Graf
Explorer
Cool.
You think the illusion deforming is outside the range of the spell, I think that partial invisibility is out of the range of the spell; fair enough.
Glad if it was useful.
I actually had a third comment which was "this effect spell falls outside of the scope of the spell you need a separate spell to do that". But figured that we could skip that ‘cause it was off topic (and the necessity of a spell remaining “on point” and only doing that one thing it does is highly debatable as multiple spells in the PhB have been grandfathered in that do divergent things).
Though I realize that you aren't supporting the fireball argument per se, I don't think that it shows much of a hole in my system. In particular the 2nd point more than adequately covers it. (The one about spells of level X vs higher level spell Y)
Since Ice storm has both cold and impact damage, and is 4th level I would probably start of with that as an example (since the impact damage is harmful, but doesn’t yet manage to move people). Spells that actually move bunches of NPC around don't really show up until later levels (Telekinesis: Violent Thrust, etc) and those spells aren’t causing lots of elemental damage.
So damaging elemental spells with an impact component start a level above fireball (with no actual movement), and spells that actually move a character without damage (TK:VT) are two. That would strongly suggest to a casual observer that a fireball spell that also is moving people out of their squares isn’t possible at 3rd level.
[Edit: In the interests of fairness I suppose I have to give a level, huh?
I would be inclined to let someone create an impact effect of 3rd level with d4 instead of d6 damageor be moved a small distance, especially if there was some other limiting factor applied. Without hearing more about how the impact would work it would be hard to say but I would probably say that the effect would have to be 4th.)
So I think that I have a pretty firm leg to stand on when I say “no my system wouldn’t let someone have an impact effect in a fireball for free”. It –does- require the DM to explain to the players why there is no spell like that; some DMs go for that kind of dialog, some prefer “I said so” or legalize kinds of reading of spell descriptions where each spell exists on its own.
I’m from the former camp.
For example Veil says
“You can make the subjects appear to be anything you wish. The subjects look, feel, and smell just like the creatures the spell makes them resemble.”
It doesn’t refer, for example, to people’s gear. Is your necklace covered by the word “appearance”? “How about your polearm?” “Your shadow” “Light that would be refracting from a mirror you aren’t actually wearing around your neck” “The smell of the sweat from your body?” “the smell of the sweat from your body that has evaporated into the air?” “the hair from your familiar cat?” “the smell of a hair from your familiar cat which it left when it brushed against a table leg”.
Depending on how the DM feels you could use any “no” her to say “ok, they failed their save, but the realy-smart demons know that you are just an illusion anyway and they know you’re not wearing the Artifact of Demon Abeyance and your celestial hound is really a house cat”. Even if a DM is scrupulous about trying to do what they think is “fair”; players tend to be unhappy/uncomfortable/feel helpless that every situation is just being decided by the DM according to what meaing they see in the (usually very pithy) spell descriptions.
Its easier to say "the spell is 6th level, the demons failed their saves, you're covered, the cat is covered, this falls into the core effect of the spell, play on" than agonize about how the spell is protecting the shedding cat's fur from some demon's keen senses regardless of whether the spell actually spells it out in the text or not.
IMHO of course.
[size=small]Incidentally the fireball example above would never actually come up in the games I run because (in addition to the quality of the players I am blessed with) it runs afoul with another thing that isn't really magic related per se but is still a cournerstone of my game style (and retaining my sanity).
In my games only the most essential physics stuff is actually a rule. So people stick to the ground, and dropped stuff falls but I don't care about gravity. The most basic example I always trot out is air/water pressure. There is no pressure in the deep ocean in my games. Why? Because it makes stupid finniky rules that get in the way of the game. And I don't care about what happens to people's bloodstreams at high elevation levels or if they suddenly change depths in the sea; I'm not into trying to make rules for how the bends works. Can you use a blanket to put out a fire on someone? Uhhh make a check to see if that works. The check may succeed and the fire may go out, but as far as I'm concerned oxygen has nothing to do with it.
I realize that if you were going to generate a fireball in the real world it would necessitate lots of heated air, explosive force, blah blah blah. Not interested.[/size]
You think the illusion deforming is outside the range of the spell, I think that partial invisibility is out of the range of the spell; fair enough.
Glad if it was useful.
Sagiro said:
I actually had a third comment which was "this effect spell falls outside of the scope of the spell you need a separate spell to do that". But figured that we could skip that ‘cause it was off topic (and the necessity of a spell remaining “on point” and only doing that one thing it does is highly debatable as multiple spells in the PhB have been grandfathered in that do divergent things).
Though I realize that you aren't supporting the fireball argument per se, I don't think that it shows much of a hole in my system. In particular the 2nd point more than adequately covers it. (The one about spells of level X vs higher level spell Y)
Since Ice storm has both cold and impact damage, and is 4th level I would probably start of with that as an example (since the impact damage is harmful, but doesn’t yet manage to move people). Spells that actually move bunches of NPC around don't really show up until later levels (Telekinesis: Violent Thrust, etc) and those spells aren’t causing lots of elemental damage.
So damaging elemental spells with an impact component start a level above fireball (with no actual movement), and spells that actually move a character without damage (TK:VT) are two. That would strongly suggest to a casual observer that a fireball spell that also is moving people out of their squares isn’t possible at 3rd level.
[Edit: In the interests of fairness I suppose I have to give a level, huh?
I would be inclined to let someone create an impact effect of 3rd level with d4 instead of d6 damageor be moved a small distance, especially if there was some other limiting factor applied. Without hearing more about how the impact would work it would be hard to say but I would probably say that the effect would have to be 4th.)
So I think that I have a pretty firm leg to stand on when I say “no my system wouldn’t let someone have an impact effect in a fireball for free”. It –does- require the DM to explain to the players why there is no spell like that; some DMs go for that kind of dialog, some prefer “I said so” or legalize kinds of reading of spell descriptions where each spell exists on its own.
I’m from the former camp.
For example Veil says
“You can make the subjects appear to be anything you wish. The subjects look, feel, and smell just like the creatures the spell makes them resemble.”
It doesn’t refer, for example, to people’s gear. Is your necklace covered by the word “appearance”? “How about your polearm?” “Your shadow” “Light that would be refracting from a mirror you aren’t actually wearing around your neck” “The smell of the sweat from your body?” “the smell of the sweat from your body that has evaporated into the air?” “the hair from your familiar cat?” “the smell of a hair from your familiar cat which it left when it brushed against a table leg”.
Depending on how the DM feels you could use any “no” her to say “ok, they failed their save, but the realy-smart demons know that you are just an illusion anyway and they know you’re not wearing the Artifact of Demon Abeyance and your celestial hound is really a house cat”. Even if a DM is scrupulous about trying to do what they think is “fair”; players tend to be unhappy/uncomfortable/feel helpless that every situation is just being decided by the DM according to what meaing they see in the (usually very pithy) spell descriptions.
Its easier to say "the spell is 6th level, the demons failed their saves, you're covered, the cat is covered, this falls into the core effect of the spell, play on" than agonize about how the spell is protecting the shedding cat's fur from some demon's keen senses regardless of whether the spell actually spells it out in the text or not.
IMHO of course.
[size=small]Incidentally the fireball example above would never actually come up in the games I run because (in addition to the quality of the players I am blessed with) it runs afoul with another thing that isn't really magic related per se but is still a cournerstone of my game style (and retaining my sanity).
In my games only the most essential physics stuff is actually a rule. So people stick to the ground, and dropped stuff falls but I don't care about gravity. The most basic example I always trot out is air/water pressure. There is no pressure in the deep ocean in my games. Why? Because it makes stupid finniky rules that get in the way of the game. And I don't care about what happens to people's bloodstreams at high elevation levels or if they suddenly change depths in the sea; I'm not into trying to make rules for how the bends works. Can you use a blanket to put out a fire on someone? Uhhh make a check to see if that works. The check may succeed and the fire may go out, but as far as I'm concerned oxygen has nothing to do with it.
I realize that if you were going to generate a fireball in the real world it would necessitate lots of heated air, explosive force, blah blah blah. Not interested.[/size]
Last edited:
