|
I have a crafty player in my AoW campaign (18th level currently) who has tried some things w/ this spell.
I need some help on how it's suppose to actually work.
This is what he's done on various scenarios:
1)
Made the spell in ring shape over a gargantuan creature. He indicated it should be taking double damage since the blades are whirling around and slicing into to him twice with each revolution (near the head and again near the back).
2)
Made the ring so that huge creature has one end of the ring going through him towards the back of the creature, but creature is backed against the wall; in the spell's description it says that when the spell is cast a reflex save allows the creature to move to one side or the other of the ring, but the only way it could move would be forward to be in front of the ring, and if it move to the "other side" of the portion of the ring that was hitting it (which would result with most of the creature inside the ring) the creature would then be in the AoE of the front part of the ring. (The creature was so big that it couldn't fit inside.) The player insisted that the creature would move out of the back part of the ring and land into the front part of the ring. Thus even with a save, the creature would still not be able to avoid damage. I argued that the creature would be allowed to move (with the successful save) all the way to in front (or to the side if it were possible) of the front part of the ring avoiding it and the damage completely.
3)
Place a ring in a way so that a creature was force to intersect both ends of the ring (for instance readying to cast in front of a flying creature that had little manueverability to avoid moving out of the way) and taking double damage because it had to intersect the blades twice (again at opposite ends).
Thoughts?
Robert
|
1) If a creature is larger than the Ring and is in it twice as it were they only make their save once per round for the whole spell. No matter how much of the creature is in the spell effect it is a single spell effect, not multiple ones.
2) Unfortunately the creature won't be able to jump to one side due to it's size. Make the save each round it is in the effect till you can get out.
3) Yeah if you pass through one end then another that is a double whammy. I'm guessing you're still playing 3.5, because in pathfinder even the most clumbsy creature has a chance to Hover with a DC 15 fly check.
--Vrocket Ship
1 - If the barrier appears on a creature, then they take damage as if passing through the wall. Someone passing through the barrier takes damage once.
2 - The creature gets a reflex save to avoid the wall entirely, if that is somehow impossible then the creature would still get a reflex save for half damage.
3 - The spells description is a little lacking here. The wording can be interpreted both ways.
3A. "Passing through the wall" means passing through the wall as a whole, and thus you only have to make one save for damage per round.
3B. "Passing through the wall" means each time you cross the blade barrier, and thus if you had to cross a BB multiple times you would take damage each time.
I believe 3A is probably the correct interpretation otherwise you can get sillyness like if I pass though the barrier twice I have to make 2 saves, but if I go into the barrier, then run along the inside of the barrier before going out the other side I only have to make 1 save.
|
|
I have a crafty player in my AoW campaign (18th level currently) who has tried some things w/ this spell.
I need some help on how it's suppose to actually work.
This is what he's done on various scenarios:
1)
Made the spell in ring shape over a gargantuan creature. He indicated it should be taking double damage since the blades are whirling around and slicing into to him twice with each revolution (near the head and again near the back).2)
Made the ring so that huge creature has one end of the ring going through him towards the back of the creature, but creature is backed against the wall; in the spell's description it says that when the spell is cast a reflex save allows the creature to move to one side or the other of the ring, but the only way it could move would be forward to be in front of the ring, and if it move to the "other side" of the portion of the ring that was hitting it (which would result with most of the creature inside the ring) the creature would then be in the AoE of the front part of the ring. (The creature was so big that it couldn't fit inside.) The player insisted that the creature would move out of the back part of the ring and land into the front part of the ring. Thus even with a save, the creature would still not be able to avoid damage. I argued that the creature would be allowed to move (with the successful save) all the way to in front (or to the side if it were possible) of the front part of the ring avoiding it and the damage completely.3)
Place a ring in a way so that a creature was force to intersect both ends of the ring (for instance readying to cast in front of a flying creature that had little manueverability to avoid moving out of the way) and taking double damage because it had to intersect the blades twice (again at opposite ends).Thoughts?
Robert
My thoughts are this.
DO NOT MIX PHYSICS WITH ROLEPLAY.
1) The spell allows a save for half damage or negates if he summons it onto a creature. By RAW, if the creature makes the save it either takes half damage or get's to move outside of the ring, depending upon the circumstance.
2)By RAW, you ruled correctly.
3)Actually, in the flying rules, his technique would only work if he did it as a readied action so that it would happen during the flying creature's turn. Otherwise, this statement will hose his technique by RAW:
At the beginning of the next turn, you can move in a different direction than you did the previous turn without making a check.
This means if he summoned the wall in front of the flying creature it would be able to simply fly a different direction to avoid the wall.
1) Player is wrong. Target should make a save and either avoid damage or take damage once.
2) "I argued that the creature would be allowed to move (with the successful save) all the way to in front (or to the side if it were possible) of the front part of the ring avoiding it and the damage completely." You are correct and the player is wrong. If the creature makes it's save it gets to move to the side it wants and take now damage.
3) This is a tricky call. It really depends on how an individual DM would rule it. I could see it go either way, since the RAW state: "Any creature passing through the wall takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 15d6), with a Reflex save for half damage.", implying a creature who goes through a wall than crosses it again must save twice. The trick here is setting it up to force the creature to cross the wall twice. In any case, the creature should get a save each time.
IMO this player is trying to twist the rules of the game.
Another way to look at number 3.
A player can stand inside a blade barrier for an entire round and they only take damage once, but if they cross the barrier twice somehow they take more damage than if they stand inside it?
There is no situation where a ring of blades would do double damage.
That would be like claiming a fireball should do qaudruple damage on a 10 by 10 creature.
Awww, shucks, I read the OP and this was my first thought too. That, and using the "the ring hits a big creature twice" argument should work with melee weapons too "When I hit a big creature, a lot more of my sword's blade hits him, so I should do extra damage."
The game rules don't take this stuff into account. Your player is clever, and "logically" he might even be right, but the rules don't support his argument. As a DM, you could say "Gee, that's clever, I'll let that work so I can reward such cleverness" which is entirely within your right, but you run the risk of trivializing those encounters.
(An oger has 2x as many HP as a bugbear, but if our swords can do 2x the damage to him, and our fireballs can do 4x the damage, those HP will be gone super fast and the fight will be as easy as killing a bugbear - but the XP and treasure will be better than the xp/treasure of a bugbear).
Besides, we tarrasques would never stand a chance against wizards if we had to take 36x the normal damage from a Cone of Cold because we are so big...
And finaly, the best answer to give your player is "Yeah, that makes sense, but if we do that, then the game mechanics break down and encounters stop being challenging and the game loses its balance and fun-factor, so for the sake of the game, I can't allow it and I'll have to stick to the RAW".
And if he doesn't like that answer, then this one is excellent:
My thoughts are this.
DO NOT MIX PHYSICS WITH ROLEPLAY.
Finally, if it were me, I wouldn't go with the extra damage, but I might, just might, allow that really clever placement can increase the DR of the save. Maybe making these rings to hit the enemy in two body locations instead of just one might be worth a +2 on the save DC.
Except against tarrasques, when I would punish the player for cheesy rules-lawyering and cause the spell to fail entirely. And then I would him immediately.
This has always annoyed me. The rules simply don't take size into account for effect.
As stated earlier, if I fire off a fireball and cover 36 boxes, and that happens to be in the middle of a horde of orcs, then 36 orcs take damage (half or full).
If I fire off a fireball that completely covers the 9 hexes a black dragon is in, and the other 27 hexes are filled with his kobold minions, he takes damage once, and the kobolds do as well, same as the orcs. But the kobolds and the dragon take the same damage despite the dragon being exposed to the spell multiple times.
One solution I've done in the past is add one die of damage for each additional square the creature takes up, up to doubling the damage from the attack. It's not 36x damage, but it does give you a boost on damage up to 2x, which seems a fair method of solution. It's a house rule of course.
You could handle the blade barrier the same way. Add another die of damage if the wall interacts with him more than once simultaneously.
On a similar note, how would you everyone rule the following setup :
Wizard casts blade barrier around himself, so he's got a barrier in all boxes around him (but not the one he's in). A defensive barrier.
Now, the dragon attacks through the barrier using reach 3 times (two claws and a bite). Should he take damage once, or damage once for each time he attacks through the barrier?
Personally, I usually rule once per attack, since he is reaching through the barrier 3 times. If he'd moved into the barrier and attacked up close, then I'd only do one attack, but he'd get one attack at the beginning of each round after that, for staying in the barrier.
|
|
Personally, I usually rule once per attack, since he is reaching through the barrier 3 times. If he'd moved into the barrier and attacked up close, then I'd only do one attack, but he'd get one attack at the beginning of each round after that, for staying in the barrier.
Neither.
It does provide a cover bonus +4 to AC and +2 to Reflex saves, but does not damage attacks made through it.
Like someone said above - while it may makes sense realistically, as rules are written for the purpose of the game, attacking through something doesn't cause damage - only moving through it.
Robert
Personally, I usually rule once per attack, since he is reaching through the barrier 3 times. If he'd moved into the barrier and attacked up close, then I'd only do one attack, but he'd get one attack at the beginning of each round after that, for staying in the barrier.Neither.
It does provide a cover bonus +4 to AC and +2 to Reflex saves, but does not damage attacks made through it.
Like someone said above - while it may makes sense realistically, as rules are written for the purpose of the game, attacking through something doesn't cause damage - only moving through it.
Robert
Meh,
Got my spells mixed up. I was thinking of Ring of Blades from the Spell Compendium.