Transmute Rock to Mud questions

Mahali · Feb 4, 2003

1) Am I right to think that if you cast it on the ground beneath creatures' feet, they get no save to avoid its effects?

IIRC there is a line in the DMG about getting a relfex save for such a thing.

Pielorinho · Feb 4, 2003

I'm wondering if there's a typo in the dispel magic description:

Target or Area: One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 30-ft.-radius burst

If the bolded text said, "spell," then I'd agree. And later, as you point out, under targeted dispel, it says:

Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the spell.

The nasty thing about dispelling it with dispel magic, if you wanna be a rules-lawyer about it, is that they wouldn't get a reflex save to jump clear (as they would if you used transmute mud to rock). I'd probably give them the same reflex save, though, because to do otherwise just feels a wee bit too metagamy.

It does occur to me that a good tactic would be to ready an action to muddify the ceiling above an enemy spellcaster once she starts to cast her spells. Bam! 8d6 points of damage -- concentrate check THAT, baby! That puts me right before her in the initiative order.

Next round, I do an AoE dispel magic centered on her. Automatically dispel my own spell, and take one buff off everyone within 30' of her.

Heh heh heh. Gonna have to try that.

Daniel

andargor · Feb 4, 2003

Heh heh heh. Gonna have to try that.

Do unto them as they would do unto you.

But if you would cast it *under* the spellcaster, wouldn't she have to make a Concentration check? I would assume if you make it 10' deep, she would need her arms to stop at chest level... And you take out everyone else there, buffed or not. Bull's Strength will not help them

Dunno, personal choice there, especially if you have to go through that area and the DM decides there's a potential for cave-in if you cast above...

Andargor

Murrdox · Feb 5, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Transmute Rock to Mud questions

Ummm... I don't know what kind of mud you run into regularly.

Mud that is thick enough to reduce your movement to 5' is REALLY thick. If you try and shoot an arrow and hit my stomach when I'm buried up to my chest in mud, what's going to happen? The arrow is going to sink up to its shaft in mud, sure. Is it going to his my stomach? Maybe if the bow was powerful enough. Is it going to get through my armor after its velocity has been reduced so much? Not likely.

Mud would DEFINITELY stop a bullet/arrow.

I'm somewhat iffy at this point now... whether or not the mud would be a concealment bonus or a cover bonus. I am still leaning towards cover... it wouldn't make sense to have a "miss" chance when trying to hit someone buried in mud... but you might hit the mud instead of the person.

melkoriii said:
Actually.. From some of the articals on WotC site. Mud would not give cover.

One of the things they say to check to see if something gives cover is to ask: "Would this stop a bullet/arrow?"

Mub would not stop a arrow from hitting. You could use a spear and still hit the target even if they were totaly covered. (tho that would be a consealment thing)

IceBear · Feb 5, 2003

Wasn't there some article in Dragon magazine by a WotC staffer on dragons in which it stated a black dragon likes to stay in water with just it's head above water so it could breathe on opponents and get 9/10ths cover (maybe it was concealment, but I seem to remember it being cover) from the water?

IceBear

Wippit Guud · Feb 5, 2003

Hmm... town in a former riverbed... dam up-river holding back the water... 5th level spell destroys town.

Pielorinho · Feb 5, 2003

I know I'd rule that mud is a cover, not a concealment, bonus. The mud created by the spell is solid enough that you can lay brush on top of it and walk across the brush; it's solid enough that it slows your movement drastically; it's solid enough that it forms a 5' high pool on the floor if it falls from the ceiling. It's thick stuff that ought to stop many blows.

My initial question was whether this cover was factored into the AC. That is, do you actually suffer a -6 penalty to AC, but that's offset by a +4 cover bonus, leaving you with a net -2 to AC? Or do you suffer a -2 to AC, which is offset by a +4 cover bonus, giving you a net +2 to AC? It sounds like (and makes sense to me that) it's the latter.

Daniel

Pielorinho · Feb 5, 2003

Wippit Guud said:
Hmm... town in a former riverbed... dam up-river holding back the water... 5th level spell destroys town.

True -- although remember that it doesn't work on worked stone. However, if you can get at the bedrock beneath the dam, you're golden

.

(Of course, that same dam might have wooden struts, in which case a couple of fireballs could take it out. Even a few judiciously-placed soften earth and stone spells might do the trick. And a mage with Shrink Item might cause all kinds of havoc.)

Daniel

IceBear · Feb 5, 2003

My guess is no, it's not factored in. I suspect they didn't consider the cover bonus. I think the old 2nd Edition version of the spell had an AC penalty and they just translated it across.

IceBear

Murrdox · Feb 5, 2003

The spell simply grants a -2 AC to anyone buried in the mud, no matter how deeply. Since someone buried up to her chest will have more cover than someone buried up to her legs, -2 can't include the cover, since there would be two different cover modifiers.

So, you're right, it is the latter. I don't have the book in front of me so I don't know the AC bonuses for cover, but if you use 3/4 cover for chest and 3/4 cover is a +4 AC, anyone stuck in the mud like that would effectively get a +2 bonus to AC. If 1/2 cover is +2, then anyone buried up to the hip would not change her AC.

And yes! Remember the dam is worked stone! Of course, that stone on either SIDE of the dam might not be worked...