Invisibility + Gaseous form (Player/DM argument)

[Pielorinho]

This is true, but that's status quo for touch spells and does not only apply to casting Gaseous Form after casting a touch spell. I think they put it in there just to reiterate.

KD, if you cast a touch spell, and then you cast gaseous form on yourself, then you do lose the previous touch spell. Is that what you're saying?

But if you cast a touch spell and hold it, and then I cast gaseous form on you, without the SRD sentence, you'd be able to continue holding your touch spell. That's the difference between gaseous form and, for example, bull's strength.

I think that's right, anyway. If I'm reading it correctly, the sentence isn't redundant.
Daniel

 

[Skaros]

An interesting tactic that our rat-bastard DM used on us: Spell-like abilities aren't lost when in gaseous form; they also require neither verbal nor somatic components. Ogre mages, therefore, can cone of cold and so forth while gaseous. No fair whatsoever to us mere mortals .Daniel

A good one, but if the players have many +1 weapons it won't help much. He just reduced his movement rate to 10 ft per round, lost any bonus from armor or natural armor, and can't take advantage of his Huge Greatsword

Oh, and he can only cone of cold once per day, so he better roll high!

-Skaros

 

[Pielorinho]

A good one, but if the players have many +1 weapons it won't help much. He just reduced his movement rate to 10 ft per round, lost any bonus from armor or natural armor, and can't take advantage of his Huge Greatsword

Oh, and he can only cone of cold once per day, so he better roll high!

-Skaros

From the SRD:

Flight (Su): An ogre mage can cease or resume flight as a free action. While in gaseous form it can fly at normal speed and has perfect maneuverability.

Given that, it's a decent tactic for an ogre mage. It worked especially well in this case: the OM was on the edge of a darkness spell it had created and could duck back into it. The only attack it suffered was from an animal-growthed tiger. Had the OM been solid, it almost certainly would've been grappled; as it was, the DM made a (very reasonable, IMO) ruling that a solid critter can't grapple a gaseous critter. So the OM escaped.

Of course, it attacked us later in solid form, and discovered just how much of a world of hurt an animal-growthed tiger can dish out: with less than a full array of attacks, the tiger lay the ogre low.

Daniel

 

[Skaros]

From the SRD:


Given that, it's a decent tactic for an ogre mage. It worked especially well in this case: the OM was on the edge of a darkness spell it had created and could duck back into it. The only attack it suffered was from an animal-growthed tiger. Had the OM been solid, it almost certainly would've been grappled; as it was, the DM made a (very reasonable, IMO) ruling that a solid critter can't grapple a gaseous critter. So the OM escaped.

Of course, it attacked us later in solid form, and discovered just how much of a world of hurt an animal-growthed tiger can dish out: with less than a full array of attacks, the tiger lay the ogre low.

Daniel

mmm animal-growthed tiger mmmm. Cool. Now that I know, I can use it in my games when I DM sometime

Certainly a good tactic for (in parcitular) lone ogre-mages that can't afford to get near the fighter types.

-Skaros

 

[mikebailey2000]

Thanks for assisting with this, folks!

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that's right, anyway. If I'm reading it correctly, the sentence isn't redundant.
Daniel

Ah, you appear to be correct.

Actually, this is kind of interesting.

Why would you need this sentence amyway (balance question)?

Points:

1) Any touch spell by same caster gets lost anyway.

2) You must be willing for some other caster to cast Gaseous Form on you.

3) So, this sentence ONLY applies to when you are willing and when you have a touch spell up.

So, either they put it in to reiterate and #3 is an unexpected side effect, or they actually thought that it was unbalanced for you to have a touch spell up and have an ally cast Gaseous Form on you.

Does it really seem possible that it is the latter case since you cannot attack when in Gaseous Form anyway? What would it really matter that someone is Gaseous and has a touch spell up? It's not as if he could attack or could affect incorporeal creatures or anything.

Is it because you can come out of Gaseous Form and suddenly attack with a touch attack? It seems unlikely that this would be that unbalancing.

I think #3 is an accidental side effect and was probably not their intent at all.

If so, that's funny (ironic).

 

[Pielorinho]

I can imagine them putting it in there to avoid arguments:

"But I don't want to attack him -- I just want to brush up against him! That's all I need to do to get my spell off -- why would being gaseous prevent me from brushing up against him?"

I'd be tempted to make that same whiny argument, were I a player and that sentence weren't in the spell's description.

For polymorph, of course, the problem is worse: a mage could cast chill touch, for example, and then be polymorphed into some creature with multiple attacks or reach or something but without the means to cast spells like chill touch.

I agree that the problem will come up rarely, but it reads to me like the sort of loophole-filling that comes from playtesting.

Daniel

 

[KarinsDad]

I can imagine them putting it in there to avoid arguments:

"But I don't want to attack him -- I just want to brush up against him! That's all I need to do to get my spell off -- why would being gaseous prevent me from brushing up against him?"

Seems like a real stretch to me.

Attacks are attacks, even touch attacks.

I think this explanation is a lot less likely then they didn't want someone to cast a touch attack, have their ally cast Gaseous Form on them, and then have them ambush someone when the GF wears off (and I find this extremely unlikely).

I think the real reason was that in playtesting, someone tried to hang onto their touch attack spell casting both spells and even though the normal touch attack rules disallow that, they added it in to clarify. It's even possible that all of the touch rules were not all in place during part of playtesting.

Plus, they have a boatload of clarifications in multiple places, even though you really only need in it one. This seems the most reasonable.

I agree that the problem will come up rarely, but it reads to me like the sort of loophole-filling that comes from playtesting.

Probably, but I doubt it is the "let me brush up against him" one.

But, we'll probably never know.