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

[Utrecht]

and while it is nasty for PC's to use - it is particularly nasty for DMs to use.... especially for a 4th level spell.

Oh, and yea they do stack - and stack nicely - just make sure you don't hit undead with it

 

[Saeviomagy]

Though just to satisfy the quibblers, cast silence on the arrowhead. It is generally made of steel and it doesn't break. Anyone who tries to convince me that arrowheads break on impact is going to have a tough row to hoe.
buzzard

Ahh, but CAN you cast silence on the arrowhead? The spells says nothing about casting it on a PART of an item.

Or perhaps you mean to prepare them before combat? I think the preperation involved in that probably warrants the increase in effectiveness.

 

[buzzard]

Ahh, but CAN you cast silence on the arrowhead? The spells says nothing about casting it on a PART of an item.

Or perhaps you mean to prepare them before combat? I think the preperation involved in that probably warrants the increase in effectiveness.

Doesn't really matter. Somebody pointed out that as an emanation, the silence won't work from the arrowhead as it is inside the body.

buzzard

 

[Felon]

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?

He got hit by three arrows that took him down pretty much on the spot. Had he been struck with an assortment of dozens of arrows, javelins, and other assorted ranged piercing weapons, and just toted them around the battlefield, then naturally would have strained suspension of disbelief.

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.

I suppose you might have a point there.

 

[Felon]

My candidate for sleeper-spell that makes eyes pop is Plant Growth, mainly because a lot of folks in my groups wrote druids off as worthless. Foolish them. Check this out:

Overgrowth: This effect causes normal vegetation (grasses, briars, bushes, creepers, thistles, trees, vines) within long range (400 feet + 40 feet per caster level) to become thick and overgrown. The plants entwine to form a thicket or jungle that creatures must hack or force a way through. Speed drops to 5 feet, or 10 feet for Large or larger creatures. The area must have brush and trees in it for this spell to take effect.

At your option, the area can be a 100-foot-radius circle, a 150-foot-radius semicircle, or a 200-foot-radius quarter circle. You may designate places within the area that are not affected.

Saving throw? Nope. Spell resistance? Not a chance. Just a 40-square diameter bog.

 

[buzzard]

He got hit by three arrows that took him down pretty much on the spot. Had he been struck with an assortment of dozens of arrows, javelins, and other assorted ranged piercing weapons, and just toted them around the battlefield, then naturally would have strained suspension of disbelief.

So your suspension of disbelief is ok with disintegrating arrows. but not people taking plenty of arrow wounds to kill. Ever hear of Rasputin? Did you ever hear of the FBi shootout in Miami where one of the perps took something like a dozen 9mm hits and was still fighting till a shotgun took him down? Your credulity and reality don't appear to be congruent.

I suppose you might have a point there.

Well then you should be working on that poor self control now shouldn't you?

buzzard

 

[SylverFlame]

It worked in 2e, though its a little less effective now.

Enlarge with readied action.

Take an arrow, have the spell person ready the enlarge spell with the statement "cast when arrow is fired". All of a sudden you have a larger arrow which deals more damage.

Nothing quite like the pocket-ballista of 2e. Too bad its gone.

 

[kamosa]

Doesn't really matter. Somebody pointed out that as an emanation, the silence won't work from the arrowhead as it is inside the body.

buzzard

Why not cast it on the feather on the back of the arrow. This would allow the offending emanation to stick out of the target.

In addition, there is no evidence that an emanation would be held "inside" the body of the target, should it enter. After all, the arrow that just passed into the body would create a sufficient hole for the silence to emanate from. It could also leak out from the ears, mouth, pores, or other unmentionable holes in the body.



Silence can be cast on an object the spell clearly states the the target can be creature, object or point in space.

 

[Felon]

So your suspension of disbelief is ok with disintegrating arrows. but not people taking plenty of arrow wounds to kill. Ever hear of Rasputin? Did you ever hear of the FBi shootout in Miami where one of the perps took something like a dozen 9mm hits and was still fighting till a shotgun took him down?

Yes, quite messy. However, you were the one making an issue of "verisimilitude", not me. Since you rejected rules-based arguements, I and others attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt and tried to reason with you on the terms you claimed to value. Now you suggest characters casually and routinely walking about with dozens of arrows sticking out of them is acceptable and well within the limits of suspension of disbelief based on some rather extreme, questionable, and only tangentially related examples. You're pretty much living up to my previously-stated estimation; verisimilitude isn't rules any more important to you than the rules, or rational arguements for that matter. Your attempts to be snidely dismissive and write others off as silly didn't get you anywhere, so now you'll take any tack--it doesn't matter much just as long as you get to issue a few more snotty little comments, which appear to be the only currency you really value in a discussion....

[/quote]Your credulity and reality don't appear to be congruent. Well then you should be working on that poor self control now shouldn't you?[/QUOTE]

...Case in point. This from someone who initially expressed his disdain for quibbling.

Translation: I got under your skin, sent you running for your thesaurus, and now you feel like you have something to prove.

Why not cast it on the feather on the back of the arrow. This would allow the offending emanation to stick out of the target. In addition, there is no evidence that an emanation would be held "inside" the body of the target, should it enter. After all, the arrow that just passed into the body would create a sufficient hole for the silence to emanate from. It could also leak out from the ears, mouth, pores, or other unmentionable holes in the body. Silence can be cast on an object the spell clearly states the the target can be creature, object or point in space.

You're pure evil. You do know that, don't you?

 

[buzzard]

Yes, quite messy. However, you were the one making an issue of "verisimilitude", not me. Since you rejected rules-based arguements, I and others attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt and tried to reason with you on the terms you claimed to value. Now you suggest characters casually and routinely walking about with dozens of arrows sticking out of them is acceptable and well within the limits of suspension of disbelief based on some rather extreme, questionable, and only tangentially related examples. You're pretty much living up to my previously-stated estimation; verisimilitude isn't rules any more important to you than the rules, or rational arguements for that matter. Your attempts to be snidely dismissive and write others off as silly didn't get you anywhere, so now you'll take any tack--it doesn't matter much just as long as you get to issue a few more snotty little comments, which appear to be the only currency you really value in a discussion....

Sorry, you'll have to try harder to dismiss my arguments. In fact you ought to try to actually address them rather than talking at cross purpose. You have disputed me on versimilitude grounds. I have given real world examples of people who have suffered amounts of damage on the order of what you say strains your versimilitude. Thus your idea of versimilitude might well not be founded in anything but your ill conceived notions.

The idea that arrows somehow dissapear after hitting a target has no possibility of other than handwaving explanation. You did try to make a weak argument about arrowheads shattering, but I called that bluff and you didn't even bother to respond. Funny, are you afraid to try to make a scientific case for disintegrating arrows? Maybe it would seem foolish. Naah, couldn't be that. It's that I'm flacid in my arguments. Of course.

The implication that you're under my skin is laughable. I've already admitted that an arrow won't work. You're the one beating a dead horse. Of course you may just be upset that your particular argument didn't happen to be at all compelling. Oh well, too bad for you.

Your credulity and reality don't appear to be congruent. Well then you should be working on that poor self control now shouldn't you?[/QUOTE]

...Case in point. This from someone who initially expressed his disdain for quibbling.

Translation: I got under your skin, sent you running for your thesaurus, and now you feel like you have something to prove.
[/QUOTE]

While you may need a dictionary to understand some of the words I use in conversation, I'm sorry to inform you that I don't use reference works when writing posts (unless you count the SRD).

buzzard