|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do I figure? Because it's the interpretation that goes with me forestalling a crack cheesemonkey maneuver that would otherwise allow someone to setup a 600d6 explosion..Dispel Magic affects ONE and only ONE effect. Greater ups that to two. if the multiple effects are of equal level than it's up to the GM to make the call. So as for the book of explosive runes... one effect is dispelled. The rest of the book runes are simply burned away with the pages, as the writing surface was destroyed without anyone triggering the runes, nor were they dispelled.
At which point you realise that you were better off simply casting one fireball spell.
Uh, how do you figure? I suppose if you treat a book as a single object you are right, then the obvious solution is to have the tunes on loose leaf, each one being a discreet object and each one being targeted individually per the spell description
Area Dispel: When greater dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot-radius burst. Roll one dispel check and apply that check to each creature in the area, as if targeted by dispel magic. For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, apply the dispel check as with creatures.
Using bad reasoning to get a good result is still bad reasoning. If you are going to prevent 600d6 explosions, at least make some sense.
Using bad reasoning to get a good result is still bad reasoning. If you are going to prevent 600d6 explosions, at least make some sense.How do I figure? Because it's the interpretation that goes with me forestalling a crack cheesemonkey maneuver that would otherwise allow someone to setup a 600d6 explosion..Dispel Magic affects ONE and only ONE effect. Greater ups that to two. if the multiple effects are of equal level than it's up to the GM to make the call. So as for the book of explosive runes... one effect is dispelled. The rest of the book runes are simply burned away with the pages, as the writing surface was destroyed without anyone triggering the runes, nor were they dispelled.
At which point you realise that you were better off simply casting one fireball spell.
Uh, how do you figure? I suppose if you treat a book as a single object you are right, then the obvious solution is to have the tunes on loose leaf, each one being a discreet object and each one being targeted individually per the spell description
Area Dispel: When greater dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot-radius burst. Roll one dispel check and apply that check to each creature in the area, as if targeted by dispel magic. For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, apply the dispel check as with creatures.
The only way it doesn't make sense is if you're arguing that each page of a book be treated as a separate object.
And it's not bad reasoning to prevent a misuse of RAW. It's the DM's perogative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).
Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.
The rules don't permit you to throw multiple objects at the same time either. The rules are painstakingly clear that the number of objects you may throw in a round is governed by your BAB and a few feats. You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only way it doesn't make sense is if you're arguing that each page of a book be treated as a separate object.
Which only applies if you're talking about a book and not a loose ream of paper.
And it's not bad reasoning to prevent a misuse of RAW. It's the DM's perogative.
It is if your reasoning is bad. The correct response to that kind of cheese is not to add more cheese, it's to say "dude, that isn't going to fly and you know it."
Nothing says to add up each pages runes into a total amount of damage. One has to be first, since the dispel starts at a specific point, and moves outward from that point to its radius. First page goes, deals damage, other pages are damaged. Simple enough.
Nothing says to add up each pages runes into a total amount of damage. One has to be first, since the dispel starts at a specific point, and moves outward from that point to its radius. First page goes, deals damage, other pages are damaged. Simple enough.
Then use roughly equa-distant dispersion - beyond that, it seems that the first instant effect (the dispel) must finish resolving itself (as it is, after all, the first instant effect), outside of a really weird sequence. Otherwise, the GM has to start dealing with nested effects and that opens a very large can of worms.
On the other hand, using it means I now have a really daggum cool set of tricks to pull...
Or use asbestos paper.
It doesn't even take that much: at 6d6, objects take half damage; that's 3d6. So grab half-inch steel "paper" and you've got hardness 10 and 15 hit points v. a maximum damage of 8 (after hardness) - they'd definitely survive.
Heck, make it 1/4 inch thick and they'd survive everything but maximum damage - and they'd (on average) survive about three of them going off in rapid succession. Or small steel mirror - not very heavy at all, going by in-game size and weight.
This hand-held mirror is about a foot across. Unlike many higher-quality glass mirrors, this one is made out of polished steel and sturdy enough that you can drop it without risk of breakage.
Very easy to use, and even at 10 g it's still cheap (though not as cheap as paper).
If you're worried about the multiple items, wait four levels and then fling nine at the dude before blowing it up.
At 9*6d6, that's about 72d6 in a round. Not earthshattering, but rather potent, nonetheless.
Of course, I wonder how GMs would handle:
- take a large number of mirrors (arbitrarily large, like, say, 50), with a conspicuous hole punched in the corner of each; that's 25 lbs
- now that they are unique individuals place explosive runes on each
- thread all 50 together by a single strand of a thick, iron band (doesn't matter how, but let's just say fabricate to avoid drama); let's arbitrate that this adds 50 lbs - that's stupid, of course, it'd be far less, but let's just go with this for now
- use telekinesis to move the one object - the iron bar - into position
- use dispel to make 50*6d6 go off (in sequence, one presumes)
One would imagine it's like a faster and more deadly version of this thing (with half the explosions).
If, you know, the GMs let it "survive" stuff at all. I suspect they would not, but it's a pretty decent avoidance of the "paper is lost" thing with non-exotic stuff.
1 foot across and a half pound. A half-inch square foot of steel is 20.4 pounds. To get down to a half-pound we have to go down to between 1/32 and 1/64 inch thick. Thats effectively 0 hardness and 1 hp. (10/32 = .3 round down to 0 and 30/32 is .93 round up to minimum 1 hp).
1 foot across and a half pound. A half-inch square foot of steel is 20.4 pounds. To get down to a half-pound we have to go down to between 1/32 and 1/64 inch thick. Thats effectively 0 hardness and 1 hp. (10/32 = .3 round down to 0 and 30/32 is .93 round up to minimum 1 hp).
Definitely not a hardness of 0, unless you have a rules citation for it.
I'll accept the other, though.
So: fold the mirror(s) on itself (or, if it requires more than one, that) into a block (still not hard) and then proceed as outlined above.
Still very straight forward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, hardness doesn't vary based on thickness. 3d6 average is still 10.5, so very unlikely to get more than 3 pages to go off without destroying the rest.
Fold the mirror on itself, meaning you want to use a thicker piece of steel instead? A 1"x1"x2" piece of steel is .566 pounds. Close enough. I don't think that would qualify as "a book, map, scroll, or similar object bearing written information" which is the target for explosive runes. Even using the mirror itself would be a hard sell to me as a GM since mirrors don't bear written information typically.
If you wanted to make a steel book I would let you, but it would count as a single object that could only have a single explosive runes on it at once. Otherwise you're looking at sheets of steel, which as above, would have only 1hp, no matter how you fold them.
So you can't inscribe information down on steel? It doesn't count as an object bearing written information, if it has written information on it? Not even a map?
More to the point, how thick is a sword? No, really, how thick? From what point are you counting? Because a one-handed blade has five hit points. That's a lot for a thin edge of steel, unless the swords are rounded in the middle, which is pretty sucky as a weapon.
Relevant: if a scroll is rolled up, does that count as touching an object or not due to being part of the object? If so, congratulations: open/close or mage hand became a phenomenal detonator (I'm not able to look at the wording at present; apologies). If not, it demonstrably becomes thicker and harder to break than when unfurled. How does that affect the items?
Here's the thing: if a GM wants to reject the idea, I'm all for it - it's just a really bad idea to do it on grounds other than, "No, I don't like it." because soon the arguments to make it work or fail will begin requiring ever-escalating rules knowledge and chicanery.
This will not help the game or the table... unless that particular table enjoys it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a quick google search, 1/8 to 1/4 inch thickness for a longsword depending on where you measure (Thickest near base, thinnest near point). Putting that in the table you get 3.75-7.5. Average 5.625, round down to 5, exactly what they state is the hitpoints for a longsword.
Detonating explosive runes requires someone to try to read them, or fail dispelling them. Open/close or mage hand will not set them off. Clairvoyance might though.
If not, it demonstrably becomes thicker and harder to break than when unfurled. How does that affect the items?
I disagree. Just because you take a sheet and roll it up doesn't make it count as a thicker piece of that material. If your sheet of metal is 1/32nd of an inch thick, and you roll it up, it still only has 1HP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't permit you to throw multiple objects at the same time either. The rules are painstakingly clear that the number of objects you may throw in a round is governed by your BAB and a few feats. You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).
Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.
You could fire a shotgun into it using pellet ammunition. That's lots of objects "thrown" with a single action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't permit you to throw multiple objects at the same time either. The rules are painstakingly clear that the number of objects you may throw in a round is governed by your BAB and a few feats. You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).
Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.
This is incorrect. The rules state that your number of ATTACKS are limited by your base attack bonus, not the number of things you can throw. My character can throw a handful of pebbles just as readily as he can squat and take a dump.
It's fine to try and limit/balance a potentially broken combo, but any GM who says it's impossible for a character to do something so basic like you seem to imply is just asking for trouble.
The rules don't permit you to throw multiple objects at the same time either. The rules are painstakingly clear that the number of objects you may throw in a round is governed by your BAB and a few feats. You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).
Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.
This is incorrect. The rules state that your number of ATTACKS are limited by your base attack bonus, not the number of things you can throw. My character can throw a handful of pebbles just as readily as he can squat and take a dump.
It's fine to try and limit/balance a potentially broken combo, but any GM who says it's impossible for a character to do something so basic like you seem to imply is just asking for trouble.
Strawman. I didn't say that. Here, I'll do this again.
You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles
You are being cute by trying to say, "Permissive system, I can do what I want," and forcing it to link with, "You must interpret the spell mechanic to reconcile with my hand-waved action to yield completely unbalanced results." That is literally the worst kind of way to parse the rules.
If you want to elicit a predicable mechanical response from an interaction, you need to approach it with a written mechanical trigger. Otherwise you have NO ground to cite RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game balance aside, why are we putting 100 runes on one hundred different objects? I'm not seeing anything in the spell that precludes placing all 100 runes on the same page.
"You trace mystic runes upon a book, map, scroll, or similar object bearing written information."
If I cast explosive runes on a map it is still a "book, map, scroll, or similar object" when I go to cast the second time.
"The object on which the explosive runes were written also takes full damage (no saving throw)."
So you set off the first set of runes, the object is destroyed, no other runes were set off because they no longer exist. Putting it on multiple pages is the attempt to work around this.
That said, you noted you "disagree" - I wasn't actually making an argument in that case (meaning there is nothing to disagree with rules-wise), but asking a rules question.
If a scroll is rolled up, however, it's trivially easy to prove it's harder to break: literally put a smooth stick, glue a piece of paper, and roll it. Once rolled, tear the paper. It's pretty demonstrably difficult.
Since its been a day I no longer recall what, exactly, I was going for after this, sooooo... leaving this and maybe coming back later.
Spoiled because I'm pretty sure it wasn't a complete argument or point.
EDIT: I can tell time (nope).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't permit you to throw multiple objects at the same time either. The rules are painstakingly clear that the number of objects you may throw in a round is governed by your BAB and a few feats. You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).
Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.
This is incorrect. The rules state that your number of ATTACKS are limited by your base attack bonus, not the number of things you can throw. My character can throw a handful of pebbles just as readily as he can squat and take a dump.
It's fine to try and limit/balance a potentially broken combo, but any GM who says it's impossible for a character to do something so basic like you seem to imply is just asking for trouble.
Strawman. I didn't say that. Here, I'll do this again.
You simply cannot throw a handful of pebblesYou are being cute by trying to say, "Permissive system, I can do what I want," and forcing it to link with, "You must interpret the spell mechanic to reconcile with my hand-waved action to yield completely unbalanced results." That is literally the worst kind of way to parse the...
Well then! Good day to you sir. I SAID GOOD DAY!!!
;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since its been a day I no longer recall what, exactly, I was going for after this, sooooo... leaving this and maybe coming back later.
Spoiled because I'm pretty sure it wasn't a complete argument or point.
EDIT: I can tell time (nope).
And yet, there is no rule for rolling it. Paper or cloth is 0 hardness, 2 HP per inch of thickness. Presumably with a minimum of 1 hp. So, a paper scroll, has 0 hardness and 1 hp because it is less than 1/2 inch thick. Even if rolling it changed its hitpoints (which I don't think it does), you would have to get to a full inch of thickness to get a whopping 2 HP instead.
As I said - don't know where I was going with that. That said, I don't think I was explicitly arguing hp at that point, only mentioning difficulty breaking (though I could see an argument being made). Maybe later. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually - I use a dragon pistol, so it is effectively a shotgun. I get one attack roll for every possible target in the cone. So, that would mean, One Wall - One attack roll (or only one attack).You could fire a shotgun into it using pellet ammunition. That's lots of objects "thrown" with a single action.The rules don't permit you to throw multiple objects at the same time either. The rules are painstakingly clear that the number of objects you may throw in a round is governed by your BAB and a few feats. You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).
Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.
I think that is a reasonable ruling to make, but it isn't what the spell says. The spell description states that the damage is based on the number of "objects" that contact the wall rather than the number of "attacks" used. Each pellet is actually a separate object and would therefore trigger damage.
I think that is a reasonable ruling to make, but it isn't what the spell says. The spell description states that the damage is based on the number of "objects" that contact the wall rather than the number of "attacks" used. Each pellet is actually a separate object and would therefore trigger damage.Actually - I use a dragon pistol, so it is effectively a shotgun. I get one attack roll for every possible target in the cone. So, that would mean, One Wall - One attack roll (or only one attack).You could fire a shotgun into it using pellet ammunition. That's lots of objects "thrown" with a single action.The rules don't permit you to throw multiple objects at the same time either. The rules are painstakingly clear that the number of objects you may throw in a round is governed by your BAB and a few feats. You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).
Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.
Yes, but there is simply no way to resolve which pellets hit and which pellets miss. The "Broad-side-of-the-barn" still has an AC, and even the best warriors in the universe miss with their favored weapons 5% of the time. The only way to know if a hit was successful in pathfinder is with an attack roll, and attack rolls (unless specifically called out, ie manyshot) only resolve one object. The flavor of the attack may be pellets or pebbles or whatever, but from a game mechanics standpoint that is a single object and should be treated that way to resolve ALL mechanical effects.
What if you had a Swarm of Fine creatures, and cast wall of sound on the space they occupy? Its 10,000 creatures in that swarm, so should be 10,000 damage rolls right?
No, because the swarm is one creature. Same thing with the shotgun. Its one attack, you get one burst of damage from it. Why? To keep from breaking the game.
What if you had a Swarm of Fine creatures, and cast wall of sound on the space they occupy? Its 10,000 creatures in that swarm, so should be 10,000 damage rolls right?
No, because the swarm is one creature. Same thing with the shotgun. Its one attack, you get one burst of damage from it. Why? To keep from breaking the game.
Actually, a shotgun or blunderbuss, while firing one attack, treats every attack roll as a separate individual ranged attack. That way, the flaming weapon quality and such arent useless on scatter weapons.
That said, I have one solution. Count how many squares within the wall the shotgun could attack with the scatter quality. Deal damage for each square.