Irritating Munchkin tricks your Players try to argue.

[Victim]

Those Glyphed arrows, and some other silly thing called Faith Arrows. One of those Priest's Spell Compendiums had a spell that turned normal arrows into Faith Arrows: no miss missiles of extra damage.

A single 5th level character annihilated a Balor in one round of attacks. It's supposed to go the other way.

Of course, I never saw the spell, so it could be about as legitimate as Glyphed arrows. So much tragedy could be prevented if the DM actually reads the rules.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

This sounds like a very lame idea that was actually in the 2E Complete Elves book.

Basically you made very small wooden boxes (small enough to fit on the end of an arrow) s probably about 1" x 1" x 1" cube. Then you cast firetrap on the "box". When you fired the arrow and it iht a target the box would break and the firetrap spell would go off.

Straight from the mouth of TSR. Super munchkin arrows.....

 

[Numion]

This isn't very serious - one of my players wanted to have a torch-holder installed into his shield, so that he wouldn't have to hold the torch. I know that this would really be doable, I guess, but I was just like "how about no?".

The shield with the torch-holder has since become a legend in our group..

Oh and one player wanted to know if he could use Dire Charge from ELHB with his archer, so that he'd get full attack with partial action on partial charge. Image the archer running to front of the enemy and unload his bow with unnatural speed...

 

[Pielorinho]

1. The party spellcaster wants to burning hands a foe that is handing from the ceiling about 12 feet from the caster. Burning hands has a range of 10 feet.

What does the PC say? "My arms are more than 2 feet long so I stick my arms out and cast the spell at her.

Slapped down like the munchkin splat it is.

I would've allowed this, too, without any problem. If you think vertically, it works fine.

When you say that the enemy was hanging 12' from the floor, I assume you mean the enemy's lowest extremity was 12' above the floor, right?

And the spellcaster is at least 3' tall, right? Meaning that his hands, even if they're at shoulder level, are at least 2' 6" off the floor, right?

If his hands are 2'6" off the floor when held at shoulder level, then his burning hands should catch 6" of his opponent.

OTOH, if his hands are at least 5" off the floor, then a burning hands cast from shoulder-height will go up to 15' in the air, catching a good yard of opponent in their blast.

And if he lifts his hands over his head -- no reason why he couldn't do this -- then presumably he could reach a good five feet worth of opponent in the blast.

D&D really doesn't keep handle three-dimensional battles very well: it's great at 2-D, but not at 3-D. As a DM, you have to make sure you're visualizing things very well and communicating that visualization very effectively to players. In this case, if you'd told me he was hanging 12' above the floor, I would've assumed that I could reach him with any object or effect whose reach plus my height exceeded twelve feet.

Daniel

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Re: Re: Irritating Munchkin tricks your Players try to argue.

I would've allowed this, too, without any problem. If you think vertically, it works fine.

When you say that the enemy was hanging 12' from the floor, I assume you mean the enemy's lowest extremity was 12' above the floor, right?

And the spellcaster is at least 3' tall, right? Meaning that his hands, even if they're at shoulder level, are at least 2' 6" off the floor, right?

If his hands are 2'6" off the floor when held at shoulder level, then his burning hands should catch 6" of his opponent.

OTOH, if his hands are at least 5" off the floor, then a burning hands cast from shoulder-height will go up to 15' in the air, catching a good yard of opponent in their blast.

And if he lifts his hands over his head -- no reason why he couldn't do this -- then presumably he could reach a good five feet worth of opponent in the blast.

D&D really doesn't keep handle three-dimensional battles very well: it's great at 2-D, but not at 3-D. As a DM, you have to make sure you're visualizing things very well and communicating that visualization very effectively to players. In this case, if you'd told me he was hanging 12' above the floor, I would've assumed that I could reach him with any object or effect whose reach plus my height exceeded twelve feet.

Daniel

There was 12 feet between the caster and the target. It doesnt matter the orientation.

If 3 foes were 13 feet from your caster would you call it fair for him to stick his arms out 3 feet and cast the spell and thus expand the range of spell beyond its description? No of course not DnD doesnt get that exact. The spell has a AOE and that is it. So why would it matter if the 13' or so was verticle or horizontal?

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: Re: Re: Irritating Munchkin tricks your Players try to argue.

There was 12 feet between the caster and the target. It doesnt matter the orientation.

D'oh! I misread you -- I thought you were saying the target was 12' above the ground, not above the caster.

In this case, I'd handle things a little differently:

Player: I cast burning hands on him.
DM: Okay, but you're not sure if he's within range -- eyeballing it, he's probably just out of range.
Player: Can I reach him if I stick my hands above my head?
DM: Maybe; you're not sure. You kind of doubt it.
Player: Hmm. What if I cast the spell and leap straight up in the air, stretching my hands over my head?
DM: You're welcome to try it. You'll need to make a concentration check and a jump check.
Player: Cool. I crouch down, wave my hands, call to the fire spirits, and leap straight up, stretching as much as I can! Concentration check: 14. Jump check: 10.
DM: Okay, the spell goes off -- you only needed 5+spell level to make that. Unfortunately, you as a puny caster can't jump very high, and you see the flames stop just short of your target.
Player: Dangit!

I still don't think the idea is munchkinny -- I think it's exactly the sort of thing wizards would try to do in that situation. And if a player is acting in-character, it's always a good thing, and I'll try to come up with a way to give them a chance at success.

Out of curiosity, what spell were they casting that erupts from the floor?

Daniel

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Irritating Munchkin tricks your Players try to argue.

D'oh! I misread you -- I thought you were saying the target was 12' above the ground, not above the caster.

In this case, I'd handle things a little differently:

Player: I cast burning hands on him.
DM: Okay, but you're not sure if he's within range -- eyeballing it, he's probably just out of range.
Player: Can I reach him if I stick my hands above my head?
DM: Maybe; you're not sure. You kind of doubt it.
Player: Hmm. What if I cast the spell and leap straight up in the air, stretching my hands over my head?
DM: You're welcome to try it. You'll need to make a concentration check and a jump check.
Player: Cool. I crouch down, wave my hands, call to the fire spirits, and leap straight up, stretching as much as I can! Concentration check: 14. Jump check: 10.
DM: Okay, the spell goes off -- you only needed 5+spell level to make that. Unfortunately, you as a puny caster can't jump very high, and you see the flames stop just short of your target.
Player: Dangit!

I still don't think the idea is munchkinny -- I think it's exactly the sort of thing wizards would try to do in that situation. And if a player is acting in-character, it's always a good thing, and I'll try to come up with a way to give them a chance at success.

Out of curiosity, what spell were they casting that erupts from the floor?

Daniel

Its an R&R spell that causes blood to explode from the ground. We changed the description and removed the caster immunity.

The character in question has boots of springing and striding. If I make jumping an option he would get the spell of easy. Of course I completely believe you cannot cast a spell while jumping like that. Too little time in the air and too easy to screw yourself up.

Of course there is the flipside to doing this. If he had jumped he would have probably jumped high enough to grant his target an AOO on him. Seeing has he nearly killed himself earlier casting a spell with two clawed monsters in his face earlier I would have laughed my butt off.

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irritating Munchkin tricks your Players try to argue.

The character in question has boots of springing and striding. If I make jumping an option he would get the spell of easy. Of course I completely believe you cannot cast a spell while jumping like that. Too little time in the air and too easy to screw yourself up.

You can cast a spell while on fire -- you can cast a spell from the back of a galloping horse -- you can cast a spell while someone's impaling you with a spear -- but you can't cast a spell while jumping? That would annoy the bejeezus out of me were I a player: the Concentration rules are right there in the book, and while they don't specifically mention jumping, that certainly seems a less arduous task than clinging to a galloping horse etc. You don't need to cast the whole spell in midair; you just need to time yourself so that you are in midair when you finish casting the spell.

I think DMs should reward creative thinking, should reward folks who try things beyond what's strictly covered by the rules. This would have been a fun (and kinda funny) scene had you allowed him to attempt it, I think: whether or not he succeeded, a wizard using super-high-jump sneakers to spring into the air and shoot flames from his hands is just cool . I'd definitely allow its attempt.

And if he jumped too high, and got clawed in the face by the bad guy -- well, heh heh heh. Can't blame a fellow for tryin'.

Daniel

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irritating Munchkin tricks your Players try to argue.

You can cast a spell while on fire -- you can cast a spell from the back of a galloping horse -- you can cast a spell while someone's impaling you with a spear -- but you can't cast a spell while jumping? That would annoy the bejeezus out of me were I a player: the Concentration rules are right there in the book, and while they don't specifically mention jumping, that certainly seems a less arduous task than clinging to a galloping horse etc. You don't need to cast the whole spell in midair; you just need to time yourself so that you are in midair when you finish casting the spell.

I think DMs should reward creative thinking, should reward folks who try things beyond what's strictly covered by the rules. This would have been a fun (and kinda funny) scene had you allowed him to attempt it, I think: whether or not he succeeded, a wizard using super-high-jump sneakers to spring into the air and shoot flames from his hands is just cool . I'd definitely allow its attempt.

And if he jumped too high, and got clawed in the face by the bad guy -- well, heh heh heh. Can't blame a fellow for tryin'.

Daniel

Ok, you are right. There is nothing you cannot do. But the Concentration check is going to be a bare minimum DC25.

 

[Skarp Hedin]

I dunno.. that makes casting a spell while jumping even harder than casting a spell while an orc is smashing you in the face with a mace.

Concentration DC 25 would be the same as trying to cast Burning Hands while taking 14 points of damage.