|
The height of a puddle of water is 4.5 mm (0.177165354 inches) not 1.0 cm (0.393700787 inches)...that might make the math work better.
That applies only to polymer substrates. Polymers also have a low coefficient of friction(CoF). That means it is easier for liquids to spread out and make larger shallower puddles. Since most floors will not be polymers and will have higher CoF then water will not spread as widely or thinly as on a polymer. We can use the polymer example as a low end value for puddle depth therefore approximately 1/6th of an inch is a shallow puddle. I came up with 1/8th of an inch just spreading out 2 gallons across 5x5 square. Which would cover less than the whole square based upon our benchmark.
A 2nd level caster would give us four gallons and 1/4 inch depth if confined to a 5x5 square. So a 2nd level caster would be the minimum required for one square. To cover a 10x10 space at 1/6th of an inch we would need 10 gallons or a 5th level caster.
To be honest we likely need to bump each of those numbers up to reflect a higher CoF for floors like stone, wood, dirt and the like. This would likely be only good for one round as these floors would start to absorb the water or let it drain off to lower levels.
|
@ Stabbity, those are specific counters.
Many spells list an explicit counter just for DMs like you who assume that magic cannot be countered by the mundane; not every single spell must enumerate the obvious.
Does there need to be a rule to say you can't take actions when you're dead? No, because it's supposed to be obvious. You're supposed to apply common sense (or, lacking that, some form of case-by-case judgement). Why should the assumption of common sense not be applied to magic? Do you need to have a line that says a curtain can block (some) light from dancing lights? No, because it's obvious. Do you need to have a line that says you can cover up a visible arcane mark with clothing? No, because it's obvious (though detect magic could still see it, I suppose.)
And sure, there may be some non-obvious counters, but this is a game where creativity is meant to be rewarded. That's part of the DM's job.
There are other things in your post I might argue (given that they go against explicit terminology in the discussed spell), but I felt the above was a bit more important.
TL;DR - Spells list explicit counters as examples of the obvious (such as "a creature that can fly generally doesn't fall."), not as the sole possible examples of a counter.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
not to derail the discussion Jiggy, but where is the AC for an attack against a square. I've been using this (AC 5) for a while and just resently got called on it when I was using my Alchemist to bomb an empty square and splash several bad guys - and the Judge pointed out that I had to target an intersection or a creature... I'd love to target squares again.
Well, in context of my comment, the item description for the 1cp powder sack thingie specifically says that you throw it into a square and treat it as an attack against AC 5.
However, the rules for splash weapons let you either target a creature (or presumably an object) or a grid intersection. The intersection is at AC 5.
EDIT: Splash weapon rules are in the combat chapter.
|
not to derail the discussion Jiggy, but where is the AC for an attack against a square. I've been using this (AC 5) for a while and just resently got called on it when I was using my Alchemist to bomb an empty square and splash several bad guys - and the Judge pointed out that I had to target an intersection or a creature... I'd love to target squares again.You know, for a single copper you can buy a little pouch of powder. You can throw it into a square as an attack against AC 5, and a hit tells you whether or not there's an invisible creature in that square (the 50% miss chance still applies).
I, for one, am okay with a cantrip being as powerful as a copper piece.
You target an intersection, but the AC is still 5.
From the PRD (combat section, throw splash weapon):
You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. You can't target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you're aiming at the creature.
.
This is not the most efficient use of an alchemist bomb, since the splash damage is only the minimum damage that the bomb could do), but you can do it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Kind of a silly rule, if you think about it: If there are 9 creatures standing in a grid formation, you can hit the middle one and splash all the rest. But if there are 8 creatures in the same formation but with the center empty, the most you can hit is 5 creatures (by targeting top, bottom, left or right and splashing four others).
All of which take at least a full-round action. And could well be considered 'tucking' as per the spell description. Otherwise, I completely agree. As for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen that was a good movie.
Master Arminas
Well, unstrapping a shield from your arm is (IIRC) a move action, so I would assume the same for something like a cloak. (Obviously a more "involved" piece of clothing like pants would be slower to remove.)
If you ask my wife, getting pants off is actually a swift action... (and I'm sorry for the useless comment, sorta)
|
|
Well, unstrapping a shield from your arm is (IIRC) a move action, so I would assume the same for something like a cloak. (Obviously a more "involved" piece of clothing like pants would be slower to remove.)
This item from the book Cheliax, Empire of Devils, has a standard action to reverse the cloak. Move to take off and drop sounds reasonable.
Internet
Water alone can foil invisibility, so creative use of the Create Water spell should be able to foil it in the same manner as water.
This. There are multiple non-magical methods for foiling invisibility. Regular water, a bag of flour, dust, etc. I really don't have a problem with create water being able to foil it as well.
If you ask my wife, getting pants off is actually a swift action... (and I'm sorry for the useless comment, sorta)
Who's action and who's pants?!?