My @!@#! Player abusing Feather Fall

[diaglo]

You know what this calls for? More rules!

Bad Kitty...

i sent this thread to the gnome sorc in our group. he has feather fall.

i'm waiting for the DM to rip into us.

 

[billd91]

You avoided the question.



Your insults notwithstanding, you did not disprove what I posted and again avoided the question.

Nobody else came to the defense of your position either.

The reason is because there are no rules that indicate that you cannot cast a quickened spell during the action of casting another spell. The rules instead indicate that you can and I have already posted them.

There may not be an explicit prohibition on casting a quickened spell after you've already been working on casting another spell, but I think most people would find doing so a very peculiar interpretation of the rules to the point of twisted rules-lawyering nonsense.

For one thing, casting a spell requires concentration and anything that breaks that causes the spell to be lost. I would certainly say that starting to concentrate on another spell, even one that is quickened, would entail breaking the concentration on the first spell.

Not all free actions should be available to do during all types of other actions and casting a quickened spell (or swift spell using the newer book terminology) during the casting of another spell is one of them.

When I'm DMing (and I suspect I'm well within the majority here), I require the quickened spell to come either before or after the other spell being cast in the same round.

 

[KarinsDad]

For one thing, casting a spell requires concentration and anything that breaks that causes the spell to be lost. I would certainly say that starting to concentrate on another spell, even one that is quickened, would entail breaking the concentration on the first spell.

Not all free actions should be available to do during all types of other actions and casting a quickened spell (or swift spell using the newer book terminology) during the casting of another spell is one of them.

When I'm DMing (and I suspect I'm well within the majority here), I require the quickened spell to come either before or after the other spell being cast in the same round.

I do not disagree.

I was merely pointing out that the rules allow for it.

 

[billd91]

I do not disagree.

I was merely pointing out that the rules allow for it.

Certainly a strong argument for not being excessively pedantic about rules and for relying on reasonable DM interpretation.

 

[MeiRen]

Wow, this one's almost become a paladin thread!

I think it is reasonable for a DM to "take back" a ruling that he later finds to be (in his opinion) incorrect. DM's cannot always out-think their players, and they should not be penalized for that fact.

The DM apparently accepted the cantrip with the understanding that it had no mechanical effect, and that making it a swift action would cause no harm. Later on, he discovered that it DID have a mechanical effect... it triggered readied actions. The DM's initial assessment of the value of the cantrip was proven wrong, and thus the DM reassessed the cantrip. I believe he was well within his rights.

"Congratulations, my clever player, you found a loophole in the rules! As a reward, I will let the events where you exploited the loophole stand and I'll give you a few bonus XP for being clever. However, I am closing this loophole in the future and am banning/nerfing that cantrip. The God of Magic has decided that cantrips should never be usable as swift actions."

I've had to deal with this sort of player before... he would come up with a long series of small bends in the rules that individually don't appear to be a big deal (and are usually quite reasonable). Taken together, he wrecks the campaign in a totally unreasonable fashion. He was basically a Deck of Many Things with legs!

Seconded.

 

[Terath Ninir]

During my years as a Car Wars player, we allowed every exploit under the sun. Once. You got to bend the rules however you could manage it the one time, then we close the loophole. So, one time, I had a car covered with armored car batteries. Everyone else congratulated me on my victory, and then armored car batteries were never allowed in our games again.

You can use the "Car Wars Loophole" in D&D, too. Let 'em use it once, in-game. If you find out later it doesn't work that way, or just that you don't *want* it to work that way, and don't let it happen again. Why stress? Presumably, most of us are here to have fun.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Bad Kitty...

i sent this thread to the gnome sorc in our group. he has feather fall.

i'm waiting for the DM to rip into us.

Your DM might allow the tactic (though my rules interpretation agrees that a readies action can't interrupt a free action) ... but he's also smart enough to ready counterspell actions with spellcrafters who have a decent spellcraft check. Your tactic might work once ...

 

[KarinsDad]

Certainly a strong argument for not being excessively pedantic about rules and for relying on reasonable DM interpretation.

No doubt.

But then again, this is a rules forum.

 

[Tatsukun]

OK, I admit that I read only the first few pages of this thread, then skimmed. But it seems to me that a quickened spell (or a normal spell, with a casting time of 'free action' or 'swift action') would not draw attacks of opportunity.

Am I just lacking sleep and totally wrong?

Have fun

-Tatsu

 

[Caliban]

OK, I admit that I read only the first few pages of this thread, then skimmed. But it seems to me that a quickened spell (or a normal spell, with a casting time of 'free action' or 'swift action') would not draw attacks of opportunity.

Am I just lacking sleep and totally wrong?

Have fun

-Tatsu

And if the issue was provoking an AoO, that would be relevent. However, that's not what's under discussion.