Grease spell = grease fire?

[Cedric]

See...that's exactly why I like 3.5 so much. Less subjectivity, less DM arbitration, better game.

Yes, to be honest most of the people I know who like 3.5 like it just for reasons like this. Very few one shot kills, everyone can contribute on semi-equal footing, rules are clearly laid out with a minimal amount of ambiguity, you don't have to wonder if x can do y as it is usually stated as such if it can, etc., etc.

But, I don't mind being a vocal minority. As a GM, I like deciding for myself if you can use Spell Y to accomplish goal X. In general, if you come up with a plausible reason that is not specifically duplicated by another spell or ability I would say yes. However, in 3.x (moreso 3.5) I am left with less and less ability to interpret this for myself as there is a "ruling" on it that people have a reasonable expectation you will stick with unless you have stated otherwise already (house ruled in advance, etc.).

As a player, I loved those days when the light at the end of the tunnel was a flickering match in a stiff breeze and your whole group was almost done for...and you're staring at your character sheet in desperation when suddenly...you are hit with that idea that's like tossing gasoline and tinder on that flickering match. That epiphany which...if it works...will save your whole group, all because you used some spell in a manner other than it was originally intended.

But, in 3.x that creativity is often squashed by a ruleset that eliminates the what-ifs and leaves me with a black and white set of capabilities.

Examples of spells you've had problems with?

It's not so much specific spells as a fundamental change in magic. In 1st edition...you feared a fireball. A wizard dropping a fireball on his own party meant he was an idiot or things were "just that bad.'

In 3.x who cares about a fireball. 7d6 fireball? Hah, by the time you are tossing that around my fighter has 70 hit points and I'm going to save and take 14 points of damage. By all means, drop it on the party if you "have" too.

Or heck, drop it on the rogue who likely won't take any damage from it.

Now yes, there are metamagic feats to help you out. But in the end, the spells have roughly the same damage output as they had before, but the targets have more hit points, better saves and more often have SR.

Tons of people like this...I hold myself in reserve as one of the few that just don't like it.

However, 3.x also got a LOT of things right. The skill system alone makes it worthwhile to play this over 2nd edition.

*shrugs* YMMV

 

[Cedric]

So, by that logic, anytime you throw fire at a living creature with a nice layer of subcutaneous fat, like humanoids, then they should burst into flame. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

You will not be able to set the butter on fire using a lighter or match inside 6 seconds, that is a sound analogy.

(I cook a lot with butter and grease, it only catches fire when it's already at flash-point. The grease spell is optimized for slippery not for burny.)

I appreciate your analogy, and I'm not saying it lacks merit.

However, there is a big difference between an open ladle of grease from the kitchen and a body wrapped in layers of moist skin.

The butter is also a good point, but again, that's just a matter of perception. If you perceive the spell as having wiped everything down with butter...then I agree, not reasonably flammable.

If you perceive the spell as having poured kitchen grease on an area...very flammable.

Search google for "grease fire".

 

[Glyfair]

They seem to have tried to remove or reword every spell that had some unintentional use that would allow it to be cool and allow players to actually be creative.

That's funny, this use of grease to me was the variation always used by the munchkins in the area. It was at the top of their lists of ways to use spells that weren't intended to cause damage. Using in that way was normal and standard and passed around, a far cry from "creative."

 

[Nail]

That's funny, this use of grease to me was the variation always used by the munchkins in the area. It was at the top of their lists of ways to use spells that weren't intended to cause damage. Using in that way was normal and standard and passed around, a far cry from "creative."

That's been my experience too.

The spell Levitate often came up like that as well.

 

[Cedric]

That's funny, this use of grease to me was the variation always used by the munchkins in the area. It was at the top of their lists of ways to use spells that weren't intended to cause damage. Using in that way was normal and standard and passed around, a far cry from "creative."

One spell doesn't really make a point one way or the other. I'm confident we could back and forth tons of examples.

I want to cast continual light on his eyes, make him blind.
I want to cast web, then grease, set those both on fire and burn them alive.

...and we could go on.

That's not my point though. If you play with Munchkins who are going to dig up loopholes to screw your game, they're going to do that no matter how much leeway you take out of the rules. Everytime you close a loophole, they'll find two more.

The solution? Don't game with people like that.

I'm talking about leaving information for the GM to interpret and use as they see fit. The game doesn't need every possible thing defined. I like rules structure sure, but not to the point where most reasonable avenues of creativity are closed.

I'll run the game the way I want to run the game when I run...and when I play I'll happily go with whatever the GM wants if I respect the GM (if I don't respect the GM, I won't stay in his game).

However, when I go through and revise the flavor of the game and some of the specific rules to something I prefer to run, I would rather those revisions be fairly minor. More and more though, I have to change vast parts of the game to get that flavor I want (and no, I don't want to play something else, don't misconstrue my words..when I want to play something else, I do).

I preferred the game when more parts of it were left to the GM and the players to define.

Cedric

 

[Hellefire]

I have to agree with Cedric on this one. I've only been playing 3.x for a couple months now, and I'm still learning a ton every day. There are certainly benefits to a well-structured/defined system. I think it's particularly useful for putting everyone on the same footing (for world-wide games, for example). And the system can obviously be used cross-genre, which can be a great benefit for variety while still remaining in the familiar.

However.

Most of the 27 years I've been gaming has been with my own mixture of 1st and 2nd edition. I also found those systems less specified and thus more open to experimentation and creativity. Yes, there were issues with interpretation and bias. But it seemed more open, less....sterile. I guess I found the old systems more analog and fluid and the new system more digital and compartmentalized.

Of course, any game can be centered more around rules and rolls or more around roles, and I enjoy both. I found the old system more free-form (I also find some other games, such as Vampire and Saga to be more about the unfolding story and less about the PC_01), and I find the new system to be more about the system itself than about the tale of adventure and woe.

Now, admittedly I had decades to internalize my views on the old system. It became a world I could visualize in my head and not conciously hang on the rules, because they were so ingrained. I am still stumbling around with the 3.x system learning it - and I am trying to learn it well to give the system a fair chance - so that system may seem more mechanical to me at the moment due to necessity, and that may change in the future. I have seen some improvements and things I like, but I still largely miss the familiarity, easily suspended disbelief and 'living' world of my previous system. The new system is probably better for globalization, but so far it lacks some of the flavor I like in the old systems.

My rambling .02

Aaron

p.s. grease is one of my favorite spells of all time - but I've never considered it flammable.

 

[Particle_Man]

For what it is worth, Complete Mage has a spell that is basically a "Flammable Grease" and is higher level than Grease. This implies that ordinary Grease is not flammable.

 

[Nail]

If you play with Munchkins who are going to dig up loopholes to screw your game, they're going to do that no matter how much leeway you take out of the rules. Everytime you close a loophole, they'll find two more.

That's not been my experience, even when playing with "munchkins". Especially when sticking with just the Core books, the amount of abuse possible is orders of magnitude less than that possible with 2e. And with 3.xe, other players have the power to point out rules gaffs, not just the DM.

2e......<shudder>.....

 

[Benimoto]

I have to agree with werk. Most greases do not burn easily at room temperature. Grease fires happen when the grease is heated, such as when cooking, to a near-boiling point. This generally takes more than 6 seconds.

 

[Nail]

OTOH, a grease fire destroyed much of the Midwest (USA) last spring. You just can never have too much baking soda.