"sleeper" spells you didn't realize were so good

[buzzard]

In both of those examples, that's relatively minor damage, and is not destroyed in either a technical sense, or by way of common sense (few people would describe a chair missing one leg or a headless statue as "destroyed"). Once you reduce the animated object to 0 HP, it is then destroyed and the object is no longer animated. The little bits of smashed statue do not come after anyone. The ramification of carrying your analogy over to the crushed rock or destroyed arrow are clear.

So let me get this clear- you are saying that arrows in D&D magically disintegrate on impact. Boy, you're doing wonders for the verisimilitude.

The ramifications are not clear unless you imply that an arrow which finds its target is destroyed utterly.

Yes, you do seem to be the gruffly dismissive sort when presented with logical counter-arguements. It is not "quibbling" or "rules-lawyering" to point out that an arrow or javelin does not always imbed itself in a target to a degree that it travels with him. It's a cute, if old, strategem, but it's hardly flawless in terms of feasibility--unless you're the DM and just arbitrarily deem it flawless, using authority as an easy means to overrule a reasonable point.

OK, how many people are hit by arrows, and actually hurt by those that aren't imbedded. "Ooh, that's a nasty scratch!"

We all know that HPs is an abstraction. Fine. So does the arrow ever really hit? Do they all just nick people, or sorta bounce off? Do we get to invent rules about when the arrow finally does stick ("yep Merlin, yer under 10 HP, so that one finaly gotcha")? Otherwise I'm stuck believeing that a pilum hits someone, and it falls right out in spite of the barbed tip. You want to believe that your D&D world works that way, fine. I have trouble with it. It's the same sort of trouble as believing that arrows disintegrate and shuriken magically vanish when they hit a soft target rather than only disappearing 50% of the time when they miss. Since when is a shuriken a whole lot more insubtsancial that the throwing knife which somehow does hold together.

Come on people offer a real argument based on 3rd Ed. findamentals.
Why won't the arrow work? Simple enough for you rules lawyer types- the magic balance aspect of the game. A silenced arrow is a freebie. Normally an item carried by someone would get a save against silence. In this case we are adding an item that won't get a save. Can't have that- verisimilitude be damned.

Boo hiss.

Oh great God of Balance smite these unbelievers who had a neat idea.

You know I'm usually on the side of balance, but here it just gets silly.

buzzard

 

[Kaji]

So let me get this clear- you are saying that arrows in D&D magically disintegrate on impact. Boy, you're doing wonders for the verisimilitude.

The ramifications are not clear unless you imply that an arrow which finds its target is destroyed utterly.



OK, how many people are hit by arrows, and actually hurt by those that aren't imbedded. "Ooh, that's a nasty scratch!"

We all know that HPs is an abstraction. Fine. So does the arrow ever really hit? Do they all just nick people, or sorta bounce off? Do we get to invent rules about when the arrow finally does stick ("yep Merlin, yer under 10 HP, so that one finaly gotcha")? Otherwise I'm stuck believeing that a pilum hits someone, and it falls right out in spite of the barbed tip. You want to believe that your D&D world works that way, fine. I have trouble with it. It's the same sort of trouble as believing that arrows disintegrate and shuriken magically vanish when they hit a soft target rather than only disappearing 50% of the time when they miss. Since when is a shuriken a whole lot more insubtsancial that the throwing knife which somehow does hold together.

Come on people offer a real argument based on 3rd Ed. findamentals.
Why won't the arrow work? Simple enough for you rules lawyer types- the magic balance aspect of the game. A silenced arrow is a freebie. Normally an item carried by someone would get a save against silence. In this case we are adding an item that won't get a save. Can't have that- verisimilitude be damned.

Boo hiss.

Oh great God of Balance smite these unbelievers who had a neat idea.

You know I'm usually on the side of balance, but here it just gets silly.

buzzard

Rock On, Buzzard!

I have this discussion with my players all the time. They are busy trying to figure out some real world physics to stretch an idea they are having. While I am busing rewarding creativity, some things get thrown out, not because you couldn't make some sort of logic case for working it out, but because it clearly violates the intent/power level of the spell. Simple answer? Sorry, dude, but it violates the game balance and its not allowed. It is a game system, not an approximation of the real world. More to the point of the silenced arrow, yes, if there is no save, it clearly violates the spirit of the spell and over powers it. I'd disallow it, and it could be because the magic fades when you do it this way, or the gods cancel your spell for being arrogant, a mouse farted and ruined everything, whatever. Perspective is important.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Hmm. The silence spell is an emanation and, while it doesn't explicitly state that enclosure in an closed container limits the effect to the inside of the container, that would be consistent with all of the other emanation spells (none of them pass through barriers).

So, if you cast silence on the arrowhead and fire it into an opponent, odds are quite good that it will either glance off the opponent or bury itself in the opponent. In the former case, it won't move with him. In the latter case, the silence is in a rather small closed cavity--the wound track--and therefore won't have any noticable effect at all.

Come on people offer a real argument based on 3rd Ed. findamentals.
Why won't the arrow work? Simple enough for you rules lawyer types- the magic balance aspect of the game. A silenced arrow is a freebie. Normally an item carried by someone would get a save against silence. In this case we are adding an item that won't get a save. Can't have that- verisimilitude be damned.

Boo hiss.

Oh great God of Balance smite these unbelievers who had a neat idea.

You know I'm usually on the side of balance, but here it just gets silly.

buzzard

 

[Felon]

So let me get this clear- you are saying that arrows in D&D magically disintegrate on impact. Boy, you're doing wonders for the verisimilitude.

You seem to care as little about verisimilitude as you do about rules accuracy when it works against your arguement. I suspect you're a bigger fan of quibbling than you let on. However...

The ramifications are not clear unless you imply that an arrow which finds its target is destroyed utterly.

...an arrowhead may well shatter as it expends itself penetrating mage armor or a shield spell. Notice that deconstructing your silenced arrow scenario doesn't require proving that an arrowhead is always destroyed on impact, just that it's destroyed often enough that for simplicity's sake, the 3e rule that all arrows are destroyed upon impact should be observed.

We all know that HPs is an abstraction. Fine. So does the arrow ever really hit? Do they all just nick people, or sorta bounce off? Do we get to invent rules about when the arrow finally does stick ("yep Merlin, yer under 10 HP, so that one finaly gotcha")?

Notice how you respond to an arguement based on "verisimilitude"; by spinning on your heels and fixating on rules issues. Well, to answer your questions, you can feel free to fabricate whatever rules you like for your campaign, which is essentially what you're doing when you assume all arrows imbed themselves and travel with their target. However, as has been explained to you repeatedly, there are rules in place and they say that for simplicity's sake, don't keep track of spent arrows. That prevents the need for the sort of overcomplicated, convoluted rules you present above.

Come on people offer a real argument based on 3rd Ed. findamentals.
Why won't the arrow work?

You've been presented with such answers, so don't pretend to take the high road here. People have gone to lengths to construct reasonable arguements for you, and for the most part you have taken the low road by responding with snide remarks and obtuse jibes about "silly rules-lawyering" instead of countering with your own knowledge of 3e fundamentals...

Simple enough for you rules lawyer types- the magic balance aspect of the game. A silenced arrow is a freebie. Normally an item carried by someone would get a save against silence.

...Case in point. Sounds like one perfectly valid reason to adhere to the rules as writ.

As an aside, it's funny that you label to the people you argue with by referring to them as rules lawyers simply because they display a superior knowledge of said rules (sort of a sour grapes scenario), because the term "rules lawyer" doesn't really refer to a strict adherent of the rules. Rather, its connotation pertains to someone who exploits loopholes in the rules to get away with stuff. Which, of course, is more akin to what you are doing, trying to cook up an evil uber-ninja tactic by using a vague area of the rules regarding how "destroyed" an object has to be before a spell stops working on it, and whether or not an arrow imbeds itself in its target after its fired, all under the thin premise of preserving verisimilitude.

In this case we are adding an item that won't get a save. Can't have that- verisimilitude be damned.

You have yet to prove how verisimilitude mandates that every arrow lodge itself in its target. I can, however, easily come up with one verisimilitude-grounded reason why it shouldn't. A high-level barbarian or fighter can absorb literaly dozens of arrows, javelins, and crossbow bolts without being disabled. Following your arguement, you would have every darn arrow protruding from them like a ridiculous pincushion. Now what does that do for verisimilitude?

Oh great God of Balance smite these unbelievers who had a neat idea.

While you are once again attempting to protect your flacid position by ridiculing the opposition, you might stop to notice that people did in fact agree with you that a silenced bola would work. A silenced tanglefoot bag should be pretty effective too. Those ideas are far more neat than the arrow trick, as they don't rely on DM fiat to be effective.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've thought of another surprisingly useful spell, that is almost never taken because it is so good.

Gust of Wind!





(OK, so I was joking about Gust of Wind)

 

[buzzard]

You seem to care as little about verisimilitude as you do about rules accuracy when it works against your arguement. I suspect you're a bigger fan of quibbling than you let on. However...

Disintegrating arrows= versimilitude? Now this I have to hear.

...an arrowhead may well shatter as it expends itself penetrating mage armor or a shield spell. Notice that deconstructing your silenced arrow scenario doesn't require proving that an arrowhead is always destroyed on impact, just that it's destroyed often enough that for simplicity's sake, the 3e rule that all arrows are destroyed upon impact should be observed.

If you knew a thing about material properties you wouldn't say nonsense like the above. I'm sorry, arrowheads are not going to shatter. Neither are shuriken. We're not talking flint arrows here. We're talking steel, wrought iron, or maybe cast iron. The first two simply don't shatter (unless the maker really screwed the pooch). The latter might, but that's pretty unlikely (and I don't believe cast iron was used to any appreciable extent in this application). If you are trying to make a case that is most instances arrowheads(or shuriken) shatter, you're talking from ignorance. I'll stack my materials knowledge against anyone on this board.

Notice how you respond to an arguement based on "verisimilitude"; by spinning on your heels and fixating on rules issues. Well, to answer your questions, you can feel free to fabricate whatever rules you like for your campaign, which is essentially what you're doing when you assume all arrows imbed themselves and travel with their target. However, as has been explained to you repeatedly, there are rules in place and they say that for simplicity's sake, don't keep track of spent arrows. That prevents the need for the sort of overcomplicated, convoluted rules you present above.

I imagine the notion that making rules to enhance versimilitude escapes you. And I do greatly appreciate your noblesse oblige in letting me formulate rules.

You've been presented with such answers, so don't pretend to take the high road here. People have gone to lengths to construct reasonable arguements for you, and for the most part you have taken the low road by responding with snide remarks and obtuse jibes about "silly rules-lawyering" instead of countering with your own knowledge of 3e fundamentals...

The fact that a situation, when run by the rules is silly, is defended using the rules smacks of rules lawyering. When the rules triumph over common sense, I see that as rules lawyering.

...Case in point. Sounds like one perfectly valid reason to adhere to the rules as writ.

That is a valid game reason. It is not a valid versimilitude solution.

As an aside, it's funny that you label to the people you argue with by referring to them as rules lawyers simply because they display a superior knowledge of said rules (sort of a sour grapes scenario), because the term "rules lawyer" doesn't really refer to a strict adherent of the rules. Rather, its connotation pertains to someone who exploits loopholes in the rules to get away with stuff. Which, of course, is more akin to what you are doing, trying to cook up an evil uber-ninja tactic by using a vague area of the rules regarding how "destroyed" an object has to be before a spell stops working on it, and whether or not an arrow imbeds itself in its target after its fired, all under the thin premise of preserving verisimilitude.

I suppose it depends on your definition of rules lawyer then (and of course YOUR definition must be the correct one right?). The person who jumps for the rule book in all situations fits my bill. Though making silly aspersions about me and some 'uber ninja' really needs a bit better reading comprehension on your part. I didn't bring up shuriken, someone else did, though I certainly find the rules about them disintegrating damned silly.

You have yet to prove how verisimilitude mandates that every arrow lodge itself in its target. I can, however, easily come up with one verisimilitude-grounded reason why it shouldn't. A high-level barbarian or fighter can absorb literaly dozens of arrows, javelins, and crossbow bolts without being disabled. Following your arguement, you would have every darn arrow protruding from them like a ridiculous pincushion. Now what does that do for verisimilitude?

That is one way in which hit points can be envisioned. Are you the authority? Boromir certainly had plently of arrows sticking out of him when he went down. Did you have a versimilitude problem when watching FoTR?

While you are once again attempting to protect your flacid position by ridiculing the opposition, you might stop to notice that people did in fact agree with you that a silenced bola would work. A silenced tanglefoot bag should be pretty effective too. Those ideas are far more neat than the arrow trick, as they don't rely on DM fiat to be effective.

Flaccid? If it were flaccid I'd think you wouldn't waste time arging with it. You ought to have better things to do right? You know re-read the rules or something. Oviously I'm not worth your time with such flaccid arguments.

Oh, I feel so limp now.

buzzard

 

[buzzard]

Hmm. The silence spell is an emanation and, while it doesn't explicitly state that enclosure in an closed container limits the effect to the inside of the container, that would be consistent with all of the other emanation spells (none of them pass through barriers).

So, if you cast silence on the arrowhead and fire it into an opponent, odds are quite good that it will either glance off the opponent or bury itself in the opponent. In the former case, it won't move with him. In the latter case, the silence is in a rather small closed cavity--the wound track--and therefore won't have any noticable effect at all.

Ok based on this argument, I can certainly accept that an arrowhead won't work. This makes complete sense. However I might take up that a shuriken could still function, though given emanation rules, it would one work out the face which the shuriken protruded from. OK that gets a bit too complicated (especially since there is no facing).

I suppose it's back to tanglefoots or bolas.

buzzard

 

[Utrecht]

Enervation is a wonderfull spell

Ray attack

targets loses 1d4 levels - no save - Oh and if they happen to be a high level Mage - bye bye 1d4 highest level spell.

My DM used to hate this spell - If my mage won initiative, I could pretty much neutralize the opposing mage (or at least limit his effectiveness)

 

[apsuman]

Enervation is a wonderfull spell

Ray attack

targets loses 1d4 levels - no save - Oh and if they happen to be a high level Mage - bye bye 1d4 highest level spell.

My DM used to hate this spell - If my mage won initiative, I could pretty much neutralize the opposing mage (or at least limit his effectiveness)

Empowered it gets even better.

Lose 1, 3, 5, or 6 levels.

I just read the SRD entry for enervation. It says that negative levels stack. Does this mean that multiple enervations make the subject continue to acquire negative levels?

 

[Darklone]

Empowered it gets even better.

Lose 1, 3, 5, or 6 levels.

I just read the SRD entry for enervation. It says that negative levels stack. Does this mean that multiple enervations make the subject continue to acquire negative levels?

Sure it does.