So, its perfectly fine to be completely trapped under 60ft (feet worth of water pressure (and even more is allowed for), but a little fallng water from a waterfall ruins the spell?
I'm not sure how you jumped to those conclusions. it's not the water pressure that would prevent him from rising to the top, the water would simply be falling faster than 60ft per round wouldn't you think?
as for disputing his spell.
look up concentration Dc's.
Vigorous motion while casting 10 + spell level
Violent motion while casting 15 + spell level
Extremely violent motion while casting 20 + spell level
Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level.
i think standing under a waterfall would be more severe than wind with rain. but you can run it however you wish in your game.
|
So, its perfectly fine to be completely trapped under 60ft (feet worth of water pressure (and even more is allowed for), but a little fallng water from a waterfall ruins the spell?I'm not sure how you jumped to those conclusions. it's not the water pressure that would prevent him from rising to the top, the water would simply be falling faster than 60ft per round wouldn't you think?
It may be he was simply borne to the conclusions, and didn't jump at all.
Hmm.
Anyway, regarding the pressure, there's a difference between the equal pressure applied gradually as a result of sinking in water and the directed pressure of hundreds or thousands of gallons of water crashing down on your head.
Which is why, when given a choice between having a 16 lb. bowling ball placed at rest on their head or dropped from a 50 foot building MOST people would choose the former. Same weight, drastically different effect on the body.
I imagine spellcasting gets a bit tougher if you're directly underneath a waterfall, waving your hands while trying to stay properly oriented in all that churning water would be pretty tough, much less breathing so you could get the verbal components out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd allow it.
Look at this asproblem resolution in an adventure. You have a waterfall that needs to be bypassed. The player has options (go a different way, fly up, climb on the side of it, etc).
He decides to pick using up a limited resource (a spell) in an inventive way.
The internal GM questions i ask are: is it breaking CR? Does it set dangerous slippery slope precedence? No? Time for the high five and move on with the story.
It's a third level spell to bypass a waterfall. The wizard would just cast fly. I'm inclined to let the spell that masters traversing water master a waterfall. It's not more powerful than the other similar level options and thematically appropriate.
|
|
It's a third level spell to bypass a waterfall. The wizard would just cast fly. I'm inclined to let the spell that masters traversing water master a waterfall. It's not more powerful than the other similar level options and thematically appropriate.
Although it's a divine spell instead of arcane, and at least some of the reason they're split the way they are is to not give one type of caster access to everything.
Wizards fly and sling fireballs, Clerics have more hp's and heal and wear armor, etc.
It's definitely not game-breaking since players at that level have access to Fly so you should be accounting for it...
Still, when a player comes prepared with a mile long list of "reasons this would work" it smacks of "trying to win the game" instead of just playing, and that always gets me a bit irritated.
|
Okay, first let me say this. There may have been some spirited discussions at the table but it delayed the game only five or ten minutes. There was a lot of laughing and nobody was offended or angry (in case my write up of the example describes a horrible gaming experience or something)...the quotes in the dialog are not exact, and have been embellished to make them funnier. The GM and player have known each other for a long time and often enjoy pulling rabbits out of their hats...for fun! Yes I believe it was a tier 6-7 game.
I think the consensus is:
1) You can't just walk up a waterfall like walking up a wall unless you use a rope and make climb checks or have something like spider climb.
2) You might be able to use it as an elevator depending on the leniency of the GM.
I don't think the player is trying to "pull a fast one" for later, as he'll soon be level 7/1 cleric/fighter and have airwalk for future situations. I believe the context of the battle was, they had to get up to the top fast and the climb checks were too ridiculous for a platemail/towershield cleric to make and have a remote chance at engaging in combat.
Some of you have said, you simply _cannot_ reenter the water after casting the spell and if that's the case the water elemental's vortex wouldn't work, right? Some others have said it's not a spell of water repelling and nothing stops you from falling back into the water. In that case, the elemental could suck him down, then he'd bob back up on his round. Or if he fell from hundreds of feet into a pool of water it wouldn't be an impact like solid ground, but instead he'd sink a bit and then bob back to the top. I also would think in that case the player should be able to charge back into the falls.
Do these threads usually have a final resolution or do they stop when the conversation peters out?
I can't see this situation coming up very often, so it's really no big deal if it gets into the official FAQ.
Doc Brown
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was actually refereing to the earlier reasonings for why the spell wouldn't work in a waterfall, (the falling water would push you down fast than the spell, basically), but it doesn't matter.
As for the OP, you can request a FAQ or official responce (by the Reply button), take a grenral opinion, (no seems to be the more common answer), or just take whatever arguements you find most fitting.
Although it's a divine spell instead of arcane, and at least some of the reason they're split the way they are is to not give one type of caster access to everything.
Wizards fly and sling fireballs, Clerics have more hp's and heal and wear armor, etc.
It's definitely not game-breaking since players at that level have access to Fly so you should be accounting for it...
Still, when a player comes prepared with a mile long list of "reasons this would work" it smacks of "trying to win the game" instead of just playing, and that always gets me a bit irritated.
I'll concede there's often a difference between arcane and divine spells when it comes to the amount of power or function allowed at a given level. However, as you seem to agree, water walking gaining waterfall access still isn't in the realm of flying over everything.. it removes one extra unique obstacle.
Regarding you last comment, the player didn't sound "prepared" with a long list of reasons. I doubt the player would have known a waterfall was going to be in his near future. It sounds more like an on the spot inventive use of a spell on hand, and the back and forth was more "logic arguing" in response to the GMs responses.
From the follow up post from the OP, it sounds like the back and forth was good-natured anyways, so we can't read too much into that exchange.
|
I see it this way:
1. Does it allow you to walk up the waterfall? No way. Basically it turns the waterfall into a very slick surface that would require some monster Climb rolls. Heck, just trying to start up the wall would be a joke with the moving water at the base of the fall.
2. Does it allow you to use the waterfall as an elevator? Sure. If you can make a high enough swim check to get directly under the waterfall, more power to you. But that is going to be a very high DC and if the GM wants to be a jerk, you could say that he hits rocks on the way up. Finally, what happens if your entire body isn't covered in water on the way up. Most waterfalls are not more than a foot or so wide. Say you get 1/2 way up and part of your body touches the surface...pop, now you are on the outside of the waterfall falling to what is now the equivant to concrete below you. So in the end, unless the guy rolled a 20 on his Swim check, I say no.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Take: By RAW, water falls from the top of the cliff to the pool at the bottom on its turn. So take that distance, in feet, per round. If the PC's running speed is faster than that, he can run up the waterfall. If not, the downward vector component is greater than his vector perpendicular to the orientation of the falls, and he makes no progress. That's how I'd rule it in-game. So if the cleric has on medium armor, he can lumber up a 40-ft. waterfall (double move), but anything taller than that defeats his water walk. On the other hand, a monk with no armor and a 60-ft. move could run up a 240-ft. waterfall. Victoria Falls would be too tall of either of them.
More Importantly: Is it really worth it, arguing what's "realistic," or how a spell "actually" works, solely to prevent a PC from thinking outside the box a bit? It's not like this exploit is going to break the game -- more likely, the PC finds himself eaten by whatever lives at the top of the falls, and the rest of the party is helplessly stuck at the bottom, watching chunks of chewed companion fall down the falls that the guy just walked up.
As a player, some of the heavy-handed arguments here against it: "The falls are too slippery!" (never mind that "normal" water walking isn't!), etc. would send a VERY clear message to me as a player. They're the DM saying, without any ambiguity: "You're not here to think. You're here to follow my railroad. Any attempt to deviate from the path I set in front of you, I'm going to make up reasons why it won't work, so stop bucking the system and get back in line! You don't get a say in how the story unfolds -- you just get to sit back and listen to me tell you what happens. Occasionally, I might let you roll a die or something, but only if you're good."
|
|
I would say that he cannot climb the waterfall but he can use it as an elevator.
Of course, each round he spends under/in the waterfall, he will also take the damage of the falling water, which I would assess as a falling object of his Size but with lower density than stone (ie, half damage).
In other words, I am all for the creative use of spells but expect your actions to have realistic consequences.
|
|
I see it this way:
1. Does it allow you to walk up the waterfall? No way. Basically it turns the waterfall into a very slick surface that would require some monster Climb rolls. Heck, just trying to start up the wall would be a joke with the moving water at the base of the fall.
Or a very, very easy climb with all of its grooves and footholds, D.C.5. Why would you assume it would be slick and/or flat?
2. Does it allow you to use the waterfall as an elevator? Sure. If you can make a high enough swim check to get directly under the waterfall, more power to you. But that is going to be a very high DC and if the GM wants to be a jerk, you could say that he hits rocks on the way up. Finally, what happens if your entire body isn't covered in water on the way up. Most waterfalls are not more than a foot or so wide. Say you get 1/2 way up and part of your body touches the surface...pop, now you are on the outside of the waterfall falling to what is now the equivant to concrete below you. So in the end, unless the guy rolled a 20 on his Swim check, I say no.
The spell specifies partial submersion is just fine, so as long as a portion of the body is in the waterfall this would not happen. Secondly, the spell does not make the water a solid splattable serface. Falling would not hurt you at all. It is just treated as solid for traveling over it purposses, not all purposses.
More Importantly: Is it really worth it, arguing what's "realistic," or how a spell "actually" works, solely to prevent a PC from thinking outside the box a bit? . . .
As a player, some of the heavy-handed arguments here against it: "The falls are too slippery!" (never mind that "normal" water walking isn't!), etc. would send a VERY clear message to me as a player. They're the DM saying, without any ambiguity: "You're not here to think. You're here to follow my railroad. Any attempt to deviate from the path I set in front of you, I'm going to make up reasons why it won't work, so stop bucking the system and get back in line! You don't get a say in how the story unfolds -- you just get to sit back and listen to me tell you what happens. Occasionally, I might let you roll a die or something, but only if you're good."
It is not often that I agree with Kirth.
As a player, some of the heavy-handed arguments here against it: "The falls are too slippery!" (never mind that "normal" water walking isn't!), etc. would send a VERY clear message to me as a player. They're the DM saying, without any ambiguity: "You're not here to think. You're here to follow my railroad. Any attempt to deviate from the path I set in front of you, I'm going to make up reasons why it won't work, so stop bucking the system and get back in line! You don't get a say in how the story unfolds -- you just get to sit back and listen to me tell you what happens. Occasionally, I might let you roll a die or something, but only if you're good."
Talk about heavy handed...
So if a GM doesn't agree to some stunt you try, they are always secretly trying to "punish" you? If a GM did this for every tactic you tried I could understand, but if you propose a stupid idea your GM is right to state no.
So if a GM doesn't agree to some stunt you try, they are always secretly trying to "punish" you? If a GM did this for every tactic you tried I could understand, but if you propose a stupid idea your GM is right to state no.
Do try to respond to what I've said, not to a more extreme argument that wasn't made. In this case, you've ignored my very clear caveat that this particular exploit will in no way break the game.
In general, I try to adhere to this:
I do this to encourage creativity, and to underscore the nature of the game as a cooperative, rather than adversarial, pastime.
As far as this being a "stupid" idea? The entire game is "stupid" -- we're grown men and women moving dolls around a table and talking like fake Medieval folks. Given that scenario, no one person's opinion as to what constitutes "stupid" gets to apply to everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do try to respond to what I've said, not to a more extreme argument that wasn't made. In this case, you've ignored my very clear caveat that this particular exploit will in no way break the game.
My point is that you call out other posters as being heavy handed when you put out a ridiculous statement about GM's not allowing something means they are somehow against the player.
I actually follow a similar rule that you stated, but sometimes you just have to tell a player no.
As for the stupid comment, I agree I probably went to far with it. Apologies.
Part of the problem is that I've managed to hit two of my personal pet peeves in one: (1) railroad-y adventures that can't survive contact with actual players; and (2) DMs who go out of their way to ban perfectly level- and game-appropriate stuff, on the basis of it "not being realistic." So I probably came across a lot more emphatically than I needed to.
Can he walk up the waterfall? No more than he could walk up a sheer cliff or a wall.
Can he stand under the waterfall and float upward at 60 ft/ round until he's at the top? Sure thing. What makes the dm think the surface of the water is "the side away from the cliff"?
Ahh... but the drops in a waterfall are all moving DOWN. The water itself, is moving downward.
Therefore, whatever benefit would have been found in standing "on" the water, and using it as a platform to move upward, has to be mitigated by the opposite, downward flow of the water.
No, I don't believe he can stand on the side of the waterfall and walk upward, for the same reasons many others here don't: the spell/item does not grant levitation or affect gravity. The spirit of the thing would indicate it is providing either an affect on the natural buoyancy provided by the water, or it is simply helping you pull a Jesus. In neither case would it grant the ability to walk up a sheer surface, anymore than you could normally.
As to the floating upward thing, ask yourself, "through/on top of what?" Again, we come to the fact that the water is composed of billions of drops, separating and rejoining, and all headed downward. Headed downward, mind you, FASTER than the rate at which you would rise. It's like trying to crawl, one step a minute, up an escalator that is moving downward a hundred steps a minute.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to the floating upward thing, ask yourself, "through/on top of what?" Again, we come to the fact that the water is composed of billions of drops, separating and rejoining, and all headed downward.
Respectfully, I think the real question is not (or shouldn't be) "How do spell physics interact with a collation of droplets," but rather "what is so important about this waterfall that I can't stand to allow the PC to reach the top"?
As far as relative speeds, we covered that upthread. Can the character run more feet in a round than the waterfall is tall?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is that I've managed to hit two of my personal pet peeves in one: (1) railroad-y adventures that can't survive contact with actual players; and (2) DMs who go out of their way to ban perfectly level- and game-appropriate stuff, on the basis of it "not being realistic." So I probably came across a lot more emphatically than I needed to.
I think the other thing being forgotten in yours and Jason's discussion is the affect this has on, and/or the opinions of such a crazy act as this from other players at the table.
I also am in favor of, and like to encourage unique solutions and new ways of doing things from my players. However, not every player at the table is always going to agree that it is worth it to nerf reality or the spirit of a rule every time somebody just wants to.
In this example, I know which of my players might have thought this waterfall walking idea up himself. And I know which two players would have scoffed, and argued against it for the sake of their own sense of realism. And I know which of those two arguing players would let going through with it ruin the rest of the session for him. And finally, I can name the fourth player who would use it as precedence to exploit every rule he came upon in a similar way, making players 2 and 3 angry, causing player 3 to stop the game and start rules lawyering, and finally causing bad feelings between player 1 and player 4 when player 1 teases him about how he got away with it, but the other guy can't.
What I am saying is, that fun is fun, inspired ideas are to be encouraged, but you also have to have some sense of reality, no matter how fantastic the game may be. The sense of verisimilitude is as important to creating structure and in ruling the game world, as the rules are. There have to be boundaries, and they have to be known, or you end up all playing a different game.
This is why one of my girlfriends always ended up playing flying toasters and talking washing machines in the games she played in. Reality began to be twisted until there were no rules left and no boundaries, and nobody took anything seriously, so her games never lasted more than a session-and-a-half.
Now, that could be fun, I won't deny it. But it doesn't belong in everybody's game, is what I'm saying.
|
|
As to the floating upward thing, ask yourself, "through/on top of what?" Again, we come to the fact that the water is composed of billions of drops, separating and rejoining, and all headed downward. Headed downward, mind you, FASTER than the rate at which you would rise. It's like trying to crawl, one step a minute, up an escalator that is moving downward a hundred steps a minute.
The spell specifies the maximume distance the character would travel ina round, (60ft per round) not the speed (or rather amount of effort) at which the travel. If the character where at the bottum of a lake, and the torrent happened to be traveling faster than 10 ft per second against the character, the character with Water Walk would still travel 60ft per round upwards, (assuming they are 60ft or more below the surface). The speed or motion of the water is irrelavent. It might be reasonable to say they are acting like they are carrying a heavy load and drop that their movement speed to 40, or say it counts as "difficult terrain", but that's still going outside of what the spell does.
As to the floating upward thing, ask yourself, "through/on top of what?" Again, we come to the fact that the water is composed of billions of drops, separating and rejoining, and all headed downward.Respectfully, I think the real question is not (or shouldn't be) "How do spell physics interact with a collation of droplets," but rather "what is so important about this waterfall that I can't stand to allow the PC to reach the top"?
As far as relative speeds, we covered that upthread. Can the character run more feet in a round than the waterfall is tall?
And I feel that blocking players from getting to someplace just because you know there is something up there and they might suspect there is, to be the worst sort of metagaming a GM can pull. The players will see through that immediately.
Your own argument would itself preclude my doing that, as you have stated you believe their creativity should be rewarded, not thwarted, and I would see this as thwarting such for metagaming reasons.
If you read my other post, you'll see that I, too, want them to be creative and resourceful. But you'll also see a number of reasons why not everything can be allowed, and why sometimes practicality and "realism" are the best elements to apply.
I'll put it more succinctly: like a parent (my son is almost 12 now), a good GM must know the rules, but be flexible enough to allow for the maximum fun. But he must also remain SOBER. A drunk, happy-go-lucky GM will hurt his game just as quickly as a drunk parent will hurt their child.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. I know which two players would have scoffed, and argued against it for the sake of their own sense of realism.
2. And I know which of those two arguing players would let going through with it ruin the rest of the session for him.
3. And finally, I can name the fourth player who would use it as precedence to exploit every rule he came upon in a similar way.
(1) Players 1 and 2 think it's "realistic" to walk on water sometimes, but not other times? (2) Player 2 will actually throw a tantrum if his personal idea of "realistic" isn't upheld over everyone else's? Is that like angrily demanding your money back from the theatre management where you went to see Lord of the Rings because the elf ears weren't "right" in the movie? (3) Player 4 is so conniving that slippery slope fallacies actually apply to him?
I admit that I personally would have a problem with that whole scenario as well -- but from my standpoint the problem wouldn't be the waterfall. For you, it might be, and that's good for your game and your players, even if not for me and mine. (Overall, I feel I've been lucky in that NONE of the above player types are ones I've ever had at the table... then again, I'm fairly strict about screening players before inviting them to the table, so maybe I'm making my own luck there.)
My two cents:
If I were the GM, I wouldn't allow the (water) wall walking, but I'd be pleased by the creative "bob to the surface" interpretation.
But he must also remain SOBER. A drunk, happy-go-lucky GM will hurt his game just as quickly as a drunk parent will hurt their child.
Don't think I'm just like my avatar -- that kind of image is good for giggles on the Web, but it's not the truth.
Also, applying "Save the Children!" arguments in support of banning water walking in a game?! Sorry, I can't stay here.
Kirth, first let me say that while I may be wrong I believe I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. That said I feel compelled to point out a few things.
Respectfully, I think the real question is not (or shouldn't be) "How do spell physics interact with a collation of droplets," but rather "what is so important about this waterfall that I can't stand to allow the PC to reach the top"?
Ok, but in a previous post that you wrote:
My Take: By RAW, water falls from the top of the cliff to the pool at the bottom on its turn. So take that distance, in feet, per round. If the PC's running speed is faster than that, he can run up the waterfall. If not, the downward vector component is greater than his vector perpendicular to the orientation of the falls, and he makes no progress. That's how I'd rule it in-game. So if the cleric has on medium armor, he can lumber up a 40-ft. waterfall (double move), but anything taller than that defeats his water walk. On the other hand, a monk with no armor and a 60-ft. move could run up a 240-ft. waterfall. Victoria Falls would be too tall of either of them.
So how is that not discussing how the spell physics work with respect to the waterfall? And perhaps more to the point, what’s wrong with discussing spell physics?
You also state above:
Is it really worth it, arguing what's "realistic," or how a spell "actually" works, solely to prevent a PC from thinking outside the box a bit?
Now I absolutely agree that if the GM is arguing what's "realistic," or how a spell "actually" works, solely to prevent a PC from thinking outside the box a bit, that’s horrible. But, I respectfully disagree that it doesn’t warrant some thought. Why shouldn’t the GM want to take a spell and consider how it functions? Wouldn’t that help make future rulings? You yourself came up with a ruling. What if the waterfall in question had been big enough that they couldn’t have gone up it like that? Would you have changed your ruling? After all you yourself seemed to indicate it wasn’t worth not allowing, as it wasn’t “game breaking”.
Personally I don’t see anything wrong with determining spell physics. In fact I’ll even go so far as to say I think it promotes outside of the box thinking since the players then have a better handle on how the spell works and can use that to their advantage.
For example, let say a GM made a ruling that the spell functioned by creating a field around the character that repelled water. This field essentially creates a bubble extending an inch or two out from the character that in turn causes them to rise to the surface of a body of water at the rate of 60 feet per second. The waterfalls water is pushed away from the character leaving them dry but still standing at the bottom of the falls on the water of the river, lake, or whatever.
When asked about how they could then stand on the water the GM simply responds that the force under their feet spreads out much like snow shoes allowing them to transverse it and other liquids with ease.
Now I’m not saying it does or doesn’t work like this simply that that’s the ruling our imaginary GM has made.
Later, the group is sneaking into a castle during a party without an invitation to do some snooping. They then don some fine clothes and quietly swim across the most at night. Climbing out on the other side the cleric then casts water walk and the water immediately rains from him leaving him dry. He then walks over to his companions and runs his hands down them from top to bottom. The aura forces to water down and out of the clothing leaving the entire group dry to infiltrate the castle and blend in with the party.
Even later the group comes across a basin of acid or liquid poison with a key of the bottom that they need to retrieve. The cleric cast water walk and forces his hand in. Though buoyed toward the surface he can still force his hand in by simply resisting the buoyant force much like holding a basketball under water. He retrieves the key and the group continues on.
Now in what way did the GM’s ruling prevent the playes from thinking outside the box?
I believe that thinking about spell physics or how a spell functions to be important and promote out of the box thinking. I also believe that it helps to deepen and enrich the game world in much the same manner that walking into a town and chatting up the local residents does.
Before entering a town, the GM may not know much about it himself. But as the group goes off in different directions then anticipated and asks questions of the residents the GM’s answers are record and pretty soon he knows a lot more about the town too. I feel that rules pertaining to how spells work are no different. Of course this is how I play so others may disagree. But I’ve been DMing/GMing for over 20 years and this approach has worked well for my games thus far.
Revel,
Good examples. You and are are doing the same thing, though -- we start with the standpoint that non-standard uses are possible, and only then come up with some sort of attempt to make that plausible within the game world. So, yes, we can consider spell physics, but only after receiving a "no" answer to the higher-order question of "does this need to be prevented?"
If the answer to our secondary question applies some limitation that's useful in game terms (in the case of my ruling, preventing a character from running up a rainstorm into the clouds), that's an added plus -- but then again it might be cool to have someone do exactly that (although why they'd want to eludes me at the present!).
On the other hand, though, if the initial answer is always going to be "No, you can't do anything except what obviously seems like the most basic intent," then there's no point in debating spell physics, becuase they're irrelevant. Don't make excuses -- if you need to be an authoritarian and lay down the law and tell those stupid players who's boss, then just do it -- don't claim it's about "realism," as some sort of ideological crutch.
I suppose the thing that stood out to me is that it seemed as if you may have been saying that if it’s not game breaking you should just go with it and then work from their. Whereas I look it more from the perspective of asking myself how a the spell functions first and then answering my players and explaining it so they can then take that information as use it.
I think we mostly agree but, since I disagree with letting a spell work a certain way simply because it won’t hurt anything, I felt the need to clarify.
Also, you say you only consider spell physics after receiving a "no" answer to the higher-order question of "does this need to be prevented?".
Why is that? Even if you determine that the spell shouldn't be able to do something, whatever the reason, shouldn't you still consider how it works so that you can answer your players questions and explain how it does work and thus why it won't do what the wanted it to? Otherwise you would just be saying it doesn't work like that and leaving them hanging as to how it does work.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, though, if the initial answer is always going to be "No, you can't do anything except what obviously seems like the most basic intent," then there's no point in debating spell physics, becuase they're irrelevant. Don't make excuses -- if you need to be an authoritarian and lay down the law and tell those stupid players who's boss, then just do it -- don't claim it's about "realism," as some sort of ideological crutch.
It may help if you didn't set up a dichotomy of what you would rule and "heavy handed, uncreative types with a control issue."
Creative use of water walking, to me, doesn't include propelling ones self through a waterfall. It doesn't fit with the intended use of the spell in my eyes.
I'd reward an encounter being ended immediately with a shark or aboleth ending with a failed save vs. water walk. I think that's one creative use of the spell. I wouldn't simply rule "it says water WALK and sharks can't WALK so you FAIL!"
As for the "you must be railroading...what's at the top of the waterfall you want to hide so badly?" Nobody really had that information, did they?
As you well know, there could simply be nothing at all up there because the waterfall was a description of a location in a random encounter.
I'm still not understanding why "creative" has to mean "succeeds."
|
|
Okay a couple of points. No one has still discussed at all how the cleric and his party gets to the base of the waterfall. Just because you can walk on the water, doesn't stop it from being a moving thing. Yea, a nice calm stream would be like walking across the street, but have any of you actually see the base of a waterfall...one that is big enough to use to elevator up it? We are not talking a simple 90 degree L.
More importantly, you can't just cast the spell, walk over and then ride up. If you are already walking on water...how are you going to get your body into the downpour? You can't! So the only way this works is that you are going to have to wade out or swim to the base and then cast a spell. Can you say distracted? Swim check? Strength check?
So say you get to the base, you get into the downpour, you cast your spell on your whole party....how again is the surface of the running water not the face away from the wall and is instead the top of the waterfall?
Look, I am all for players thinking outside the box, but we are talking about a 3rd level spell that allows 5+ players to walk across water. Not walk across water and levitate. This is the defination of going against the spirit and RAW of the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not understanding why "creative" has to mean "succeeds."
Because if "creative" always means "fails," then, in my opinion, the game suffers for it, as does the DM-players relationship. "Creative" doesn't need to mean "auto-succeed" (as my recommended ruling should have very clearly illustrated), but it should mean (again, in my opinion) that the DM is willing to step outside his comfort zone a bit and approach the problem from the standpoint of "if this could work, how would I rule it in a level- and game-appropriate manner," vs. "That's not how the most basic and obvious possible use, it so therefore it can't work, period."
|
|
Okay a couple of points. No one has still discussed at all how the cleric and his party gets to the base of the waterfall.
The water is only treated as solid for purposses of walking on it. You can still walk through water, this spell does not repel water, just makes you hover slightly over it. So again, the water is not actually solid. You can not pick it up and throw it like a rock, it is not slick like ice, (you are not actualy standing on the running water) and if someone causes you to fall onto water with this spell on, you will go splash and go underwater, then rise right back up above it, (not go spat and take damage for hitting a brick wall).
So you could very easily walk over the pool to the waterfall, step into it, (becomming fully or partially submerged) and then start being lifted to a point where all the water is below your feet.
To me, that is clearly what is both RAW and RAI, and adding all those things to try not to allow it is going outside of what the spell does and breaking the spirit of what the spell should be able to do.
@Kirth: Ah, a good nights sleep and reading through everything again leads me to conclude we are in mostly in agreement. It sounds like you might favor the players a bit more then I do but I don't believe our views differ significantly. There are a few points in your earlier posts that were not clear, at least to me xP Hence the confusion.
@Beckett: I would be fine with it if I had a GM that interpreted it that way and I think that is a valid argument for RAW but I question your ability to argue that it’s the RAI. To begin with I doubt the question of a waterfall came up when writing the spell. That by itself is enough to say it was likely never intended for that use. Note that I’m not saying it should or should not be used for that merely that I doubt it was thought of originally and thus could not be intended (And yes I could be mistaken, I am after all far from infallible, still I don't believe I am in this instance).
…and adding all those things to try not to allow it is going outside of what the spell does and breaking the spirit of what the spell should be able to do.
If the reason for adding something is solely to not to allow it then I agree it’s bad. But if a GM wants to add flavor and fluff I see nothing wrong with elaborating on how it works and if they want to flush out the mechanics of a spell so as to allow it to be better understood I see nothing wrong with that either even if that expands the spells capabilities.
The last part pertaining to breaking the spirit of what the spell should be able to do is, imo, heavily opinionated. You obviously believe it should allow a character to use waterfalls as elevators. Now again, I’m not saying it’s wrong to allow it, I simply don’t think it’s anywhere near as clear as you do, and would accept a GM’s ruling either way provided that they explain how it works and if applicable why, so that, as a player, I can work with and use it constructively.
-----
As to the original post since I haven't quite answered it (at least not directly). I believe that the spells description is vague enough, particularly with regards to its intent, that it could go either way, hence all the arguments. As long as a GM was clear about their ruling and the reasoning behind it didn't amount to simply railroading the group or be a prick, I would probably be fine with it.
Incidentally, should we perhaps FAQ this thread to see if we can get a response as to the intent?
|
|
"That's not how the most basic and obvious possible use, it so therefore it can't work, period."
It's this part that i was having trouble with. I keep reading these comments like there's your interpretation of the spell and anything more restrictive is only "the most obvious possible use (period!), limited capacity for creative thought GM style." I do hope I'm just misunderstanding you.
I get rewarding creativity, but I guess I also like to provide an environment which has some sort of consistency, that players can expect the "normal" state of things to be much like our own experience on Earth.
Water walk as water rocket breaks my ability to suspend disbelief, probably because it appears to be so obviously not what was intended. Just like getting a +300 circumstance bonus with a natural 20 roll on a Swim check still wouldn't be enough to convince me that someone could *swim* up a waterfall.
If you provide me with your "monk or other fast base speed" explanation, then I'm okay with it. Not how I'd rule, but I could handle that as a player--there's some acknowledgement of an environment that doesn't simply bend completely to the will of the caster. It's a kind of reassurance that, in your game, there's an expectation that I can't just out-interpret you on the spell text to do whatever I want.
Oh I love when you guys with a remarkable grasp of physics and complex math apply those skills to Spells in D&D. : )
I wish I'd come up with Kirth's ruling. I doubt I would have though.
To the OP;
There are 2 really important features missing.
1) how tall and how wide was the waterfall?
2) Was it a verticle drop(Niagara)? Or was it more of an angled fall (Hebron Rock Colony or a class 5 rapid)?
With the Spell as written, I'd say no to wall walking up a vertical fall but yes to an angled fall since that's just a steep hill. The DM in the scenario did as much by asking for a climb check. The original players arguement was sound, the spell allows for partial immersion and clearly states you rise 60' per round. The elevator effect is possible in my mind.
Arguing the difference between falling water and running water is semantics. It's the same general concept. I could see an argument where a waterfall is not a continous stream of water, however the lawyer in me would demand an actual complete break in the flow for that to break the spells stated power. The speed of the falling water is no more relevant than the speed of the current in running water. The spell makes NO concession to speed or strength of current, as written. I'd assume that those forces are over ridden by the spell's effect.
I'm in the camp of this being far from game breaking. It's a 3rd level spell on a 7th level caster. Or one of his big spells for the day. Analogous to Fly and weaker than DimDoor. That would be acceptable to me.
The wild suppositions posted in this thread regarding Water Walk are hilarious.
1) It could be a possible form of weatherproofing.
2) It turns water into concrete, meaning that falls now cause lethal damage.
(I personally guarantee this will start a fight at your table)
3) If not limited, this spell could lead to AirWalking on raindrops.
4) It possibly makes you immune to water based attack forms.
5) It duplicates a limited form of Repulsion with regards to water.
6) It fails to overcome the "slipperiness" of water.
None of that is supported even remotely in the rules text. Which is not as exhaustive as it could be, it's hardly ambiguous.
The answer seems quite obvious...
For starters:
"since the subjects' feet hover an inch or two above the surface."
Your feet hover 1-2 inches above the surface of the water. This means that you are attempting to walk up a 90 degree plane without ever touching the plane for traction.
"The subjects can walk, run, charge, or otherwise move across the surface as if it were normal ground."
Ground is the key word here. If you cannot walk/run/charge/etc. up a cliff wall, why should you be able to walk up a waterfall simply because your treat it as if it were ground?
0 degree plane = ground, walk
0-45 degree plane = slope, walk
46-80 degree plane = sheer slope, requires climbing
80-90 degree plane = impossible to walk on (not counting walking up a rope)
This is really quite simple. With the spell you treat certain surfaces as if it was solid. Standard rules of gravity still apply.
|
|
Okay a couple of points. No one has still discussed at all how the cleric and his party gets to the base of the waterfall.The water is only treated as solid for purposses of walking on it. You can still walk through water, this spell does not repel water, just makes you hover slightly over it. So again, the water is not actually solid. You can not pick it up and throw it like a rock, it is not slick like ice, (you are not actualy standing on the running water) and if someone causes you to fall onto water with this spell on, you will go splash and go underwater, then rise right back up above it, (not go spat and take damage for hitting a brick wall).
So you could very easily walk over the pool to the waterfall, step into it, (becomming fully or partially submerged) and then start being lifted to a point where all the water is below your feet.
To me, that is clearly what is both RAW and RAI, and adding all those things to try not to allow it is going outside of what the spell does and breaking the spirit of what the spell should be able to do.
Okay if it is only repelling your feet, then explain this to me: If the spell is cast underwater (or while the subjects are partially or wholly submerged in whatever liquid they are in), the subjects are borne toward the surface at 60 feet per round until they can stand on it.
So in your mind, if someone is just swiming underwater and the spell is cast on them only their feet pop above the water? It has to be the whole body for this effect to work. If it is the whole body, then you can't then stick your hand/body back into the water.
I should also point out that the effect in question has to be done IF THE SPELL IS CAST UNDERWATER [OR WHILE THE SUBJECTS ARE PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY SUBMERGED IN WHATEVER LIQUID THEY ARE IN]. You are only borne up when it is cast. For any of this to work, you have to be actually at the base of the waterfall....in the wash...and then cast the spell. Maybe then it would work, but still say it wouldn't.
|
|
So let's just say it is your feet. You have made it to the base of the waterfall with what ever strength of swim roll was needed. You have made your concentration check as the water hammers down on you. Your feet are being bourne up now at 10 feet a second....what is happening to the rest of your body? According to Beckett the rest of your body isn't effected by the spell so you are getting hammered even more by the falling water compounded by your FEET moving in the opposite direction. Reflex roll to now smack into the wall? Constitution roll again drowning?
Seriously people, this is so against the spirit of the spell it is a joke to debate it. Yea I understand the idea of trying to put logic into magical world, but it is still a world that is just being manipulated by magic. Everyone wants to site specific lines from the spell as proof you can or cannot do it, but unless it is spelled out in the spell, you have to just use logic. The logic of being able to cast a spell in the downpour of a waterfall and then going against the flow of the water or 5+ people, by a 3rd level Divine spell just doesn't make sense.
Cool idea, here is some experience points for thinking outside the box, but not all cool ideas should and will work.
I would argue that waterwalk would not function in a waterfall regardless.
Waterwalk allows travel across the surface of liquids, but a waterfall is often no longer continuous liquid, it is heavily interspersed with atmosphere as it is falling.
The "walking" or bottle rocket to the surface effect would only work as long as you are on top of water, which in a waterfall is unlikely to be so as it mixes and falls. Even if you could manage to stand on it continuously, the falling descent would offset any directional gain. 10 feet per second towards the surface versus gravity & acceleration towards the foot of the falls.
Between this and the sideways surface of the water, I see no reason whatsoever a character could attempt this. I call shenanigans.
so now my question is what if you cast slow on the waterfall and then cast water walk on your self?Wouldn't work. Slow only works on creatures, not terrain. Timestop maybe.
I think you mean Temporal Stasis. Time Stop only targets the caster.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Falling water has no surface, just like rain has no surface. A waterfall has a source, but that is not the same thing as a surface.
In other words, someone who stands under a waterfall with Water Walking gets wet. That's all.
(For my own information, several posters have indicated Water Walking allows you to float above the surface of the water. Can someone point me to a source for this? I don't see this in the spell description).
Checking the PRD entry, it says that "the subjects' feet hover and inch or two above the surface" (that's a copy/paste).
It also mentions in the second paragraph about casting it underwater (or even partially immersed) and being borne to the surface at 60 feet per round until they can stand on it.
Not sure what else you might be referring to.. not sure what you aren't getting from the spell description.