| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Thoth, Gatherer of Knowledge
MerricB
Underboss
2353 Posts
    
Australia
 | | 05/08/2006 12:48 AM |
| Shoe mentioned he'd like to hear about where disagreements over the rules come up. Well, when I disagree with myself over a ruling, I reckon it's pretty serious. So, here you go:
Calm Animals vs Summon Nature's Ally and Animal Companions
During yesterday's session, the PCs were attacked by an orc druid, his brown bear companion, and a few summoned bears (brown and black). Dave's PC (a halfling druid/wizard) used Calm Animals on the bears.
Obviously, the animal companion gets a save (it's trained to attack). However, do the summoned Bears get saving throws? (I ruled that they did)
Breaking the effect of Calm Animals
The orc druid, seeing that his animal companion and his summoned Brown Bear had been calmed (after failing saving throws), slung a stone at the summoned Brown Bear. I ruled that this broke the calm animals spell (analogous to whipping the bear). What do you think?
Cheers! | |
Merric Blackman
| |
|
madda
Sergeant
714 Posts
| | 05/08/2006 3:28 AM |
| I'd rule differently when DMing for my group.
First, only ordinary animals are affected by Calm Animals so I'd say the the druid's companion would not be affected. Furthermore, since they share a link I'd say that a threat to the druid will be perceived as a threat to the companion and break the spell immediately anyhow.
As for the Summon Nature's Ally, I'd have given them a saving throws. The spell says "A dire animal or an animal trained to attack or guard is allowed a saving throw; other animals are not." While not trained regularly by a trainer the Summon Nature's Ally has "If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions." I see it as more than trained. You need not even throw a Handle Animal check to control it. Just communicate. Also, not giving Saving Throws will create differences in the resistance of summoned animals as you can summon some dire animals and some regular.
Oh, finally, throwing a stone will indeed break the spell in my eyes (even being threatened does it so throwing a stone is an overkill) | |
Champion of Cockatrices.
I wish I never wished a wand of wishing. (Wishful thinking.)
Join the Eternal Campaign!
Chat about miniatures. | |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/08/2006 7:08 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by madda
First, only ordinary animals are affected by Calm Animals so I'd say the the druid's companion would not be affected.
I disagree. A druid's animal companion is an ordinary animal. It is "completely typical of its kind" (SRD) except that it may get tougher as time goes by.
quote:
Furthermore, since they share a link I'd say that a threat to the druid will be perceived as a threat to the companion and break the spell immediately anyhow.
I disagree. The link between druid and companion isn't mystical or telepathic or anything of that sort. It simply allows easier handling of the animal, due to their relationship.
quote:
As for the Summon Nature's Ally, I'd have given them a saving throws.
I agree.
quote:
Oh, finally, throwing a stone will indeed break the spell in my eyes
I agree. | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
|
madda
Sergeant
714 Posts
| | 05/08/2006 7:54 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Wayne
quote:
First, only ordinary animals are affected by Calm Animals so I'd say the the druid's companion would not be affected.
I disagree. A druid's animal companion is an ordinary animal. It is "completely typical of its kind" (SRD) except that it may get tougher as time goes by.
From the SRD as well : A druid’s animal companion is different from a normal animal of its kind in many ways. A druid’s animal companion is superior to a normal animal of its kind and has special powers, as described below. (and then there's a list of things).
However this is really minor and subtle issue.
quote:
quote:
Furthermore, since they share a link I'd say that a threat to the druid will be perceived as a threat to the companion and break the spell immediately anyhow.
I disagree. The link between druid and companion isn't mystical or telepathic or anything of that sort. It simply allows easier handling of the animal, due to their relationship.
Good argument. I stand corrected. This link differs greatly from the familiar's type of link, and indeed emotions are not shared. However, there's the Devotion (Ex) ability that can come in handy in this case. | |
Champion of Cockatrices.
I wish I never wished a wand of wishing. (Wishful thinking.)
Join the Eternal Campaign!
Chat about miniatures. | |
|
griffrat
Commander
3507 Posts
| | 05/08/2006 8:03 AM |
| | Interesting topic. Merric this should be sticked at the top so folks can find it when they are done with a game session and an instance has come up. Making it easier to find and post to..... | |
Ambassador of FUN!!! | |
| 
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 05/08/2006 8:40 AM |
| Warforged -vs- Medusa
This came up recently during a game. I was playing the warforged and engaged the medusa directly to keep the rest of they party from getting blasted. While I did I was scouring the ECS, Races of Eberron, etc. for some hint as to how I might be affected. As it is, the books were less than clear.
I ultimately failed a save and was turned into stone. Well, more stone, since Warforged are already part stone.
Then what?
Our DM kindly allowed Flesh to Stone to work. Instead of turning my char into a blob of flesh, it basically reversed the process.
Really though, how the heck does that work?
Medusa's gaze applies to "living creatures".
Flesh to Stone / Stone to Flesh all apply to creatures with ... well ... FLESH.
Are warforged capable of being turned into stone (more stone) but the process is non-reversable? Does stone to flesh turn them into oddly shaped meatballs? What would happen if you cast stone to flesh onto a perfectly normal warforged?
For simplicity, we handled it just as if the char were any other normal humanoid. Making any other kind of ruling would have slowed down the game immensely in the absence of a clear resolution path. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
kestrel.ca
Underboss
1687 Posts
| | 05/08/2006 10:17 AM |
| Merric: Having the druid sling a stone at his own bear would certainly have broken the calm animals effect, but I know I would have certainly been tempted to then have the animal turn on the druid. Druid summons me from somewhere nice + little man calms me down + druid hits me with rock + Int 2 = Druid bad, little man good.
Chris:
I probably would have ruled the same way, simply for convenience. However, I'd hate to see that they start adding more spells simply for constructs (ex. repair minor damage) than they already have. No way do we need another tree of spells to deal with warforged (Stone to Stuff?). I'd rule that although the spell states flesh, it actually returns a creature to its original form as opposed to flesh. I haven't looked at the spell, does it have contingency for turning a statue (carved from stone) to flesh? | |
Completed Trades/Transactions: 94 || Bad Trades: 3 (Chaotic Good x2, MackeyV) | |
|
madda
Sergeant
714 Posts
| | 05/08/2006 10:43 AM |
| | Chris, I too would rule that Medusa can turn Living Construct to stone. I see its Petrifying Gaze supernatural ability as Flesh to Stone spell in a gaze form. Since Flesh to Stone works on Living Constructs (its target is "One creature") I'd say Medusa operates similarly. Also, I'd allow Stone to Flesh to reverse the situation since the SRD clearly states "This spell restores a petrified creature to its normal state, restoring life and goods." It doesn't really have to return you to Flesh. It's just in the name for obvious historical reasons. (I guess that the DM allowed Stone to Flesh and not Flesh to Stone in order to restore your health. Flesh to Stone is obviously inappropriate). | |
Champion of Cockatrices.
I wish I never wished a wand of wishing. (Wishful thinking.)
Join the Eternal Campaign!
Chat about miniatures. | |
|
kyrin
Commander
3171 Posts
| | 05/08/2006 11:15 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by kestrel.ca
Merric: Having the druid sling a stone at his own bear would certainly have broken the calm animals effect, but I know I would have certainly been tempted to then have the animal turn on the druid. Druid summons me from somewhere nice + little man calms me down + druid hits me with rock + Int 2 = Druid bad, little man good.
The Summon spell states that the creatures attack the druid's "opponents." Unless the druid has a serious self-loathing problem, slinging a rock won't change that. It's the druid's opponents, not the bear's. Otherwise, we'd be getting into philosophical discussions about how the creatures perceive being summoned.
By the way, that's a very nice stroke and counter-stroke there between you and the player. Very nice. Keeps everybody on their toes.
Now, do you rule that black and brown bears are the same "kind" of creature, as the Calm Animals spell requires? What does "kind" mean?
JIM
aka kyrin | |
My Have/Want List <-|-|->My Trades and References 1 <-|-|->My Trades and References 2
Pronounce "Drow" like "crow"! Viva la Revolution! We Shall Overcome!
Vindicated Champion of the Stirge! Vindicated Champion of the Githyanki Knight on Red Dragon!!
Vindicated Champion of the Androsphinx! | |
| Thoth, Gatherer of Knowledge
MerricB
Underboss
2353 Posts
Australia
| | 05/08/2006 11:20 AM |
| As it turned out, the spell was never cast on the black bears (they were slaughtered by the Elf Soulborn...) I described the brown bear companion as having many whip scars and a metal collar.
In fact, it was the one creature to survive the battle - it never was whipped back into combat, and it spent a lot of time afterwards nuzzling the halfling. (Dave will actually get a brown bear companion next level, but that's probably another 2 sessions away).
###
Another problem that comes up a bit is the interaction of Augment Healing, Empower Healing (radiant servant) and Mass Cure Light Wounds. How would you rule it?
Cheers! | |
Merric Blackman
| |
|
kyrin
Commander
3171 Posts
| | 05/08/2006 11:25 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by MerricB
Another problem that comes up a bit is the interaction of Augment Healing, Empower Healing (radiant servant) and Mass Cure Light Wounds. How would you rule it?
Cheers!
I think I would add the Augment after the Empower. Is that what you mean? Although I guess things like level adjustments (such as for Ray of Enfeeblement) are added before Empowerment, right? But it's the variable effects that are increased, right?? Argh, my head hurts...
JIM
aka kyrin | |
My Have/Want List <-|-|->My Trades and References 1 <-|-|->My Trades and References 2
Pronounce "Drow" like "crow"! Viva la Revolution! We Shall Overcome!
Vindicated Champion of the Stirge! Vindicated Champion of the Githyanki Knight on Red Dragon!!
Vindicated Champion of the Androsphinx! | |
| Thoth, Gatherer of Knowledge
MerricB
Underboss
2353 Posts
Australia
| | 05/08/2006 6:54 PM |
| It's pretty clear that Empower includes the bonuses from caster level (c.f. Magic Missile). For a 5th level caster, cure light wounds heals 6-13 hit points, which then can get empowered to 9-19 hit points.
Augment Healing then adds later, so 11-21 hit points. On a Mass Cure Light, Augment healing provides merely 10 points of extra healing, which you can split between the recipients as you like.
(Mind you, when I was playing a RSoP, I was empowering Augment as well, and applying it to Mass Cure - so my 13th level RSoP was healing 37-48 to each PC with his domain mass cure light!)
Cheers! | |
Merric Blackman
| |
|
Benimoto
Underboss
1125 Posts
| | 05/26/2006 2:27 PM |
| The empower thing confuses me as well.
Here's another empower question. You empower a spell (e.g. a fireball) against a creature vulnerable to the damage type (e.g. a frost giant). Do you multiply by 1.5 twice, or does the rule about multiple multipliers (PHB p. 134, among other sources) kick in and have you doing 2x damage?
How would a certain amount of resistance to the energy type in question alter the equation? | |
Champion of the Rakshasa. Check out my Mini Terrain Maker, or my new Dungeon Map Maker (under development). | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 05/26/2006 2:56 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Benimoto
The empower thing confuses me as well.
Here's another empower question. You empower a spell (e.g. a fireball) against a creature vulnerable to the damage type (e.g. a frost giant). Do you multiply by 1.5 twice, or does the rule about multiple multipliers (PHB p. 134, among other sources) kick in and have you doing 2x damage?
How would a certain amount of resistance to the energy type in question alter the equation?
I'd use the multiple multipliers rule here, this is the sort of thing it is there for.
As for energy resistance, I think you're supposed to apply resistance first, then vulnerability, just like DDM, but I didn't find instruction to that effect skimming through the SRD. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Benimoto
Underboss
1125 Posts
| | 05/26/2006 3:26 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by IanB
I'd use the multiple multipliers rule here, this is the sort of thing it is there for.
As for energy resistance, I think you're supposed to apply resistance first, then vulnerability, just like DDM, but I didn't find instruction to that effect skimming through the SRD.
I'd like to use the multiple mulipliers rule here, but it doesn't really work when you factor in both resistance and vulnerability.
The intuitive order to apply the effects is 1) empower 2) resistance) 3) vulnerabilty. But that means you can't combine the multipliers since they apply to different numbers. Neither applying the resistance before the empower or after the vulnerability seems to make a lot of sense.
The only real way I can get it to work out is to apply the multipliers seperately, since empower applies to damage dealt and vulnerability applies to damage taken, but I don't really like that solution either. | |
Champion of the Rakshasa. Check out my Mini Terrain Maker, or my new Dungeon Map Maker (under development). | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 05/26/2006 5:01 PM |
| Once choice, which would preserve the multiplier rule but would definitely be a house rule, would be for empower (and vulnerability) to increase the number of dice rather than be a multiplier on the final roll - thus an empowered fireball would be 15d6 instead of 10d6x5, empowered magic missile would be 7d4+7, etc.
In that case, it wouldn't matter which order you applied resistance and vulnerability.
Definitely house rules territory, though. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
| Knight of Argenis
Corim Danex
Warlord
6842 Posts
West Valley City, Utah
| | 05/30/2006 11:32 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by IanB
thus an empowered fireball would be 15d6 instead of 10d6x5
that gets tricky when it's a 7th level wizard casting fireball. 7d6 empowered becomes....10d6 + 1d3? | |
"Look to God and live." Alma 37:47
Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
|
Wayne
Underboss
1371 Posts
| | 05/30/2006 11:40 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by IanB
I'd use the multiple multipliers rule [with an empowered fireball against a fire-Vulnerable creature], this is the sort of thing it is there for.
I disagree. There are two distinct steps here. First, you determine the damage potential of the fireball. A roll of 30 on the dice results in a 45 damage spell. Then you apply 45 fire damage to the creature, resulting in 57 points of damage. The Empower is affecting the fireball; the Vulnerability is affecting fire damage taken. Two distinct things.
I think this is a pretty clear instance where multiplying multiples doesn't apply. | |
Jeff "Wayne Laredo" Wilder | Email | Have/Want List | Trade Policies | Are You an Ethical Trader?
| |
| Thoth, Gatherer of Knowledge
MerricB
Underboss
2353 Posts
Australia
| | 05/31/2006 2:58 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Wayne
quote:
Originally posted by IanB
I'd use the multiple multipliers rule [with an empowered fireball against a fire-Vulnerable creature], this is the sort of thing it is there for.
I disagree. There are two distinct steps here. First, you determine the damage potential of the fireball. A roll of 30 on the dice results in a 45 damage spell. Then you apply 45 fire damage to the creature, resulting in 57 points of damage. The Empower is affecting the fireball; the Vulnerability is affecting fire damage taken. Two distinct things.
I think this is a pretty clear instance where multiplying multiples doesn't apply.
I agree with this interpretation.
Cheers! | |
Merric Blackman
| |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |