Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 4069376" data-attributes="member: 32740">Blade Barrier has no stated width but the description is reasonably clear.  That is, if the barrier passes through an occupied square the occupant makes a save.  If he saves he takes no damage and moves to one side or the other of the barrier.  Failed save - he takes full damage and stays put, and then moves as desired when his turn comes up.What's not clear is what to do if adjacent squares on one side or the other of the barrier are occupied.  See below.As a rule it is a BAD idea to expand the capabilities of a spell beyond what is written.  BB is pretty clear in this regard.  On the initial placement it's take full damage or save for none and adjust to one side of the barrier.  The rest of the time it's save for half.  That would include simply "reaching" through it if moving FULLY through it still allows a save for half.Myself, I'd say that at the very least open squares must be chosen first.  If the only open square is on a side of the barrier that a PC doesn't WANT to be on - tough.  The movement is not by CHOICE - it is FORCED as a result of the reflex save and the player should consider himself fortunate to get ANY choice of where to move at all.  If you want to be nice then I wouldn't have a problem with allowing players to squeeze into occupied squares, but as another poster said - this is not an attack so there would be no bullrushing or anything of the kind.  In fact, there would be no attacks of opportunity, etc. either.  This is not MOVEMENT - it is a rules-dictated adjustment of positions on the battlefield in order to resolve the effects of a spell.Of course there is also the idea that if there are no open squares on either side of the barrier to adjust position to, then the character remains where he is and must simply move out of the barriers effects with his movement on his turn, and I'm pretty sure that the intent was really to resort to this rather than squeezing or the like and is how I would rule myself.  D&D rules really abhor the idea of two creatures in the same square at the same time.  There are so few rules to cover it because it doesn't want the situation to EVER exist in order to AVOID the very problems associated with it.  Allowing it to occur becomes the DM's own concern as do most of the solutions for solving the additional problems that WILL arise because of it.The latter is how it SHOULD have been ruled.  I wouldn't have a problem with letting a player convince me otherwise if the circumstances warranted it but I don't see anything about UNUSUAL circumstances here.  Whether the player pulled one over on you intentionally or not I'd let it slide - but also let them know that the next time it will be by the book.Again, DON'T grant spells the ability to do things they are NOT written to have.  Neither Wall of Force or Forcecage says anything about interfering with vision or sound so DON'T infer that they do or should.  Players may complain if you only ever LIMIT spells rather than let them go beyond their descriptions but it's better than the headaches of creating loopholes when you start letting spells exceed their descriptions.  Worse still if you only go beyond the written rules when it favors YOU, the DM, but when players try to do the same with THEIR spells you rule against them.And yes, spellcraft requires being able to see somatic components or hear verbal components, though it says nothing about needing both if both exist.Keep the spells to what they are WRITTEN to be able to do - not more.  Acid Fog/Solid Fog say nothing about being MOVED by winds - only dispersed.  Control Winds says nothing about being able to MOVE spell areas of effect.  What you're really talking about is applying metamagic to OTHER casters spells and THAT is just way outside the rules.  If I were a player and saw you do this I'd raise the roof because I KNOW you'd never EVER let me get away with that kind of thing.By rights you did all that you needed to and any complaining players can just shut up.  They had their opportunity to say, "My character is going to do this so, yes, keep in combat rounds," or at the very least, "Give me a minute to think about that..."Being the kind of DM that I am I probably would have asked a second time, "Are you SURE?" as an even broader hint that maybe there's something they're overlooking.  I might even have kept it in combat rounds DESPITE anything the players might have said since I would want to keep myself honest about what the BBEG could and would accomplish in that time - knowing what the players wouldn't that a PC's life hinged upon it (and when they found that out they would SCRAMBLE for ways to retcon the situation and I'd need to be ready for that.)Yep, this IS a problem IMO, but not regarding the passing of rounds, but of what the DM can and should do.The DM can kill the PC's at any time.  ANY time.  It is as easy as breathing, or at least as easy as dictating the next encounter is 5 EL over their heads, or flatly NOT PROVIDING the PC's a means to survive.  Now, by all means you run your game the way that you and your players agree to, but when it comes to PC's being captured IMO you have to STOP being rational, logical, methodical.  Unless it is GENUINELY due punishment of that PC for the player being a clueless git you need to give the other PC's MORE than enough chance to rescue their comrade, rather than just CDG them at the first opportunity.  It otherwise seems a lot like a random save-or-die effect being thrown at them as they walk through empty wilderness.  It's POSSIBLE, maybe even PROBABLE - but that doesn't make it a good idea to follow through with it.And to my mind it shouldn't matter.  You said to yourself, "I'm going to kill this captured PC SIMPLY BECAUSE I CAN.  They can't make it down one floor in time.  They can't (and don't)anticipate that this is what the BBEG will actually do.  Therefore I am JUSTIFIED in killing the PC without allowing the other players ANY POSSIBLE RECOURSE TO STOP ME."That is NOT the way to go about it IMO.  The way to go about it would be to CONTINUE to give the players reason to continue to chase the BBEG.  You should look for reasons for the BBEG NOT to kill the PC if you can't find a way to give at least a SLIM hope of rescue.  You do this because THAT is your job as DM.  As I said, you can kill the PC's any time you want in any way you want.  You control EVERYTHING except the actions of the PC's.  If you think your job is to kill the PC's then you win.  Now let's play Monopoly.  Your job is to find exciting, creative ways NOT to kill them because otherwise by definition you succeed in killing them - EVERY time.Having rules that favor the PC's/players in one place doesn't mean you get permission to screw them somewhere else with house rules or in-game rulings.  You're certainly not doing that intentionally, but that IS the justification you seem to be using.</blockquote>

Verification