One of our players wants his rogue/sorcerer/arcane trickster to be able to use his at-will acid splash cantrip as a utility spell of sorts, using it to slowly and silently eat away at anything from rope, to locks, to manacles.
Now, it does a measly 1d3 damage, which will never get past the hardness of anything, and may even be halved beforehand (making non-combat applications positively useless). Using the blurb about certain energy types being more effective against certain materials, do you think it reasonable to say that acid ignores the hardness and deals full damage against things like metal and rope, but not things like glass?
Also, I heard that sneak attack now applies to constructs and undead...is it possible we could apply it to objects now too? That would go a long way towards helping the party trickster melt through locks, manacles, and the like.
The fact that acid splash is useless for this sort of thing is one of the reasons it's reasonably balanced as an infinite use ability. Otherwise characters would be hiring 1st level wizards to bore through mountains or melt castles with it.
I would base this on context. For things that should be handled by skills or other abilities (like opening locks), I feel this use of acid splash should not be allowed. But if this character wants to use acid splach to, at a distance, melt a rope so that falling object X hits person Y or causes a distraction, that's just tactically interesting enough for me to allow. Leave it flexible enough to encourage player creativity but keep it from becoming an easy way out. My view is that if it forwards the plot and makes rational sense, go for it.
As for sneak attack, that ability is about going for the soft, squishy, and painful parts of your opponent, and that doesn't really hold with objects.
I would base this on context. For things that should be handled by skills or other abilities (like opening locks), I feel this use of acid splash should not be allowed. But if this character wants to use acid splach to, at a distance, melt a rope so that falling object X hits person Y or causes a distraction, that's just tactically interesting enough for me to allow. Leave it flexible enough to encourage player creativity but keep it from becoming an easy way out. My view is that if it forwards the plot and makes rational sense, go for it.
As for sneak attack, that ability is about going for the soft, squishy, and painful parts of your opponent, and that doesn't really hold with objects.
I would HATE if a GM gave me this answer. It means that it can be used for my purpose in 1 context but not for the same purpose the next. I use it 1 place where it works, then when I think I can use it again it fails, or the other way where it fails, so I never try it again. I don't are which way is chosen, but choose 1 way or annother.
Personally, I would allow it to damage a lock but not destroy it easily, Acid will eat away at things, but it needs contact. Acid splash just doesn't stay around long enough to eat away at metals like that IMO. I think I would allow disable device checks to be made with it without needing tools, maybe at a slight bonus, but it would be obvious that acid was used.
I would base this on context. For things that should be handled by skills or other abilities (like opening locks), I feel this use of acid splash should not be allowed.I'm curious. Would you let someone wreck a lock (a typical lock, set into a door) with a pick?
This sounds like this would fall under "disable device". My beef with using acid splash to open locks is that it is an infinite use spell that would not require any detailed skill use to have the desired effect. Allowing the option to acid splash through any lock the character comes to takes away from disable device as a skill and also provides an easy out to locked doors whereas disable device still has some sense of the potential of failure.
I'm not sure why you specify "with a pick" here, I assume that characters using disable device to mess with locks in any way are using a pick of some sort, that's how it's done.
This sounds like this would fall under "disable device". My beef with using acid splash to open locks is that it is an infinite use spell that would not require any detailed skill use to have the desired effect. Allowing the option to acid splash through any lock the character comes to takes away from disable device as a skill and also provides an easy out to locked doors whereas disable device still has some sense of the potential of failure.I'm not talking about carefully triggering the lock with a tool. I'm talking about knocking the knob off a door or bashing a bolt out of a doorframe with a sledgehammer, or smashing the lock to a mass of twisted metal with a mining pick. (When I talk about a pick, I don't mean a lockpick; I mean a mining pick.) That's an infinite-use spell that anyone with a sledgehammer and some muscles can cast.
That also does more damage per swing that the acid splash can do at all.
I know precisely what the rules say. What I'm asking is if it sounds reasonable to allow.
Thanks for the input already provided.
I would HATE if a GM gave me this answer. It means that it can be used for my purpose in 1 context but not for the same purpose the next. I use it 1 place where it works, then when I think I can use it again it fails, or the other way where it fails, so I never try it again. I don't are which way is chosen, but choose 1 way or annother.
As a GM, any judgement call I make sets precedent for future actions. If I allow you to burn through a rope on one occasion, it will work every other time. If I don't, I will have a reason for it that goes beyond "I don't like it this time". Arbitrariness makes a bad GM, but so does inflexability. I would prefer my players ask about extreme situations like burning rope magically at a distance, they may get shot down a couple times for different things but more often someone will get to do something cool and creative. "Context" in this case does not mean the specific encounter, but the general situation.
Me, I'd give the acid splash a situational bonus for most of this stuff.
Want to break open a door? +2 situational bonus if you weaken what bits you can get at, first.
Trying to pick the lock and not concerned about using it in the future? +4 situational bonus (which may not always apply, depending on the lock)
That also does more damage per swing that the acid splash can do at all.This sounds like this would fall under "disable device". My beef with using acid splash to open locks is that it is an infinite use spell that would not require any detailed skill use to have the desired effect. Allowing the option to acid splash through any lock the character comes to takes away from disable device as a skill and also provides an easy out to locked doors whereas disable device still has some sense of the potential of failure.I'm not talking about carefully triggering the lock with a tool. I'm talking about knocking the knob off a door or bashing a bolt out of a doorframe with a sledgehammer, or smashing the lock to a mass of twisted metal with a mining pick. (When I talk about a pick, I don't mean a lockpick; I mean a mining pick.) That's an infinite-use spell that anyone with a sledgehammer and some muscles can cast.
It also makes lots of noise that attracts all the bad guys you were trying to sneak past by picking/attempting to melt the lock quietly in the first place. *evil grin*
It also makes lots of noise that attracts all the bad guys you were trying to sneak past by picking/attempting to melt the lock quietly in the first place. *evil grin*"Hey guys, what's that hissing? And that acrid smell?"
I can see that. It's not how I would do it (I would still prefer a skill roll be involved), but I can see that being a legitimate way of handling the situation. I imagined the mage in question melting through lock after lock consequence free.
I'd only permit it for fairly basic locks, too. Presumably in a world where acid splash is a constant issue, good lock designers would take it into account.
I limited this kind of thing by doing a house rule on orisons and cantrips. I liked the whole 3 + ability modifier per day so I made them that way. I have never really liked unlimiited resources. So my casters still have roughly (6 to 8) castings of each cantrip or orison per day.
Now I know this does not help anyone still using RAW. But I felt there were quite a few too useful spells to have at will that seemed to break immersion for my games.
It's really weak acid. It's not the stuff you see used in James Bond movies (unless they don't have strong acid in James Bond movies). It's weak.
If the stuff has any hardness, you won't get far. It's little more than pouring Coke on something.
slowly and silently
It is slow, but it is certainly not silent. An arcance trickster only gets limited uses of his tricky spells ability, after that it makes noise, and considering how slow acid splash is, he'll run out of uses of tricky spells before he can melt through much.
The verbal component aside I see nothing wrong with allowing it to do the 1 damage per casting to most objects. After all on something like a lock he could disable it, cast knock, smash it with an adamantine weapon, or spend all sorts of loud and tedius time casting acid splash over and over and over again.
Allow me a trip down memory lane to better facilitate the 2cp I intend to add to this discussion.
I was running my first game, which tried to use a lot of fantasy cliches and turn them on their ear, and the party had to rescue a princess from a tower. I had a whole encounter planned where, as they climbed up the tower using elven rope they had to hide and move silently to avoid detection by the guards or be fired upon. The third level sorcerer trumped my plans by summoning a giant bombardier beetle and casting invisibility on it. The summoned creature reached the top of the tower, spat acid on the bars of the window to the cell the princess was imprisoned in, and flew her back down.
Now sure I could have taken the time to look up how acid reacts with metal, calculate hardness, make my player make damage checks vs. the metal bars, and been a hardass in regards to the carrying capacity of the beetle. But you know what? It was a clever use of the spells he had chosen, and a smart way to think out of the box I as a DM had tried to pen them into.
So it has to do with the situation and context. If the character had decided he wanted to use that trick to bore into a dragon's lair, or started abusing his clever strategy I'd quickly say no. A character trying to make a living by Acid Splash alone is a bad idea. A character using Acid Splash in a pinch to burn through his binds, or to etch his name in his gear for when the Rogue inevitably pinches it would be fine and indeed encouraged by me.
slowly and silentlyIt is slow, but it is certainly not silent. An arcance trickster only gets limited uses of his tricky spells ability, after that it makes noise, and considering how slow acid splash is, he'll run out of uses of tricky spells before he can melt through much.
The verbal component aside I see nothing wrong with allowing it to do the 1 damage per casting to most objects. After all on something like a lock he could disable it, cast knock, smash it with an adamantine weapon, or spend all sorts of loud and tedius time casting acid splash over and over and over again.
Obviously if it was allowed, melting a lock wouldn't be perfect in every situation (such as one that required expediancy).
As for the verbal component...
"A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast."
There is such a thing as a "strong whisper." Essentially, you can't mis-speak, have the hiccups, stutter, etc. You are most certainly not required to shout out a verbal component of a spell.
There is such a thing as a "strong whisper." Essentially, you can't mis-speak, have the hiccups, stutter, etc. You are most certainly not required to shout out a verbal component of a spell.
So, if PCs can whisper the verbal components of their spells, whenever they need to be sneaky, then what precisely is the function of the Silent Spell metamagic feat, as you see it? Why would a PC ever need it?
There is such a thing as a "strong whisper." Essentially, you can't mis-speak, have the hiccups, stutter, etc. You are most certainly not required to shout out a verbal component of a spell.So, if PCs can whisper the verbal components of their spells, whenever they need to be sneaky, then what precisely is the function of the Silent Spell metamagic feat, as you see it? Why would a PC ever need it?
Casting under the effect of a silence spell or gagged for example.
And I might add, though I'm not sure if it would work, cast spells undewater without need of a concentration check. For non water breathing creatures, that is.
Is that really how you play Spellcasting?
I have always assumed, and always played that Spellcasting requires speaking at volume levels at least as high as a normal conversation.
In my opinion, any PC who insists on trying to whisper the verbal components of a spell should at least roll a spell failure chance (say 50%), since they are not spellcasting right. But then again, I've never heard anyone seriously put forward a "strong whispering" arguement with regards to spellcasting.
Casting inside a field of magical silence, casting while gagged, casting while being closely observed (still+silent=woah, where'd that spell come from!)There is such a thing as a "strong whisper." Essentially, you can't mis-speak, have the hiccups, stutter, etc. You are most certainly not required to shout out a verbal component of a spell.So, if PCs can whisper the verbal components of their spells, whenever they need to be sneaky, then what precisely is the function of the Silent Spell metamagic feat, as you see it? Why would a PC ever need it?
Casting while using silent + still provokes attacks of opportunity so the fact that you casting is not hidden if you are being observed.
Well, I'd say that standing still and concentrating while staring off into the distance would provoke an AoO when someone's swinging a sword at your face (as you're not actively defending yourself), but the same action would not necessarily be obvious spellcasting or provocative.
I agree.
Also, if my GM ruled that whispering was trickier to do (such as if he gave me a 20% chance of screwing it up--as if I was deafened) I would be fine with that. 50% seems a little harsh though.
My point was that, since whispering would allow you to do something that a feat covers (and imposes a +1 level cost), that there needs to be a drawback.
50 % spell failure was a completely arbitrary number- halfway between all right, go for it and no way, you can't fo it. Your DM ruling it at 20% spell failure, seems pretty reasonable.
This is just me personally, but I feel that not allowing magical acid to damage most objects would be very silly.
It's really weak acid. It's not the stuff you see used in James Bond movies (unless they don't have strong acid in James Bond movies). It's weak.
If the stuff has any hardness, you won't get far. It's little more than pouring Coke on something.
While I respect the rights of GMing, my personal opinion, with metals and such, this is way too wide open for abuse, and I have seen it attempted.
If this was the case, wouldn't it be arguable that every time you hit an armored foe, the acid would damage the armor (ranged touch ignoring armor, think full plate and a toch ac 10)? What's to stop this from affecting all metals? Should it work like a whip vs armor?
As a GM, any judgement call I make sets precedent for future actions. If I allow you to burn through a rope on one occasion, it will work every other time. If I don't, I will have a reason for it that goes beyond "I don't like it this time". Arbitrariness makes a bad GM, but so does inflexability. I would prefer my players ask about extreme situations like burning rope magically at a distance, they may get shot down a couple times for different things but more often someone will get to do something cool and creative. "Context" in this case does not mean the specific encounter, but the general situation.
I totally agree with consistancy... this breaks the game a bit much. Most the time when uing acid it doesn't just disolve it into air. If you have ever watched mythbusters, a little pea shoter vs a lock can make it worse as moving parts no longer operate. It takes a bigger gun to do that. Acid arrow? Yes. Acid splash? versus paper and such only.
I would increase the DC of the lock to pick after a shot to the keyhole, but reduce it to be smashed off. Also, it's a bit unbalanced to have acid splash do a bunch of stuff ray of frost can't. Both being level 0 spells.
I guess it really comes down to your players and if they're munchiners.
Strong voice means strong voice. Not whisper.
Plus, a strong whisper is what clueless wives use when they can't find their place in the cinema and try not to disrupt the film.
This is just me personally, but I feel that not allowing magical acid to damage most objects would be very silly.
There's magic acid, and there's magic acid. What we have here is a cantrip that does very little damage. More a nuisance, really.
While I respect the rights of GMing, my personal opinion, with metals and such, this is way too wide open for abuse, and I have seen it attempted.It's really weak acid. It's not the stuff you see used in James Bond movies (unless they don't have strong acid in James Bond movies). It's weak.
If the stuff has any hardness, you won't get far. It's little more than pouring Coke on something.
Did you quote the wrong person? Somehow the quote and your answer don't fit really well.
There's magic acid, and there's magic acid. What we have here is a cantrip that does very little damage. More a nuisance, really.
It's enough damage to kill someone with a few shots.
Now, you COULD say that it's a special acid that eats away flesh rapidly but does nothing to metal. But why? I just don't understand why someone would think that 1d3 points of damage to a non-magical object is too powerful by any frame of reference. This is exactly the kind of little thing that magic should be able to do.
The rules are quite clear.
Objects have hardness, and most energies are halved against most objects, with special exceptions.
Arguably, acid should do full damage against metals, not that it matters for d3 damage. (I've seen variant rules for particularly thin materials having less hardness, but that doesn't seem to be core)
There's just not enough acid, or strong enough, to make much headway. Much the same as taking a letteropener and trying to chip through a door.
A letteropener can hurt a person a lot easier than it can hurt a wooden door.
Acid also hurts creatures with a high natural armor bonus to AC such as dragons, and constructs(sometimes made of metal or stone).
I am sure they are tougher than some locks.
Just saying.
The rules are quite clear.
Objects have hardness, and most energies are halved against most objects, with special exceptions.
Arguably, acid should do full damage against metals, not that it matters for d3 damage. (I've seen variant rules for particularly thin materials having less hardness, but that doesn't seem to be core)
There's just not enough acid, or strong enough, to make much headway. Much the same as taking a letteropener and trying to chip through a door.
A letteropener can hurt a person a lot easier than it can hurt a wooden door.
But they're awesome against envelopes!!!
Seriously, I don't get the big deal - the rules are pretty clear how this should work (badly), if a DM wants to houserule it, go ahead but the consequences are pretty obvious too (melting locks, doors, etc - given lots of time). Nothing that's going to break your campaign I think.
Kakarasa wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
It's really weak acid. It's not the stuff you see used in James Bond movies (unless they don't have strong acid in James Bond movies). It's weak.If the stuff has any hardness, you won't get far. It's little more than pouring Coke on something.
While I respect the rights of GMing, my personal opinion, with metals and such, this is way too wide open for abuse, and I have seen it attempted.
Did you quote the wrong person? Somehow the quote and your answer don't fit really well.
No, Kakarasa is right, giving the characters an access to Coke gives them the opportunity to sell it for billions. Way too open for abuse!
I'm repeating myself, but I think locks and similar things (like door hinges, if they are accessible) is simply a great opportunity to give a circumstance bonus.
Personally, I have no problem giving a circumstance bonus every time the players have enough time to make a few applications of acid or cold (since ray of frost should also have some benefit!) to weaken locks or door hinges or whatnot.
Strong voice means strong voice. Not whisper.
Agreed, strong voice =/= strong whisper. Besides that a strong whisper is almost the same db as a normal speaking tone, someone on the other side of the door or down the hall is going to have a chance to hear it unless theres significant background noise.
Hearing the details of a normal conversation is DC 0 and a whispered conversation is DC 15. Now a strong whisper is louder than a regular whisper and the person just needs to hear some of the noise to be alerted, not make out the details of what you are saying, so figure the starting DC is around 5ish. Pretend you're trying to melt the lock to someones room, they're asleep (+10), on the other side of the door (+5), and about 20' feet away (+2). That gives them a DC 22 perception check to notice you casting a spell, every time you do it, so anyone with a few ranks in perception will eventually notice someone casting spells outside thier door, even while asleep.
It's enough damage to kill someone with a few shots.
My fist does enough damage to kill someone with a few hits....
Now, you COULD say that it's a special acid that eats away flesh rapidly but does nothing to metal. But why?
Because of the hardness and the half energy damage to objects.
I just don't understand why someone would think that 1d3 points of damage to a non-magical object is too powerful by any frame of reference.
It's not too much. After all, with hardness and so on, nothing will be left. Nothing is rarely too much.
That's why their HP totals are higher, to reflect their durability. =PAcid also hurts creatures with a high natural armor bonus to AC such as dragons, and constructs(sometimes made of metal or stone).
I am sure they are tougher than some locks.
Just saying.
Wouldn't higher durability mean the monster should be harder to hurt o_O?
I hope I used the correct emoticon.
Meh... I give... I will refrain from making arguements early in the morning after having a teething baby all night. After rereading my post fully awake, I was like, I wrote this? shrugs
I guess the real thing I was miffed about was that I had a player I gave an inch with this and he tried to take a mile. Everyone occasionally has to deal with disruptive players, and this seemed like a bit of a catalyst to me... that's all.
It's your game, but it sounds to me like you gave him a tool and he used it creatively.
What about the player's behavior do you feel was disruptive? And, whatever it was, would it have been less disruptive if he had been simply trying to do the same sorts of things with a sledge hammer?
Ugghhh... the post sent me to the main page... and it's gone... to summarize...
I have no problem with a player substituting spells for tools, but this guy tried to out do the other classes when they were trying to perform their roles with his acid splash. If he got to a lock before the rogue, he shotit with an acid splash, damaging the lock. This took away one of the rogues favorite thing - openning locks. He did this kinda thing for all the other classes. He refused to work with them solving a dilema and instead competed with them. He argued with anything I said concerning the spell that didn't help him out. This took away from playing time and pissed off the other players.
Everybody wants to be able to shine or be cool once in a while, but when someone is showboating for all the attention and stealing your characters role (instead of a ssisting, which I'd be fine with) it gets pretty annoying. Let alone the fact that there are limits to munchining before there's not a point in playing. I don't mind having a little competition occassionally, but out and out rivalry can be abnoxious and get a team killed.
It's really weak acid. It's not the stuff you see used in James Bond movies (unless they don't have strong acid in James Bond movies). It's weak.
If the stuff has any hardness, you won't get far. It's little more than pouring Coke on something.
Oh, come on. Splashing Coke on a random passerby doesn't deal any damage to them whatsoever, but casting acid splash on a random level 1 Commoner does. Acid splash is demonstrably much stronger than Coke.
I have always assumed, and always played that Spellcasting requires speaking at volume levels at least as high as a normal conversation.
And you've been playing it correctly. The rules are explicit that spellcasting cannot be hidden. If you're spellcasting and not using feats or class abilities (Silent Spell, Still Spell, etc) that say otherwise, everything around you knows that you're casting a spell.
Ugghhh... the post sent me to the main page... and it's gone... to summarize...
I have no problem with a player substituting spells for tools, but this guy tried to out do the other classes when they were trying to perform their roles with his acid splash. If he got to a lock before the rogue, he shotit with an acid splash, damaging the lock. This took away one of the rogues favorite thing - openning locks. He did this kinda thing for all the other classes. He refused to work with them solving a dilema and instead competed with them. He argued with anything I said concerning the spell that didn't help him out. This took away from playing time and pissed off the other players.
Everybody wants to be able to shine or be cool once in a while, but when someone is showboating for all the attention and stealing your characters role (instead of a ssisting, which I'd be fine with) it gets pretty annoying. Let alone the fact that there are limits to munchining before there's not a point in playing. I don't mind having a little competition occassionally, but out and out rivalry can be abnoxious and get a team killed.
Yea, that's definitely disruptive behavior on his part.
Discovering a new toy (that you didn't know you had) is fun, melting locks with acid is cool, and in that situation (where you feel like you've found some sweet exploit for destroying objects) it's easy to overdo it. Though, like I implied earlier, he probably could have done the exact same things with a hammer if he'd really wanted to.
Hopefully he'll simmer down and realize that melting every problem he comes across is neither in his character's best interest nor conductive to a fun session.
Hopefully he'll simmer down and realize that melting every problem he comes across is neither in his character's best interest nor conductive to a fun session.
How are more character options and demonstrative creativity NOT in his character's best interest or conductive to a fun situation?
When a GM so readily smashes a player's creative ideas, they reduce the possibility he will come up with more, which is a sad, sad thing to be doing in roleplaying.
]How are more character options and demonstrative creativity NOT in his character's best interest or conductive to a fun situation?
I wasn't saying take the option away.
To answer your question, damaging a lock that the thief could have picked is usually a dumb idea, and also disrupts the fun of the person playing the thief.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Wouldn't higher durability mean the monster should be harder to hurt?
Durable = Ability to take punishment. HP totals are an abstract reflection of how tough something is; how many times it can dodge a sword before one strikes something vital, how long it can survive immersed in acid or molten metal, how many Scorching Rays can hit it before its skin is burned off.
Besides, if you're using Acid splash on the Tarrasque, (or any monster with more than 5 HD, really) you're going to be dead very soon.