Bizarre Tactics & Combos

[Storminator]

Boy, is my face red.

I could have SWORN that the spell stayed where you put it...

Perhaps this explains the "common creative rules interpretation?"


PS

 

[Victim]

AMF is centered on you. You can't choose to cast it on your hand or claw or 60 ft long roper tentacle, etc. So it your dragons like to have an AMF in the middle of their bodies, suppressing all the dragon's spells and not protecting it, then go ahead.

On the other hand, that Antimagic Field would make it incredibly hard to escape from a creature's belly.

 

[Storminator]

AMF is centered on you. You can't choose to cast it on your hand or claw or 60 ft long roper tentacle, etc. So it your dragons like to have an AMF in the middle of their bodies, suppressing all the dragon's spells and not protecting it, then go ahead.

On the other hand, that Antimagic Field would make it incredibly hard to escape from a creature's belly.

It doesn't say that. THe AMF is centered on you, you don't have to be centered on it. Centered on your claw is still centered on you. Unless you don't consider your claw part of you (assuming, of course, that you have claws ).

Have you ever noticed that if you say a phrase over and over it starts to sound strange? I may never be able to type "centered on" again.

PS

 

[Bonedagger]

Hrmmmmm...

I'd have to think about that one as a DM.

CF is Evocation [Light], not Evocation [Fire]... but the spell description does call it "a flame".

I definitely wouldn't allow it to produce the Smoke effect, but the Blinding... hmm. Not sure.

-Hyp.

Continual Flame is an illusion [Figment]. Not magical fire. Pyrotechnics need real or magical fire to work.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Continual Flame is an illusion [Figment]. Not magical fire. Pyrotechnics need real or magical fire to work.

CF is Evocation [Light], according to the errata - figments by definition cannot "illuminate darkness", so it's a bit pointless having a figment as a torch.

"A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that the character touches. The flame looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen."

It's magical, and it describes it as "a flame". My first inclination as a DM would, indeed, be to disallow the CF/Pyrotechnics combo, but it's not as obvious in the rules as I'd prefer.

-Hyp.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

Continual Flame is an illusion [Figment]. Not magical fire. Pyrotechnics need real or magical fire to work.

Yeah, we were just discussing this on another thread. The SRD and the 1st edition of the PHB list it as an illusion. The 2nd edition of the PHB and the errata list it as Evocation (light).

I think I'd allow the Pyrotechnics to work with this. As my DM always says, "don't squash the creativity of the players."

 

[Bonedagger]

CF is Evocation [Light], according to the errata - figments by definition cannot "illuminate darkness", so it's a bit pointless having a figment as a torch.

"A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that the character touches. The flame looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen."

It's magical, and it describes it as "a flame". My first inclination as a DM would, indeed, be to disallow the CF/Pyrotechnics combo, but it's not as obvious in the rules as I'd prefer.

-Hyp.

But other illusion spells are capable of producing light (E.g. Dancing lights, Silent Image etc.). Like they can cause sound or smell to appear they can also cause light to appear.

The spell description say that it's effect is "an illusionary flame".

Originally posted by Lucius Foxhound
Yeah, we were just discussing this on another thread. The SRD and the 1st edition of the PHB list it as an illusion. The 2nd edition of the PHB and the errata list it as Evocation (light).

I think I'd allow the Pyrotechnics to work with this. As my DM always says, "don't squash the creativity of the players."

Don't know about the errata. That just don't seem right since illusions have no problem producing light.

If I had not made this clear for my players and they shoved creativity by combining Pyrotechnics with CL I would probably still not allow it since the spell clearly say "School: Illusion [Figment] & Effect: Illusory flame". Even though I normally encourage creativity.

 

[Nail]

So "light" is a spell descriptor.....is it also a new damage descriptor? As in Searing Light?

This is (amazingly) relevant to the strange pyrotechnics use.

 

[AuraSeer]

But other illusion spells are capable of producing light (E.g. Dancing lights, Silent Image etc.). Like they can cause sound or smell to appear they can also cause light to appear.

This is incorrect.

Dancing Lights has been errated to Evocation [Light].

Silent Image by definition cannot illuminate darkness, because it remains an Illusion (figment). If you created the image of a torch, it would appear to glow, but it wouldn't actually shed light.

 

[Nail]

If you created the image of a torch, it would appear to glow, but it wouldn't actually shed light.

Although completely 'rules correct'...surely you'd have trouble saying this with a straight face.

The ruling about figments is, without a doubt, one of the most ludicrous in 3e.

It's surprising, really, that illusions aren't debated more on the 'boards. Shows how much they've been nerfed, I expect.