Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
reveal said:Not a typo. Prone creatures do not gain a bonus to AC from ranged attacks. They only lose AC against melee attacks.
Check that again:
SRD said:
Campaign Conundrum 1 - Silence
- Thread starter Archade
- Start date
Check that again:
When the players find a good legal tactic and start abusing it (the first times its creative and should be rewarded, the 50th time they've lost that creativity and are uninventive) there are two options:
1) House Rule
2) The enemies use the same tactic or anticipate it (especially recurring NPCs) with other things like silent spell or globe of invulnerability. Our group cast it on the rogue and he chased the enemy spell caster around while the others contended with his minions.
1) House Rule
2) The enemies use the same tactic or anticipate it (especially recurring NPCs) with other things like silent spell or globe of invulnerability. Our group cast it on the rogue and he chased the enemy spell caster around while the others contended with his minions.
Well, since I disagree with the rulebook on arrows breaking when they hit* (talk about poor workmanship!) I would say the spell would remain in effect if it hit the target creature.
Hitting the object, depending on how hard the object is, could break the arrow. I would give the arrow a percentage chance of breaking based on the material it is shot into.
I agree that AC 9 is not right for hitting a specific area while in combat. I would apply shooting into melee modifiers, small size modifier, and would give it an AC with all modifiers applied as AC 5.
* Having shot arrows of various types (including some wonderful handmade ones with goose feather fletchings) out of bows of various types and strengths, I have never understood the logic behind every arrow breaking when it hits a target. My players keep track of the arrows they shot, and I keep track of the ones that hit. If they hit, there's a chance they break, based on the type of armor worn, among other factors. Arrows that miss also have a chance of just going missing. It's not that hard to keep track of, really.
Hitting the object, depending on how hard the object is, could break the arrow. I would give the arrow a percentage chance of breaking based on the material it is shot into.
I agree that AC 9 is not right for hitting a specific area while in combat. I would apply shooting into melee modifiers, small size modifier, and would give it an AC with all modifiers applied as AC 5.
* Having shot arrows of various types (including some wonderful handmade ones with goose feather fletchings) out of bows of various types and strengths, I have never understood the logic behind every arrow breaking when it hits a target. My players keep track of the arrows they shot, and I keep track of the ones that hit. If they hit, there's a chance they break, based on the type of armor worn, among other factors. Arrows that miss also have a chance of just going missing. It's not that hard to keep track of, really.
Inigo Carmine
First Post
The important thing to remember is just because you've hit an object with the arrow/rock/etc of silence doesn't mean that's where it ends up. When someone beats your AC with an attack from an arrow, you the arrow isn't now sticking out of you andymore than when someone hits you with a sword they've run you through to the hilt and now have their weapon sticking out the backside of you.
Even with the case of a square. if you're in soft earth/sand the arrow might stick in where it lands. If you're talking about a rock dungeon floor, an arrow isn't going to stick into it (espcially not when it comes in at 15 degree angle); it's going to hit, and keep sliding past a couple dozen feet or until it hits a wall.
You might not agree with it from a realism standpoint (and yeah, you'd probably be right), but its necessary from a balance standpoint in the game.
Without that rule, magic arrows become overpowered real quick. If you change the rules on arrows you're have to change many other rules to keep the game balanced.
First off, I'd make magic arrows cost about 100x more than they currently do. They're currently 1/50th of the cost of a similar magic item because they're expected to be single use only. While putting the price back to the level of a normal permanent magic item, I'd double it because of its reliability, specificity, and stacking power with bows. (ie, having a continual reliable supply of death/bane arrows that aren't one-time use for specific enemies is really really powerful).
Second, I'd change it so that a whole lot of things that are normally castable on an object (like silence, darkness, etc) are no longer castable on an object. That's a few 100 spells that need editing.
Even with the case of a square. if you're in soft earth/sand the arrow might stick in where it lands. If you're talking about a rock dungeon floor, an arrow isn't going to stick into it (espcially not when it comes in at 15 degree angle); it's going to hit, and keep sliding past a couple dozen feet or until it hits a wall.
sjmiller said:
You might not agree with it from a realism standpoint (and yeah, you'd probably be right), but its necessary from a balance standpoint in the game.
Without that rule, magic arrows become overpowered real quick. If you change the rules on arrows you're have to change many other rules to keep the game balanced.
First off, I'd make magic arrows cost about 100x more than they currently do. They're currently 1/50th of the cost of a similar magic item because they're expected to be single use only. While putting the price back to the level of a normal permanent magic item, I'd double it because of its reliability, specificity, and stacking power with bows. (ie, having a continual reliable supply of death/bane arrows that aren't one-time use for specific enemies is really really powerful).
Second, I'd change it so that a whole lot of things that are normally castable on an object (like silence, darkness, etc) are no longer castable on an object. That's a few 100 spells that need editing.
Scion said:I realize that the arrow is destroyed, that has nothing to do with what I asked however
Can you, or anyone else, find a rule that says that the spell will go away when the arrow breaks?
An enchanted magical item loses its power when broken, but we are talking about a spell cast on something here, not a magical item.
Again however, someone could cast silence on a thumb tack, put it on the arrow and fire the arrow and the result would be the same: Area of silence around where the arrow hit.
Since the spell is cast on an object - which half (or more) of the broken arrow is the object?
If you don't rule this way then you will have cast a single silence (or light or another example) spell on an object, then break the object into pieces which each have the same enchantment on them. Nope way out of balance here. The bottom lineis to define what the "object" that the spell is being cast on is and when that "object" no longer exists then the spell is broken.
TheGogmagog
First Post
I agree with the group who feels a destroyed arrow can no-longer hold the silence spell. This doesn't change the tactic much however. Cast it on a coin/rock and grenade-like weapon it. Raises the AC a bit over long distances, but probably not worth changing the tactic over.
For Balance the silence spell has a save if cast on a creature. If cast on an area or other target the creature doesn't get a save but can walk away. It just isn't balanced to replace the save with an attack roll.
With that in mind, I would rule that the arrow not only brakes when it hits the target (RAW), but it falls out or passes through. The second part isn't specified either way mainly because it shouldn't matter for game mechanic purposes. So it doesn't matter if they cast silence on the feather or arrowhead or piece of string wraped around the arrow.
For Balance the silence spell has a save if cast on a creature. If cast on an area or other target the creature doesn't get a save but can walk away. It just isn't balanced to replace the save with an attack roll.
With that in mind, I would rule that the arrow not only brakes when it hits the target (RAW), but it falls out or passes through. The second part isn't specified either way mainly because it shouldn't matter for game mechanic purposes. So it doesn't matter if they cast silence on the feather or arrowhead or piece of string wraped around the arrow.
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
irdeggman said:
In which case, you just cast the spell not on "the arrow," but on "the arrowhead" or "the blue feather fletching."
Patryn of Elvenshae said:
But that makes the arrow have multiple components - which the 3.5 rule s don't really support.
I am not disagreeing with this, especially since it makes sense to have the arrow head be attached to the shaft and things like flights come into play with darts - but the rules don't break things down into that much detail. Back to the abstractness of the game.
