Hasted Zombies?

[Altalazar]

Completely encased? He has total cover... assuming the fireball doesn't destroy the obstacle, he takes no damage.

"If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does."

If the fireball does destroy the obstacle, it's 1d6/level.

-Hyp.

Show me where in the rules it says if it destroys the obstacle, full damage is done beyond it. You haven't indicated that above. In fact, what you indicated above shows that it has to do damage to the obstacle to break it - does that damage subtract from the damage beyond it? The text you quoted above does not say.

 

[Deset Gled]

Completely encased? He has total cover... assuming the fireball doesn't destroy the obstacle, he takes no damage.

"If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does."

If the fireball does destroy the obstacle, it's 1d6/level.

-Hyp.

Furthermore, ice has hardness 0 and 3 HP/inch. So the ice in question has 6 HP. Since fireball will be doing a minimum of 3d6 damage, it will break through the ice almost all the time, and the creature in question will take full damage. If the creature gets lucky and the caster is low enough level and rolls badly, they'll be protected.

I fail to see what this has to do with Haste, though.

 

[Altalazar]

What's unambiguous about the text? What does it not say that you feel needs to be said?

As to your question, that depends on whether the fireball burns through the ice or not, and whether the creature makes it's reflex save or not and whether or not it has evasion or improved evasion (it is entirely possible that the adjudicating DM would rule that evasion, and thus improved evasion, would not work in such a situation, it is also possible that there would be large circumstance penalties applied to any reflex save made). It also depends on whether the creature has fire resistance or immunity, and whether or not there is some effect similar to blink on the creature (ie an effect causing some sort of miss chance due to being on a different plane of existence. And although that probably isn't what you wanted, like it or not, that is the rules as they are written.

You are illustrating nothing. An instantaneous evocation spell is quite different from a noninstantaneous transmutation spell.

A DM would be well within his rights and the realm of reason (looking back at the 3.0e version of haste) to houserule that a haste spell would negate the Single Actions Only for the extent of the duration, if I were to houserule in such a manner, I would also deny the miscellaneous bonuses from haste.
However, there is nothing in the 3.5e rules to support such a ruling and a host of items that go against such a ruling.


I do not see how you are pulling some sort of solidly rules-based support for your position. Could you please give us at least some of your reasoning from the rules so that your arguments can be better understood?

I never said I was pulling some solidly rules-based support for my position, I merely said that it was a valid interpretation of the rules to a situation the rules do NOT directly address. And my point with the ice example is to show that no matter how clear a rule or spell is, if you have a situation that isn't directly dealt with, then you have an ambiguity that will require a DM solution that will NOT be directly supported by the rules either way. Two inches of ice will absorb how much damage? All of it? Some of it? None of it? The rules are silent on this.

What does a haste do to a zombie? The rules are silent on this as well. The zombie's abnormal action speed is the layer of ice on that problem. Which is why I asked the sage, but then decided to see what input I would get here while I waited for my answer.

 

[Altalazar]

Furthermore, ice has hardness 0 and 3 HP/inch. So the ice in question has 6 HP. Since fireball will be doing a minimum of 3d6 damage, it will break through the ice almost all the time, and the creature in question will take full damage. If the creature gets lucky and the caster is low enough level and rolls badly, they'll be protected.

I fail to see what this has to do with Haste, though.

Well, in that case, does the target get a save - he can't move in the ice, but when he's in the ice he also can't be harmed, and once the ice is gone, he CAN move.

And what if the ice is of variable thickness - some places it is 10 inches, in others it is one inch? (Like if you were in a square block of ice?) Again, my point is that the rules have ambiguities and you just have to make a call based on the logic of the situation.

With the zombie situation, a logical solution to the ambiguity is to just let them move normally with no other benefits from a haste spell. I think it is the most logical solution to the ambiguity.

 

[bestone]

Im not just affraid of zombies anymore

im affraid of zombie related posts aswell

 

[Altalazar]

Im not just affraid of zombies anymore

im affraid of zombie related posts aswell

Zombies start moving toward you now, arms outstretched, maggots coming out of their mouths saying "RUUUUUUUULES. RUUUUUUUUULES. I NEEEEEED TO EAT RUUUUUUULES"

 

[bestone]

Zombies start moving toward you now, arms outstretched, maggots coming out of their mouths saying "RUUUUUUUULES. RUUUUUUUUULES. I NEEEEEED TO EAT RUUUUUUULES"

as i soil my pants i cast haste on them in mockery, knowing that as long as i keep walking, they can only move at me

 

[Herzog]

Ok, at least for myself, let me get the facts of the question straight:

1. Haste lets you get an extra attack when you take a full action.
2. Slow only lets you take a partial action.
3. Zombies only get to take a partial action because they are slow (NB: NOT slowed!)
4. Haste cancels Slow.

My conclusions:

Does Haste let you take a full action during the surprise round? (when you are limited to a partial action): No.

Does Haste let zombies take a full action during any round (when they are limited to a partial action): No.

IF Hasted zombies would have been speeded up to 'normal' speed by the Haste spell, the spell descriptions should have included something along the lines of:
'When, due to circumstances, you are reduced to taking only a partial action, Haste lets you take a full action'.

Since that would ALSO mean you can take a full action during the surprise round, I wonder if that would be reasonable....

Anyway, any word from the Sage?

Herzog

 

[bestone]

IF Hasted zombies would have been speeded up to 'normal' speed by the Haste spell, the spell descriptions should have included something along the lines of:
'When, due to circumstances, you are reduced to taking only a partial action, Haste lets you take a full action'.

That would show foresight unbeknownst to wizards

 

[Deset Gled]

With the zombie situation, a logical solution to the ambiguity is to just let them move normally with no other benefits from a haste spell. I think it is the most logical solution to the ambiguity.

With the zombie situation, though, there is no ambiguity. The spell states exactly what happens when it is targeted on any creature. A zombie is a creature, end of story. The most logical solution to the question is to do exactly what the rules say, not to make up other effects. There are many points in the 3.5 rules system that are ambiguous. This isn't one of them.

From a logic standpoint, you are trying to say that two different conditions (Slowed and Single Actions Only) should be affected the same way by Haste. I do not understand how you are making this jump in logic.