OotS 448

Drowbane · May 6, 2007

Doug McCrae would so own that debate.

Pbartender · May 6, 2007

Drowbane said:
Doug McCrae would so own that debate.

Strangely this reminds me of the Hong / Doug McCrae cross-over thread that came out... 5+mins(?) ago.

Something about Doug McRae trying to menace Hong cause "I'd have preferred it if you'd kept going for about 100 posts"

Hong owned him.

Well, barely.

No, it was straight up pwnage...

Drowbane · May 6, 2007

Pbartender said:
Strangely this reminds me of the Hong / Doug McCrae cross-over thread that came out... 5+mins(?) ago.

Something about Doug McRae trying to menace Hong cause "I'd have preferred it if you'd kept going for about 100 posts"

Hong owned him.

Well, barely.

No, it was straight up pwnage...

You sir... win the Intarwebs

Pielorinho · May 6, 2007

Grog said:
Inscribing a symbol on the inside of a chest you want to protect doesn't match up to any definition of "offensive" that I'm aware of. The spell isn't being used aggressively or as part of an attack, so that usage would be fine.

I totally agree. I was asking, however, for a usage that you thought might go straight up to the line but not cross it. Let me give some examples of things that I'm curious as to how you'd rule:

-In an effort to assassinate someone, I inscribe the symbol on the door of his closet. Offensive or not?
-I inscribe the symbol on the front door of my house, and then invite my victim over for cookies. Offensive or not?
-I inscribe the symbol on the front door of my house, and then warn the victim not to come over, knowing that he'll take my villainous warning as an invitation to come over and kill me. Offensive or not?
-I inscribe the symbol on the front door of my house, and then warn the victim not to come over, knowing that he'll take my warning at face value. Offensive or not?

As far as I can tell, the line between offensive and non-offensive use of the spell is pretty blurry. As a DM, I'd rule very conservatively, using the spell's examples as the type of offensive action that doesn't work. I like it when stuff works, though, so that may be my bias

.

Daniel

Plane Sailing · May 6, 2007

My only objection to the symbol on a bouncy ball is that (a) I wouldn't allow a symbol to be inscribed that small - I've always envisaged them as at least hand-sized (consider the range at which they can be 'read'), and (b) I can't imagine anyone reading the symbol while it is bouncing around.

Interestingly, in 3.0e and earlier versions, the symbol could be inscribed directly in the air in order to create an effect (although not including insanity or death and some others). I miss that use of it.

Of course, once a symbol has been triggered by someone reading it, it then affects everyone within 60ft (not just other people who look at it too). One activation, then it starts to zap everyone within range.

Kahuna Burger · May 6, 2007

Pielorinho said:
Grog, I wonder if you wouldn't mind explaining what an inoffensive use of the spell would look like--especially an inoffensive use of the spell that comes right up to, but does not cross, the line.

Daniel

I think that in this case the alternative to offensive is not "inoffensive" which implies a sort of harmlessness, but "defensive" which can be anything but harmless, yet does not bring the danger to its victims, they come to it. A trap which sprays acid on everyone in a square around it is defensive. an acidic grenade weapon is offensive.

While I'm not Grog, I would say a use that doesn't fall under the offensive clause would be one in which the victim is responsible for coming in contact with the symbol. So if a symbol is inside the lid of a chest and someone opens it, it was not used offensively. If the same chest is flipped open with the symbol "aiming" towards them, it is.

Right up to but probably not crossing the line? I shall take a cue from Stargate and say that if a symbol is under a doorway and is activated by you passing under it, then you could bull rush someone under that doorway and have it qualify as forcing someone into the trap - an offensive act but a defensive use of the spell. The key, to me, is whether the victim comes to the symbol or the symbol come to the victim. Trap vs attack.

Teflon Billy · May 6, 2007

kinem said:
Really, the whole D&D distinction between immobile and mobile needs to be replaced. It makes no sense from a physics point of view.

LOL

Yeah...that is the thing in D&D that doesn't "make sense from a physics point of view"

Cheiromancer · May 6, 2007

One gamey definition of "offensive" might be if it is triggered on your turn, or on your opponent's turn. For example, if you put a touch-activated symbol on your sword and hit someone with it, the touch occurs on your turn. Thus your opponent is not affected. If you pull aside a curtain, revealing the symbol, it is again on your turn (isn't it? If a medusa took off her veil, the save to avoid being petrified occurs on your turn, doesn't it?).

However if the PCs pull back the curtain, it is on their turn, and so they could be affected. Or if they decide to try to sunder the sword.

This means that the bouncy ball trick wouldn't work- unless the paladins took a move equivalent to look more closely at it.

Grog · May 6, 2007

Pielorinho said:
I totally agree. I was asking, however, for a usage that you thought might go straight up to the line but not cross it. Let me give some examples of things that I'm curious as to how you'd rule:

I would say that all those scenarios you suggest would be acceptable uses of the symbol spell. They all involve using the spell to set a trap for someone, rather than as an attack.

As for what might go right up to the line, but not cross it - I'm honestly not sure about that. However, I am sure that scribing the symbol onto a ball and throwing that ball into the middle of a group of enemies is, without doubt, an offensive use of the spell. The same way that scribing a symbol on your shield and waving it in an enemy's face would be.