perhaps somewhere within 2E PO: Spells & Magic, where Elementalists are discussed?
In a nutshell, base 1d6 dmg per spell level (not caster level), Save vs half-damage, modified as the ever-magnanimous DM sees fit.
I would think that elemental spells should at the very least affect vulnerable creatures like, say, holy water would affect undead.
But then - would a water elemental take damage from hurled flasks of burning oil? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 21:55:23
quote:
Originally posted by Artemel
Let's ubernerd the Create Water question.
Assuming 3.5e, caster level 20, you would create 40 gallons of water. Casting it almost straight over your own head would let you drop it about 70 feet. Water weighs 8 pounds per gallon. You just dropped something weighing 320 pounds on someone's head. So, using "Falling Objects" rules, you would deal 7d6 damage just from the weight/height of the drop, onto any opponent, not just something fiery.
CL 15; 30 gallons, 240 pounds, 60 feet, 6d6 damage.
CL 10; 20 gallons, 160 pounds, 50 feet, only 2d6 damage. Less weight requires more height for damage.
Still, not bad for using a cantrip outside the box.
Eh... Not all of that weight would hit the same point, at the same time. If the water is not in a container, the intended victim is going to be standing under a big stream of water. He or she might get knocked down, as if by a fire hose, but I'd rule there would be very little damage, if any, unless there was a particular vulnerability to water. |
| Artemel |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 21:21:03
Let's ubernerd the Create Water question.
Assuming 3.5e, caster level 20, you would create 40 gallons of water. Casting it almost straight over your own head would let you drop it about 70 feet. Water weighs 8 pounds per gallon. You just dropped something weighing 320 pounds on someone's head. So, using "Falling Objects" rules, you would deal 7d6 damage just from the weight/height of the drop, onto any opponent, not just something fiery.
CL 15; 30 gallons, 240 pounds, 60 feet, 6d6 damage.
CL 10; 20 gallons, 160 pounds, 50 feet, only 2d6 damage. Less weight requires more height for damage.
Still, not bad for using a cantrip outside the box. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 20:51:10
The fire elemental beneath Gauntlgrym doesn't seem to be hurt by the column of water and water elementals swirling over its head, so much as merely contained. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 18:58:20
The simple answer is no. Creatures of elemental fire just burn, they are not affected by a lack of oxygen or being immersed in water. There is no rule that says fire elementals are damaged by water.
A more complex answer is that, there is a rule that says, essentially: that to a fire elemental, water is an impassable barrier. This is much like lava is to anyone not protected from fire. Taking this logic, you could say that water affects them like a mortal would be if they somehow find themselves in a place where they would be automatically killed - taking 20d6 damage per round until it is no longer immersed.
Your example of a create water spell should give the elemental a reflex saving throw however.
It's up to you whether you go by the letter of the rules or by the extrapolation that I've provided. |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 18 Apr 2014 : 16:11:20
I guess it's tough to be big and nerd...
Okay!
Create Water allows summoning a lot of water with amount increasing per each caster level.
Question: Can a mage use this spell to damage Fire Elemental by sudden creation of maximum amount of water above target in shape of cube and letting it fall? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Apr 2014 : 22:49:27
Back to beholders ... I‘d think that few beholders would dare to oppose a queen‘s will by dispelling (or attempting to dispel) her magics. The queens are formidable opponents one-on-one, and they certainly have many other beholder allies (or slaves) at their command.
It‘s not a question of ability, it‘s a matter of survival - defy a queen at your own peril, not something done (or forgiven) lightly, beholder wars could be started against a powerfully entrenched opponent. |
| Cbad285 |
Posted - 16 Apr 2014 : 15:24:36
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
I think the 2 ring rule is stupid (even as a DM I ignore this rule). It's one of the more arbitrary game balance rules. If a DM doesn't want to deal with a player running around with 10 rings on his hands and another 10 on his feet...then don't give out so many rings.
I completely agree. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 16 Apr 2014 : 13:48:29
Yes they would be the same size because the spell is dependent on the 'magic formula' used (that's how I interpret it). A mage using widen spell is basically altering the formula.
In my homebrew I use a magic language as a skill. It's needed to understand the nuances of such formulae (changing the wording of a spell alters its outcome). |
| Barastir |
Posted - 16 Apr 2014 : 12:49:56
Agreed with Wooly, for they use the same formula and touch the weave in the same way. But I'd expect draconic breath weapons to be proportional to the dragon...  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Apr 2014 : 11:35:19
quote:
Originally posted by Sill Alias
So we have two dueling mages, one giant (variety not important) and one sprite (ditto).
Each of them casts one and the same fireball at each other.
Will the size of each caster's fireball scale to their size? Or by the material amount used?
Will both fireballs will have the same size?
I've not seen any listed variables for caster size. I'd expect the fireballs to be the same size. |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 16 Apr 2014 : 08:02:34
So we have two dueling mages, one giant (variety not important) and one sprite (ditto).
Each of them casts one and the same fireball at each other.
Will the size of each caster's fireball scale to their size? Or by the material amount used?
Will both fireballs will have the same size? |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 03 Feb 2014 : 19:27:49
My issue with the extra rings balancing act is that it's illogical. I mean a PC can be decked out in magic armor, 2 rings, bracers, boots, a belt, a cloak, a headpiece, and have all manner of magic items and weapons on their person...none of which 'interfere' with each other. But let that 3rd ring hit your finger and 'poof' one of them loses power? Makes no sense to me.
I also have an issue with feats being used to circumvent things in an illogical manner. For instance, why should a drow be forced to spend a precious feat slot to over come bright light? If they spent 10 years on the surface it should just be automatic (or a bonus feat given by the DM). I could go on and one about this but I don't want to derail the thread. I'm just saying that I prefer some logic to rules application. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 03 Feb 2014 : 19:11:28
The Extra Rings feat from the Eberron Campaign Setting allows a character to use 4 rings but requires you to be 12th level and able to make your own magic rings. Extra Item Space is much more useful if you've got more limbs than most humanoids. |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 03 Feb 2014 : 16:13:34
Well, I would allow them, but they would have only two working ones. Unless there is a feat like in Savage Species that allows another ring wielding.
I mean, it must be universal rule like formula of invisibility spell. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 03 Feb 2014 : 13:25:39
@Sill: I would handle the magic item situation on a case-by-case basis. Gloves of thievery may only convey half their combined bonus for a single glove for instance. But Boots of Varied tracks might have a humanoid print coupled with a wolf print or something. Further, I would rule a single bracer of armor doesn't work at all.
Since multiple ring slots were brought up for grell I'll say this. I think the 2 ring rule is stupid (even as a DM I ignore this rule). It's one of the more arbitrary game balance rules. If a DM doesn't want to deal with a player running around with 10 rings on his hands and another 10 on his feet...then don't give out so many rings. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 03 Feb 2014 : 12:12:57
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
I agree with Sleyvas, but then perhaps this is considered rude/poor form and isn't done regularly. Also, I don't like the idea of a hive mother being aware of where the lost thrall is...unless we make their powers psionic I see no reason for a 'command beholder' ability to also convey the location of a slave. But that's just me.
Another thought is that they may specifically do this with each other KNOWING that they themselves may be under the control of the hive mother, and it may be considered standard to do so just to thwart the absolute control of the hive mother over them as a group (i.e. yeah, they'll protect the hive mother, but none of them want to give up their free will). |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 03 Feb 2014 : 10:48:13
It depends on the items. Some will work with only one of the items worn, others will have reduced function if only one of items is worn while still others won't work at all unless both items are worn.
It can also depend on the specific creature. The 'slots' for magic items that we are presented with in books assume a humanoid form, but examples of non-humanoid slots have been given in the past.
For example: a grell can't wear head, face, torso, body, waist, shoulder, hands or feet slot items
But instead, they get to wear 2 neck slot items, 2 pairs of arm slot items and four rings. |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 03 Feb 2014 : 04:47:22
That makes sense. Probably, the Charm as in old rules was used for quick battle situations.
Other question:
A one armed or one legged creature finds a pair of magic gloves or magic boots respectively. Will he be able to use full power of artifact by equipping only one of the pair, without having any prosthetics of kind? Or maybe only half of power? Or none at all? |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 31 Jan 2014 : 21:28:34
I agree with Sleyvas, but then perhaps this is considered rude/poor form and isn't done regularly. Also, I don't like the idea of a hive mother being aware of where the lost thrall is...unless we make their powers psionic I see no reason for a 'command beholder' ability to also convey the location of a slave. But that's just me. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 31 Jan 2014 : 19:29:14
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Lords of Madness changed this slightly. The ability is now called Command Beholder and it is specifically mentioned that only the antimagic gaze of another beholder can dispel it, not the gaze of the beholder being affected.
First, beholders are incredibly self-centred and would have to have a very good reason to even concieve of helping out their kin.
Secondly, as soon as the effect is dispelled, the hive queen instantly becomes aware of the fact and also knows precisely where her lost slave is.
Yeah, but if I was a beholder in a hive and I came across another beholder, I think I'd habitually hit it with my anti-magic gaze, just to prevent it from attacking me (even though they're supposed to be your friend... you can't trust them). |
| Cards77 |
Posted - 31 Jan 2014 : 18:38:01
quote:
Originally posted by Sill Alias
Sommetimes, I happen to have some question popping up in my head...
For example, Beholder Hive Queens are using Charm against other beholders, right? Isn't it useless ability, when antimagic gaze could possibly dispel the effect?
I've not seen any source that says Hive Queens use charm on all the beholders in a enclave. They CAN live together of their own free will. The hive mother is advised by a council of elder eyes.
They are lawful evil after all.
I'm quoting Guide to the Underdark. Maybe other sources have superseded this. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 31 Jan 2014 : 18:17:32
Lords of Madness changed this slightly. The ability is now called Command Beholder and it is specifically mentioned that only the antimagic gaze of another beholder can dispel it, not the gaze of the beholder being affected.
First, beholders are incredibly self-centred and would have to have a very good reason to even concieve of helping out their kin.
Secondly, as soon as the effect is dispelled, the hive queen instantly becomes aware of the fact and also knows precisely where her lost slave is. |
