Ultimate Guide to Ambiguous/Problem Rules

[Artoomis]

I think this is going in my rules guide.

Question: What effect do Gloves of Storing have on on-going spells? (Can you cast Keen on a weapon and then store it for later use with the spell still active?)

My Best Advice: The simplest solution is to allow no item to be stored with the glove if it has any kind of temporary spell effect cast on it.

Rules:

Glove of Storing

This device is a simple leather glove. On command, one item held in the hand wearing the glove disappears. The item can weigh no more than 20 pounds and must be able to be held in one hand. With a snap of the fingers wearing the glove, the item reappears. A glove can only store one item at a time. The item is held in stasis and shrunk down so small within the palm of the glove that it cannot be seen. Many owners of gloves of storing find them to be useful and dramatic ways to store weapons, wands, and-because the item is stored in stasis-even lit torches. If the effect is suppressed or dispelled, the stored item appears instantly. Although it is handy to have two of these gloves, the creation process yields only one.

Caster Level: 6th; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, shrink item; Market Price: 2,200 gp; Weight: -.


"Shrink Item" works on nonmagical items only.

"Temporal Stasis" is a 9th level spell, and applies to creatures only.

Argument For: This item is clearly not meant to work in such a way as to make spell duration virtually infinite (cast a "Keen" spell and then store the weapon until needed, for example). However, since a wand is listed as an example item, it is also clearly not meant to be limited to mundane items only as the Shrink Item spell. My solution is a very reasonable way to avoid the problem all together.

Argument Against: What part of "Stasis" don't you understand? It may be powerful, but that's what the text says, and it just doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

[Voadam]

gloves of storing

I would recommend for the argument against:

The item description does not exclude items with nonpermanent spells from being affected. Either spells are considered part of an item, included in the stasis effect and have their duration tolled until released, or they are not considered part of the item and the duration continues to run while the item is in stasis.

 

[IceBear]

Hey Artoomis,

I forgot about Guy Fullerton's page. You should check there as he has kept the actual emails (especially the one about monk's and shields ) there for you to source.

http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/Index.html

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

IceBear:

Thanks for the reference.

 

[Dreaddisease]

Concerning the Eversmoking Bottle

When first we used this item in one of my campaigns we used it as a darkness spell with the ability to see when you were within 5 feet.

Now if we add the effects of the smoke I would have a nice weapon to ferret out most monsters out of their hiding places (especially underground).

Now with the cost associated with the item I would tend to lean towards the first part of what I was describing. But I find the situation you brought up very interesting. I do believe now that the item is undervalued.

But now I must consider that the bottle can be stoppered by any intellegent creature, then it doesn't seem that bad.

I guess I can go either way on this issue.

 

[IceBear]

Hey Artoomis I still haven't heard back from the Sage on the Concentration checks (and don't expect to hear back). Anyway, I was answering another thread on this topic, and I think that a check per damaging attack is the right way.

The problem is most spells are 1 action or 1 round spells, but the rules for disruption applies to all spells, correct? Well, what if we have a spell with a casting time of 10 minutes (like Call Lightning). Now, on the first round (of the 100 rounds to cast the spell) the druid is struck by a giant for 40 points of damage. The giant then walks away. Since you believe that you should tally up all the damage inflicted while casting the spell for the DC of the concentration check we would have to wait the remaining 99 rounds before making the check (the giant could come back and hit her again). So, now that the 100 rounds are up the Concentration check is made and the spell is disrupted. Wouldn't it have made more sense that the druid knew that the spell was disrupted back on round 1 and could have spent the last 99 rounds doing something else?

Now, you may argue, ok, then the Concentration check would be for all damage taken during a round, not for the entire casting time of a spell (to deal with spells with longer casting times). But then you run into a problem with spells that take 1 action to cast. You can't include damage taken before you start to cast the spell or from after it is actually cast (even if it is in the same round).

Since the disruption rules work the same for all spells, and for spells with long casting times it makes sense the the disruption checks are per blow, then as you decrease the casting time it should be the same there too.

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

IceBear:

Okay, you've described two different situations.

Situation one: More than one person readies an action to disrupt a spell caster’s spell casting. Or one person gets multiple damage rolls somehow - like using shurikens or a the magic missile spell.

Situation two: More than one thing happens over time to possibly disrupt a spell with a casting time of longer than one action.

In situation one, I'd add all the damage together, as it happens all at the same time, despite the game mechanic that forces you to place them in some sort of order.

In situation two I would not add all the damage together - the damage is happening over time. I would, however, add all damage that is round-to-round, like continuing acid or fire damage.

Thanks - your input will make the final document that much better. (I'm kind of overdue for an update - well, I'll get to it when I can.)

 

[IceBear]

No I haven't...they don't ALL occur at EXACTLY the same time as they are seperate attacks. Yes, they are timed to occur within split seconds of each other but they don't all hit at exactly the same time.

As has been said, it's ambiguous and if you want to rule that way it's hard to disrupt it. I'll stick with my way.

IceBear

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IceBear is correct.

With all due respect, I do not think making up rules out of thin air to distinguish between disrupting single action and multiple actions spells is a reasonable interpretation of the rules as written.

The simplest and most consistent interpretation is that each damaging event is considered separately; therefore, we can use the exact same mechanics apply to all situations.

I agree that the rules are ambiguous when you consider only 1 action spells. But a reasonable interpretation in a special case that needs to be bandaided to work with the general case is not the best interpretation if there is completely consistent alternative.

 

[Artoomis]

IceBear is correct.

With all due respect, I do not think making up rules out of thin air to distinguish between disrupting single action and multiple actions spells is a reasonable interpretation of the rules as written.

The simplest and most consistent interpretation is that each damaging event is considered separately; therefore, we can use the exact same mechanics apply to all situations.

I agree that the rules are ambiguous when you consider only 1 action spells. But a reasonable interpretation in a special case that needs to be bandaided to work with the general case is not the best interpretation if there is completely consistent alternative.

Thanks for your input, but it's equally valid to say each attack, or to say total damage taken at one time (AoOs or Readied Actions). Both follow the rules quite well, both are simple, both are consistent.

There is no "band-aid" measures being applied here - the difference is between whether EACH damage is taken seperately for this purpose, or whether you group together those taken at one time (AoO or readied actions). Either way is valid, by the rules.

I think my way is more reasonable, but that's where it's my opinion vs. yours, so no one is really right or wrong.

Anyway, there is another thread for this discussion - I've got enough here to well-represent both views for the Guide.