Need help explaining something to a player

[Quartz]

Can you cast a Quickened spell after a normal spell? I thought you could only cast one before.

 

[3d6]

You can take free actions in the middle of other actions, so you could cast a quickened spell before, after, or during casting a normal spell.

 

[Starman]

And cheetos.

And Mountain Dew.

 

[Quartz]

You can take free actions in the middle of other actions, so you could cast a quickened spell before, after, or during casting a normal spell.

Thanks - my brain slipped a gear there.

 

[Nail]

Err.... not during spell casting. That's called interupting a spell, and that's bad(tm).

 

[the_mighty_agrippa]

The player just wants her way. If she had initiave on the mage, she should have readied an action. Seems like she wants everything to add up in her/the party's favor, regardless of how the rules actually work.

Bring this up to the other PCs (especially the spellcasters) as an option and they will flip out. Or houserule that anytime you are hit for 50+ damage, you have to make a check to keep your action (even a regular attack). That should shut the fighters up as well.

 

[teddywars]

Keeping Actions

As I said before, I would be in favor of those kind of things, rolls to keep the regular actions in massively damaging situations. Also this guy was not a spellcaster, he was a powerful fighter that cast two spells in quick succession. I am a close combat character at the moment with swords and have the feats to assist in grappling. Just because I know that ranged combat is sometime needed, I have a composite longbow. In any event, the game did go on. I just wanted to have my opinion heard really.

 

[Aereas]

Ya, I like his responce best Aereas. And I would not have been against similar penalties imposed on us after a large amount of damage. I suppose there are other ways and other things to worry about. And from experience, the little problems and penalies thing doesnt seem to work too well... Not sure if you remember it, but I tried to do it in my game... Perhaps the players were just weak or maybe I simply imposed too much on them from the rules and such I applied in the game. Either way the game died. I will still argue points with you but now with this, I suppose we can argue points with all these people too!!! (Trust me all you other people, that is NOT a good thing as Aereas can tell all of you )

I do recall that game, and that none of the penalties really affected me (partialy from them affecting stuff I don't use and partialy from passing on the ones that would). While you may be fine with this I don't really like it all that much as it adds uneeded elements to an already complex system. While failing a save and losing an action isn't as bad as dieing from a failed fort save it could be just as bad when facing high damaging monsters.

Also, there is one thing I would like to point out about this. In any given situation the players are subjected to far more attacks and criticals than any given NPC. As such, any rule like this will undoubtedly favor the NPC's over the players. While I wouldn't be objectional to using this rule in place of the massive damage one I also don't like it cause it favors one side over the other. If a rule is to be instated I beleive it should affect all parties as close to equaly as possible.

For anyone wondering about the fighter in question, and how he casted 2 spells in one round I will clarify as follows: He has a special ability to allow him to cast 1 quickened spell once per day and the other came from a spell like ability. The mass onslought of magic was his responce to being hit for 53 damage. I won't go into more details about him in the public board because Teddywars is (obviously) a player in my game and the NPC will be making a return visit as he promised before leaving.

 

[Vanye]

Yes it was 53 damage from 1 hit, and no I did not make the fort save as I don't use the massive damage rule. While yes the system shock makes sense I hate the idea of a character dieing from a normal attack due to a bad fort save.

I'm scared to play in a game where 53 points of damage is considered a "normal" attack.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I'm scared to play in a game where 53 points of damage is considered a "normal" attack.

You'd better ban 3.5's new Power Attack rules then, quickly!