|
I've played a necromancy-focused wizard who made permanant symbolsto be inscribed on his powerful skeleton minions (giant skeletons). It's no so bad if you attune your fellow PCs to the effect, the real trick is figuring out how to protect all the innocent NPCs that might walk by ;). Symbol of Weakness really is fantastic though, especially if placed on allies' shields or armor and triggered though non-reading means...
/end jack
I agree on Power Word Pain... as well as many of the Power Word spells from Races of the Dragon. Far too many overpowered effects, including ability drain 2-3 levels before players can even cast restoration, nevermind that it's a save-less effect with an expensive cure.
|
All of the lesser orb spells. 1d4 damage and a wasted spell slot. Woot. Why not just use a dagger instead?
?
The lesser orb spells do 1d6 or 1d8 damage plus the same die per two levels beyond 1st (max 5 dice). And they're a touch attack. And they have no save. In a second-level slot.
Definitely not as good as a dagger.
Oh, wait....
|
|
All of the lesser orb spells. 1d4 damage and a wasted spell slot. Woot. Why not just use a dagger instead??
The lesser orb spells do 1d6 or 1d8 damage plus the same die per two levels beyond 1st (max 5 dice). And they're a touch attack. And they have no save. In a second-level slot.
Definitely not as good as a dagger.
Oh, wait....
What was I thinking of...
0-level spell with 1d4 damage...
Maybe ray of frost?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
My least favorite spells - and this really gets to my viewpoint on magic in D&D, are the blatant "utility" spells like grease or tenser's floating disk.
I like magic to be special and beyond most people's everyday comprehension. I'm not debating the usefulness of those spells, they obviously have their place. I just don't like the "insta-slippery" spell or a "carry a lot of treasure home" spell. It makes magic more mundane I think - and then you're just a hop, skip and a jump away from streetlights lit by permanent light spells and the like.
Rant over. Again, I know these spells have their use. I just don't like them for personal flavor reasons.
Note that break enchantment can fix feeblemind, and is of the same level. Break enchantment is one of the few things that can fix an "instaneous" spell.
True, Break Enchantment can cure Instantaneous effects, but... Feeblemind's entry specifically says "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind." Break Enchantment isn't on the list. Or should we assume it assumes we assume that Break Enchantment can undo anything of a proper spell level?
Personally, I was brought up (D&D-wise) to believe that specific statements trump general statements when it comes to rules.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Note that break enchantment can fix feeblemind, and is of the same level. Break enchantment is one of the few things that can fix an "instaneous" spell.True, Break Enchantment can cure Instantaneous effects, but... Feeblemind's entry specifically says "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind." Break Enchantment isn't on the list. Or should we assume it assumes we assume that Break Enchantment can undo anything of a proper spell level?
Personally, I was brought up (D&D-wise) to believe that specific statements trump general statements when it comes to rules.
I've been brought up to believe that WotC can't cross-reference rules worth a damn, so I'll go with break enchantment's officially specific conditions for what it can remove:
This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.
If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.
Note that feeblemind does not say that only those means can work. And feeblemind fits "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic" to a T.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I agree on Power Word Pain... as well as many of the Power Word spells from Races of the Dragon. Far too many overpowered effects, including ability drain 2-3 levels before players can even cast restoration, nevermind that it's a save-less effect with an expensive cure.
Ugh. Just looked them up, thankfully not on my own copy (I don't own it). Idiotic. Power word pain would be just about the most powerful 1st-level spell I've ever seen, as written. All of the low-level ones are completely broken when thrown by a low level caster at another low level target.
WotC won't stop writing rules this bad until people stop buying the books.
Note that feeblemind does not say that only those means can work. And feeblemind fits "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic" to a T.
That's a good point. More importantly, it's more reasonable than assuming a 5th level spell can't be countered by anything lower than a 7th level spell. Works for me.
I'm still not too hot on Feeblemind, though.
Edit: Fixed the typo in my second sentence.
My least favorite spells - and this really gets to my viewpoint on magic in D&D, are the blatant "utility" spells like grease or tenser's floating disk.
...and I stand in opposite view, thinking that if there were wizards and magic, most of them would be studying utility spells instead of looking yet another spell to make bunch of elemental damage to something, but this time the fire missile is purple!
And thing about utility spells is that they are usually very broad in their uses, which means that inventive casters can come up with all kinds of scenarios how to use grease or floating disc...again unlike, say, magic missile which is pretty much "I cast magic missile. It hits. 5 points of damage."
|
|
Regarding cures for Feeblemind, take a look at Panacea, CL4/DR5, from the Spell Compendium, which explicitly fixes it and many other conditions. Also, Renewal Pact, CL7, is basically a contingent Panacea.
I don't think that Resurgence, CL1/PAL1/BG1, would work, since, as an instantaneous effect, Feeblemind probably doesn't count as an ongoing spell. It's worth a few potions or scrolls anyway, though, and it's worth considering for wandifying.
I'm still not convinced that feeblemind can be undone by break enchantment. Later developments in the game may be poorly cross-refenced (which is bound to happen in any complex system, such as D&D), but the Core 3 are pretty good about internal consistency.
The wording is "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind." That's pretty explicit. Break enchantment isn't on the list.
Other spells may have since been developed that counteract that, but obviously the wording on this spell couldn't take that into effect unless the game desingers could see the future (which I'm 99.9% sure they can't).
Is the spell a overpowered? Yes. Is break enchantment somewhat "nerfed" considering the number of effects that seem like perfect candidates for the spell but specifically say it doesn't work? Yes. But, is the wording clear? Yes. Can break enchantment undo feeblemind? No. Not by the RAW. You, of course, can house rule it however you want, but it remains just that: a house rule.
...but how many PC's are using poison vs. the number of bad guys using it?
ummm, all of them? All of my players always buy poison (their favorite is Sassone leaf residue, which is overpowered, IMO).
I'm not terribly fond of the various symbol spells . . . the effects aren't even that impressive given the rather high spell level that you get them at.
Unless of course you have the rune inscribed on a super bouncy ball.
Unless of course you have the rune inscribed on a super bouncy ball.
As soon as My players get high enough in level, I'm using this on them! I can't wait!
Is the spell a overpowered? Yes. Is break enchantment somewhat "nerfed" considering the number of effects that seem like perfect candidates for the spell but specifically say it doesn't work? Yes. But, is the wording clear? Yes. Can break enchantment undo feeblemind? No. Not by the RAW. You, of course, can house rule it however you want, but it remains just that: a house rule.
Agreed. In fact I'd go so far as to say any new spell put out in a splat book would also not work unless it explicitly stated that it did.
I'm not terribly fond of the various symbol spells . . . the effects aren't even that impressive given the rather high spell level that you get them at.Unless of course you have the rune inscribed on a super bouncy ball.
I continue to be amazed at the number of worthy ideas I get from that comic. Can somone post the relevant link?
Another set of spells I hate are ones like wind walk and other spells that essentially turn you into unseen ghost like creatures for long periods of time. Essentially this type of spell is just begging the players to explore the dungeon in a mode where they can't be harmed. This basically just gives the whole game away. All the neat set ups etc. are mostly revealed and the players either skip to the end or go back and do the dungeon again in the flesh this time. Either way its generally bad for the tension and excitement of the game while being such a good tactic that players would be foolish not to use it. I have no problem with players using magic etc. to scout ahead but there is a fine line between spells and powers that allow one to peer into the next room and something at essentially involves them mapping out the whole complex and marking down what they see before they actually embark on the adventure.
Essentially speaking a well designed adventure has tension and drama and builds up to an exciting climax just like a good book. These types of spells are, to keep with the book analogy, like reading the last 5 pages of every chapter before going back to the start of the chapter. It essentially defeats the purpose of having good plot lines and exciting timing.
Unless of course you have the rune inscribed on a super bouncy ball.As soon as My players get high enough in level, I'm using this on them! I can't wait!
Yeah but that was an NPC and therefore presumably did not have to actually pay with oh so precious gold and XP.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Is the spell a overpowered? Yes. Is break enchantment somewhat "nerfed" considering the number of effects that seem like perfect candidates for the spell but specifically say it doesn't work? Yes. But, is the wording clear? Yes. Can break enchantment undo feeblemind? No. Not by the RAW. You, of course, can house rule it however you want, but it remains just that: a house rule.
Actually, that remains a rules opinion, not rules at written. I'm pretty good at analyzing the game rules, and given that the word only or phrasing such as nothing short of is not used in feeblemind (as it is in discern location, for example), I'm confident I have the right answer. Especially since the 4th level panacea in the Spell Compendium also works.
Basically, you're choosing to treat one specific listing (the one in feeblemind) as being more important than another specific listing (enchantments, transmutations and curses of 1st-5th level that cannot be removed by dispel magic). I'm choosing to look at the wording involved to see which specific list wins. That is what "rules as written" discussions are all about.
As to stating the rules were cross-reference well in the core rules, which I saw in this thread - I disagree, citing raking in grapples (the rules are buried in the back of the MM) and casting times of spell-like abilities (buried in one section of the PH) as two examples that pop into my head today. I've found a number of core rules where the only way to find the correct ruling is to trace the bloody thing across all three core books.
Power Word Pain from Races of the Dragon is absolutely banned with me.
It's a first level wizard/sorcerer spell that does 1d6 points of damage and then 1d6 points of damage a round for a number of rounds after that. The problem is that the duration has nothing to do with the caster level and there isn't a save. The duration has to do with how many hit points the recipient has -- the fewer the hit points, the longer the duration. So it is lethal with low-level encounters and a minor inconvenience (at worst) at higher levels. The whole spell just feels a bit backwards to me.
I'd not say the spell is exactly perfect or anything but its not one that normally concerns me that much. Generally the bad guy is going to die long before the spell really can do its full damage impact anyway. In the end its probably a lot weaker then say colour spray at low levels. The big exception of course is if your a rat bastard as a DM. Use this baby on your players! They'll have killed the kobold who did this to them and will then spend the next little while draining the cleric of all healing in a desperate attempt to stay alive.
Is the spell a overpowered? Yes. Is break enchantment somewhat "nerfed" considering the number of effects that seem like perfect candidates for the spell but specifically say it doesn't work? Yes. But, is the wording clear? Yes. Can break enchantment undo feeblemind? No. Not by the RAW. You, of course, can house rule it however you want, but it remains just that: a house rule.Actually, that remains your opinion. I'm pretty good at analyzing the game rules, and given that the word only or phrasing such as nothing short of is not used in feeblemind (as it is in discern location, for example), I'm confident I have the right answer. Especially since the 4th level panacea in the Spell Compendium also works.
Basically, you're choosing to treat one specific listing (the one in feeblemind) as being more important than another specific listing (enchantments, transmutations and curses of 1st-5th level that cannot be removed by dispel magic). I'm choosing to look at the wording involved to see which specific list wins. I don't consider that just cause for hauling out the "house rules" slur - nor would I accuse you of using "house rules" for going the other way. Accept that the core rules were not written clearly or cross-references well, and move on.
As to stating the rules were cross-reference well in the core rules, which I saw in this thread - I disagree, citing raking in grapples (the rules are buried in the back of the MM) and casting times of spell-like abilities (buried in one section of the PH) as two examples that pop into my head today. I've found a number of core rules where the only way to find the correct ruling is to trace the bloody thing across all three core books.
Completely disagree - and for reasons that have nothing to do with break enchantment and feeblemind.
There are all sorts of spells that have specific criteria built into their text with things like Spell works until X or Y effects said conditions. If we follow your trend your basically saying all exceptions in a spell don't actually apply if you can find some rule some where else that might cover the circumstance.
I suggest you have not followed this line of reasoning to its final conclusion which essentially comes down to ignoring all text in the specific spell entries concerning things like what spells counter them etc. thats a terrible idea - this way lies madness.
In the end you can house rule whatever seems appropriate if you think the designers screwed up with their call but as for RAW - the specific spell entries have to take precedence over general spell entries or game mechanics.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
If you actually bother to research the feeblemind vs. break enchantment debate, you'll find it has come up before, and many choose my reading of which specific list wins over your reading of it. So please put away your "I'm not following the rules" labels for another day, and a rule that was actually written cleanly. Until phrasing like "only" appears in feeblemind, I feel the ruling I've taken fits the spirit and the letter just fine. I'm ok with you thinking you're correct to - because in fact your reading fits it too, since the poorly written rules have left us trying to analyze how exclusive a vague sentence was meant to be.
If you actually bother to research the feeblemind vs. break enchantment debate, you'll find it has come up before, and many choose my reading of which specific list wins over your reading of it. So please put away your "I'm not following the rules" labels for another day, and a rule that was actually written cleanly. Until phrasing like "only" appears in feeblemind, I feel the ruling I've taken fits the spirit and the letter just fine. I'm ok with you thinking you're correct to - because in fact your reading fits it too, since the poorly written rules have left us trying to analyze how exclusive a vague sentence was meant to be.
As I said above this type of ruling really does not have anything to do with break enchantment and feeblemind. Its about how spell entires are read and followed.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Basically, you're choosing to treat one specific listing (the one in feeblemind) as being more important than another specific listing (enchantments, transmutations and curses of 1st-5th level that cannot be removed by dispel magic). I'm choosing to look at the wording involved to see which specific list wins. That is what "rules as written" discussions are all about.
Huh. I guess then that improved disarm doesn't prevent attacks of opportunity. After all, the general rule is disarming provokes an attack of opportunity, so we should disregard what improved disarm says. It's just one feat after all. And, when read in the context of the core rules, clearly it should provoke an attack of opportunity. That's really in the spirit of the game.
Maybe the vulcan greatclub from the Dragon Compendium can be used with weapon finesse. The weapon finesse feat is pretty vague as to the list of which weapons can be used with it. Yeah sure, other weapons introduced in supplements specify whether they can be finessed, but in the absence of a statement that the vulcan greatclub cannot be used with weapon finesse, we shouldn't treat the list of compatible weapons described in weapon finesse as being exclusive.
This thread is like a great big ball of controversial spells rolled into one. All we need now is for Fakey to post that create water is his least favorite spell because it does so much damage to fire elementals. (I'll never let it go! Never!)
As for the others:
Feeblemind isn't way over the line. Clerics kill people with spells of similar levels. Etc.
Power Word Pain isn't dangerous unless used by the DM. As Jeremy points out, most fights don't last long enough that you'll see the damage all the way through anyway. What level is a spell that does 1 point of damage for an infinite number of rounds? Answer: Who cares, that spell sucks so much I'd never use it. I don't know about the games you play in, but my combats last less than an infinite number of rounds. Power Word Pain falls in the same category as choking. Oh yeah, you can kill someone under the core rules with just your bare hands. Here's the catch - you've got to hold their throat for 20 or 30 rounds. You might as well complain about how broken it is that if you lock someone in a cave for a week or two they'll eventually starve to death. I'd much rather do something relevant in the first round of combat than something marginal for thirty rounds.
Can't remember if its hit the thread yet, but here's about the point where someone should complain about the orb spells. Saern?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Huh. I guess then that improved disarm doesn't prevent attacks of opportunity. After all, the general rule is disarming provokes an attack of opportunity, so we should disregard what improved disarm says. It's just one feat after all. And, when read in the context of the core rules, clearly it should provoke an attack of opportunity. That's really in the spirit of the game.
Apples and oranges. Break enchantment's actually got fairly specific conditions for what it can remove, not general ones. And it is in fact a spell that is meant to remove effects that cannot be removed easily (i.e. instantaneous effects and ones that cannot be removed by dispel magic). I see no reason to nerf that ability, given that feeblemind appears to be the only PH spell that meets the 5th level criteria of being of the right spell type, instantaneous and non-dispellable.
A more relevant (and non-existant) example would be if there were a feat or ability that overrode abilities that negated AoOs, causing them to again provoke. That would in fact work on Improved Disarm, even if it didn't list it in the Improved Disarm feat.
This kind of reminds me of 3.0 days, when folks said that mind blank didn't work against discern location, because of poor wording choices in discern location.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Waitaminute. Break Enchantment is even a core spell. Okay, that settles it. Break Enchantment does not touch Feeblemind. If it did, Feeblemind would provide for it in its exceptions clause. Feeblemind provides a short list of high level spells that can bust it. I can't see how Break Enchantment is on par with Wish et al.
I could entertain the argument if Break Enchantment were in a non-core rules supplement (though even then, I would require that it say it can bust Feeblemind in the description). But as it stands, Feeblemind tells you how you can get rid of it, and Break Enchantment is not on that list.
And damn you for getting me to post when I should be working! ;-)
And damn me for not posting in the PbP thread if I'm going to post at all.
Edit: And it's really hard to think about how exactly feeblemind could be more clearly worded. If it said "until dispelled by a spell other than Break Enchantment, such as Wish et al" that would imply that it could be dispelled, by, say Dispel Magic, because it would not be expressly prohibited. Alternately, if Break Enchantment said "can't effect Feeblemind" that would imply it could effect other spells like Feeblemind with an exclusive dispel clause. I guess you could pull out a lawyer trick and say "cannot be dispelled by any spell, including, but not limited to, Break Enchantment, provided, however, that it may be dispelled by Wish et al."
Suppose that the intent of the designers was that Break Enchantment would not dispel Feeblemind. What would that wording look like exactly that would prove that to you? Would it have to be on both spells or just one?
Apples and oranges. Break enchantment's actually got fairly specific conditions for what it can remove, not general ones. And it is in fact a spell that is meant to remove effects that cannot be removed easily (i.e. instantaneous effects and ones that cannot be removed by dispel magic). I see no reason to nerf that ability, given that feeblemind appears to be the only PH spell that meets the 5th level criteria of being of the right spell type, instantaneous and non-dispellable.
All this might make it a great candidate for a house rule but does not actually change how RAW works.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Suppose that the intent of the designers was that Break Enchantment would not dispel Feeblemind. What would that wording look like exactly that would prove that to you? Would it have to be on both spells or just one?
Pretty easy change. Something along the lines of "This condition can only be cured by a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell, or by direct action of deity." As it is, the spell is a perfect fit for the rules under break enchantment, since it is an instantaneous enchantment, not higher than 5th level, that cannnot be removed by dispel magic.
I'm sure Jeremy will again claim that's not rules as written, but in fact it is in accordance with the rules. As it stands, right now there are other ways to remove it that also aren't listed in the spell, such as a clone made before the spell took effect, or even direct action of a deity. Personally, I would also have resurrection or true resurrection negate it, part of the restored to full health clause of those spells.
There have been ample instances of D&D where two lists of conditions ran afoul of each other, and not all of them have been corrected. Heck, I remember back in 3.0 when people used to argue you couldn't cleave unless you took a full-attack action, due to cleave not saying it let you break the general rule of needing to full attack to get more than one attack. Not all of these cases got cleared up in 3.0 -> 3.5.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Pretty easy change. Something along the lines of "This condition can only be cured by a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell, or by direct action of deity." As it is, the spell is a perfect fit for the rules under break enchantment, since it is an instantaneous enchantment, not higher than 5th level, that cannnot be removed by dispel magic.
Suppose that the intent of the designers was that Break Enchantment would not dispel Feeblemind. What would that wording look like exactly that would prove that to you? Would it have to be on both spells or just one?
Right now, it says: " The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind."
I fail to see any substantive difference between your version and the version as written. All arguments you've made could just as easily apply (in fact, they're easier to make, "I'm not healing him, I'm dispeling the effect, that's different.")
Also, the fact that the spell cannot be removed by dispel magic is not a condition to it being affected by Break Enchantment. The divine intervention point is irrelevant to a discussion of the rules. You're basically saying "if the DM says it's cured, it is" which is basically "make s%&* up" not "interpret the rule as written."
Saern and Jeremy are right. The RAW tell you which spells can dispel feeblemind. Break Enchantment is not on that list. End of story.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Saern and Jeremy are right. The RAW tell you which spells can dispel feeblemind. Break Enchantment is not on that list. End of story.
I'm sorry, I missed the nametag that read supreme arbitrer of all rules discussions, apparently :) For me, it's quite simple: break enchantment has a limited set of conditions which it can remove, and it meets that test. For me, it's no different than allowing panacea to work, because both have a list of specific conditions they can end, and the feeblemind spell meets it. You'll find this question has come up in other forums, and not been resolved there either.
Both are legitimate readings of the same sets of rules. End of story. Have a nice day.
Edit:
Have a look at geas/quest. Wording like that would be quite welcome, it is very explicit on break enchantment not working. Or wording like mark of justice, which says it does explicitly, would also be welcome. This is not the only example of the rules not cross-referencing well, as I pointed out earlier.
hehe; almost all of them; over half the cleric spells are just bunk; take first level curse and doom for instance; doom is twice the impact; yet still; who takes either of them; in a fight the idea is to take the guy down quickly not give him a extremely minor miss chance; some fighter probably only needs like an 8-12 or something to hit most peeps in the party at this level; a minus one is worthless. Many of the damage spells are just garbage; 1d4 or 1d6 per two levels max 5d6; doing a 5d6 attack against a 10 level figher is not very affective; heck; it is not very affective against anyone really; spells are way to easy to save against.
buff spells; sure they are great; buff your ac; damage; to hit; stats; spell resistance; but are really fairly useless as every spell has a piddly duration; what are you going to do; ask the bad guy to hold on and wait for you to buff yourself for a few rounds; sure it looks good on paper, but when do you really get to use them unless you sneak up on someone. What we need is some way to chain buff spells together so that we can actually get a few off before a fight.
ugh; the shield other spell; ack; who uses this? I understand the semi heroic idea of it, but come on; two dead guys is better than one? Seems better to me to buff, heal, blindess, sheesh anything you can instead of getting pounded.
well; just my least favorite stuff; I suppose most peeps have their favorites and stick to them; personally, I dont make any cleric in my game pick spells as I think it is silly, but that is really a bit off topic.
Then of course you have some people who do creative interpretation of the rules to make spells less effective by giving arbitrary counters; after reading these comments I have gained more understanding on why many peeps dont like playing certain types of casters.
hehe tensors floating disk; fairly useless; the duration on this spell just ruins it effectiveness; what garbage.
Both are legitimate readings of the same sets of rules.
That was my take on the whole debate, actually. The fact that we're on version "3.5" of the rules implies that there are still some (or many) glitches to work out, so rules purists need to consider that the current RAW can hardly be considered the be-all and end-all of gaming (didn't someone mention elsewhere the image of Thor giving stone tablets bearing the original Chainmail rules directly to Gygax?). On the flip side, if you get too loose in interpretation, then everyone's playing a different game, and Paizo's out of work.
I strongly suspect that in this case the game works just as well either way: if break enchantment works on feebelemind, or if it doesn't--except in those incredibly rare cases where the DM has included the removal of feeblemind as a key adventure facet, and the party has access break enchantment but not heal.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Mark of justice is necromancy. BE wouldn't affect it w/o the cross reference.
Lesser geas, which is a similar type of compulsion to feeblemind, specifically inlcudes BE in its exceptions clause. Note that by your reasoning, Be should work on lesser geas w/o being included in the exclusions clause. Clearly, the designers are capable of listing all the effective spells in such a clause. Why do so in lesser geas and not feeblemind?
Geas mentions BE because it incorporates most of lesser geas by reference. If it did not specifically mention BE, it would be affected due to lesser geas being affected.
The rules are clear. The fact that the issue comes up frequently is irrelevant. Many newbies post saying that sneak attack only works once per round. Just because there are a lot of them that think that does not somehow make it true under the RAW.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The rules are clear. The fact that the issue comes up frequently is irrelevant. Many newbies post saying that sneak attack only works once per round. Just because there are a lot of them that think that does not somehow make it true under the RAW.
Ah, but I'm afraid I'm not a newbie. I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree. I just rather wish you and Jeremy would own up to fact that it really is a conflict between which specific set of conditions the reader decides applies, but clearly you're not going to.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ah, but I'm afraid I'm not a newbie. I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree. I just rather wish you and Jeremy would own up to fact that it really is a conflict between which specific set of conditions the reader decides applies, but clearly you're not going to.
Yes, because your arguments have all been refuted. As I've shown, the designers know when to make use of cross references and do so appropriately. Both Mark of Justice and Geas do so.
Why does lesser geas include BE in its exceptions clause but feeblemind does not? Why should both spells receive the same interpretation if they are worded differently? One is effected by BE, it says so. The other is not, it says so through omission. I'm not picking and choosing which text applies, I am reading the text together. You are ignoring examples, such as geas, lesser geas, and mark of justice, each of which show how spells are cross referenced.
It's not a conflict anymore than multiple sneak attacks is a conflict.
Can't remember if its hit the thread yet, but here's about the point where someone should complain about the orb spells. Saern?
Nah, I'm over them (at least when it comes to ranting- still don't like the buggers!).
EDIT- "Buggers" actually showed up- wasn't that previously censored?
|
|
Power Word Pain isn't dangerous unless used by the DM. As Jeremy points out, most fights don't last long enough that you'll see the damage all the way through anyway. What level is a spell that does 1 point of damage for an infinite number of rounds? Answer: Who cares, that spell sucks so much I'd never use it. I don't know about the games you play in, but my combats last less than an infinite number of rounds. Power Word Pain falls in the same category as choking. Oh yeah, you can kill someone under the core rules with just your bare hands. Here's the catch - you've got to hold their throat for 20 or 30 rounds. You might as well complain about how broken it is that if you lock someone in a cave for a week or two they'll eventually starve to death. I'd much rather do something relevant in the first round of combat than something marginal for thirty rounds.
True. I kind of have the mentality that if I'm not willing to use it on the players, I don't feel that they should have access to it to use against me (the DM). As I said before, this spell is devastating at lower levels. After that -- who cares? But if you are even a 2nd level fighter and get this cast on you, you are dead -- plain and simple.
Maybe I am just an old, bitter, selfish DM -- "If I can't play with my new toy -- no one can!"
Well, I would have to agree that MM's are really pathetic now.
As I've shown, the designers know when to make use of cross references and do so appropriately.
But, as they themselves have often shown, the designers are far from infallible. I think this might be the first time I've ever disagreed with you, Sebastian! (mark calendar), but sometimes things need a nudge. Wait until 4e and "the designers" will undoubtedly contradict a half-dozen rules that we all currently have memorized. Citing the infallibility of the designers is like... well... um... well, it just doesn't make sense, is all (translate into legal talk--"manifest lack of precedent," etc.--at will) ;)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Ah, but I'm afraid I'm not a newbie. I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree. I just rather wish you and Jeremy would own up to fact that it really is a conflict between which specific set of conditions the reader decides applies, but clearly you're not going to.
Yes, because your arguments have all been refuted. As I've shown, the designers know when to make use of cross references and do so appropriately. Both Mark of Justice and Geas do so.
Why does lesser geas include BE in its exceptions clause but feeblemind does not? Why should both spells receive the same interpretation if they are worded differently? One is effected by BE, it says so. The other is not, it says so through omission. I'm not picking and choosing which text applies, I am reading the text together. You are ignoring examples, such as geas, lesser geas, and mark of justice, each of which show how spells are cross referenced.
It's not a conflict anymore than multiple sneak attacks is a conflict.
No, you haven't refuted my assertion that feeblemind meets the conditions of a spell break enchantment you can remove. You claim the list of ways to remove it is exclusive, I say in fact it is not, because it meets ANOTHER test of conditions, those listed under break enchantment. It's all in whether or not you take the specific list under feeblemind as a trump over the specific conditions under which break enchantment can work. I view break enchantment as the winner, just like in 3.0 mind blank beat discern location, EVEN THOUGH the wording of discern location did not mention mind blank as a means that would ward off the detection. And no different than the current problem of a high-level beguiler using an SR: Yes spell on a golem. It's all about deciding which condition trumps.
You can call it selective reading, but I disagree. I see one section of text that doesn't even admit the existence of break enchantment as a spell, which leads me back to checking what break enchantment itself says on the matter. If feeblemind SAID break enchantment doesn't work, and I ignored that, you'd have a point, but it does not say that, and in fact there are at least two other means of removing feeblemind that aren't listed just in the core rules (divine fiat, which nearly always work, and tricky use of clone). There's two other means that probably SHOULD work, the resurrection spells. There is room for more intepretations than your narrow view allows.
I don't what's so hard about seeing that. And it may come as a shock to you, but neither you nor I is the last word in rules, and we are in fact permitted to disagree on the proper reading of a rule. I'm certainly not willing to read a rule your way on your say no, nor buy a "refutation" that isn't a refutation at all. After all, for all I know you're the sort of newbie you were mocking in your past post.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Explain lesser geas.
I'm sorry you don't have a firm understanding of the rules of interpretation. One such rule is that you should read a document such that it the provisions are consistent. Feeblemind has an exclusion clause which does not mention BE. One interpretation is that BE controls, the other is that the exclusion clause. Lesser Geas has basically the same exclusion clause but does mention BE. The inference therefore must be made that the exclusion clause controls. Otherwise, you are reading provisions that do the same thing inconsistently.
That's the proper way to interpret a set of rules. I'm sorry it doesn't produce the answer you want, but it is the correct interpretation.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Explain lesser geas.
There's not actually anything needing to be explained there - it is considerate enough to remind you what works, even if it would be expected to. Break enchantment would be expected to work, but it also tells you it does. For regular geas, break enchantment would not be expected to work, it is also considerate to tell you that it will not(break enchantment only functions on spells of 5th level or less). I'd love to have text like that in feeblemind to make it crystal-clear what's supposed to happen, it's a shame the editing didn't catch that omission.
Sorry, but all I see with lesser geas and geas/quest is an example of how the rules should have been done for feeblemind. It just highlights the omission.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Explain lesser geas.There's not actually anything needing to be explained there - it is considerate enough to remind you what works, even if it would be expected to. Break enchantment would be expected to work, but it also tells you it does. For regular geas, break enchantment would not be expected to work, it is also considerate to tell you that it will not(break enchantment only functions on spells of 5th level or less). I'd love to have text like that in feeblemind to make it crystal-clear what's supposed to happen, it's a shame the editing didn't catch that omission.
So, because they don't have the text you are inserting it? Maybe I'm missing what the term "rules as written" means. I thought it meant the rules as they are actually written in the book as modified by errata, not the rules as they are actually written with such clarifying elements as Russ Taylor would like to see added. The words aren't there, regardless of what you believe the intent of the drafters to be.
Edit: DM fiat (aka divine fiat) is an exception to every rule and is irrelevant.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Maybe I'm missing what the term "rules as written" means. I thought it meant the rules as they are actually written in the book as modified by errata,
Speaking of which, has anyone checked to official errata to see if this has been clarified? It might render the entire arguement moot if it has been. Just curious.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
So, because they don't have the text you are inserting it? Maybe I'm missing what the term "rules as written" means. I thought it meant the rules as they are actually written in the book as modified by errata, not the rules as they are actually written with such clarifying elements as Russ Taylor would like to see added. The words aren't there, regardless of what you believe the intent of the drafters to be.
Let's see - according to Sebastian, I'm a newbie, adding rules to the game, and not playing the rules as written. Wow, that's a lot of accusations, whether implied or outright stated :)
For about the umpteenth time, nothing is being inserted ino the rules. It is a classic conflict of deciding which of two specific cases trump, and absent official guidance, it is not wrong to choose either specific case as the winner. Prior to the official ruling, it was not wrong to say that beguilers could overcome a golem's spell immunity. It was also not wrong to say they couldn't.
Your position boils down to saying that the list under feeblemind is meant to be exhaustive. Mine boils down to saying it is not, and that in fact there are other methods that can remove feeblemind already present in the rules. It's a judgement call which position you take, but neither one is inserting - or deleting - rules. Throwing out the "inserting rules" card amounts to attempting to force your position after your refutation has been rejected.