I am arguing it isn't rule 0. I am saying you are house ruling what is, at best, a cheesy loophole.
Cite a Dev saying it is legal.
I will not be providing such a citation, since I don't believe such a statement has been made by the devs. Just as they have not made statements clarifying that many other things, legal by the rules, are in fact, legal by the rules. I hope you do not expect the devs to confirm in official statements, what is already plainly stated in their released rulesets?
Do you want the citations from the rules, that show quite clearly, that no house-ruling is going on, and that by RAW the hat-trick is legal? Because I can provide it.
-Nearyn
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's GM Fiat to say it's legal, and then it's GM Fiat to say it actually works.
he doesn't have any rules backing up his interpretation on how volume works...which is why he's asking me to find his rules for him. Which I consider pretty funny.
And as for RD, Stone Shape doesn't say AoE 10 Ft cubed +1/level or whatever, divisible by 1/4 cubic inch blocks. It says 1 cubic foot blocks. So you can do non-fine details, in areas of 1x1x1, contiguous. That's what the spell actually says. Anything else is reading into the spell.
And a 16' tall wizard hat shrunk down to size would not be stiff on your head, and would be worn floppy, and counts as clothing, not cover.
==Aelryinth
|
What you say here is valid, and very different from what I called you on above. What I called you on was your statement that "many, if not most, tables would laugh it away." That right there is a statistic that you can't back up (or else you would have backed it up when I first called you on it). It is a belief based on your personal experiences - which makes it an anecdote.So either back up your claim that most tables would laugh it away (you made *that* argument, and as you said above, the person making the claim has the burden of proof), or simply admit that you made an error, that you would like to retract that statement until proof can be found, and you would like to stick with your valid argument quoted in this post.
I still think many if not most tables would laugh it away. I can say that all I want. I'm not saying you have to agree with me.
That isn't the same as saying the silly magic hat must be accepted at your table or you are house ruling.
Do you not see the distinction?
|
|
I am arguing it isn't rule 0. I am saying you are house ruling what is, at best, a cheesy loophole.
Cite a Dev saying it is legal.
I will not be providing such a citation, since I don't believe such a statement has been made by the devs. Just as they have not made statements clarifying that many other things, legal by the rules, are in fact, legal by the rules. I hope you do not expect the devs to confirm in official statements, what is already plainly stated in their released rulesets?
Do you want the citations from the rules, that show quite clearly, that no house-ruling is going on, and that by RAW the hat-trick is legal? Because I can provide it.
-Nearyn
Actually, if you can't cite a Dev, then you can't.
Just like I can't prove a dead person can't move, RAW.
he doesn't have any rules backing up his interpretation on how volume works...which is why he's asking me to find his rules for him. Which I consider pretty funny.
I am asking YOU, to back up YOUR claim, that 'total volume rules' exist at all. And you have FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE!
What do you expect people you converse with to do?! Blindly accept your word as law(or in this case RAW :P )?! Not gonna happen. Either you back up your claims, or at least have the courtesy to OFFER to back them up, or you risk being percieved as a liar.
Presently, you have not given me reason to regard you as anything but a person who seeks to impose his opinion on the rules, because heaven forbid he be wrong, and when you failed to get your point across, you made claims that rules existed to back you up, rules that do not in fact exist.
-Nearyn
I am arguing it isn't rule 0. I am saying you are house ruling what is, at best, a cheesy loophole.
Cite a Dev saying it is legal.
I will not be providing such a citation, since I don't believe such a statement has been made by the devs. Just as they have not made statements clarifying that many other things, legal by the rules, are in fact, legal by the rules. I hope you do not expect the devs to confirm in official statements, what is already plainly stated in their released rulesets?
Do you want the citations from the rules, that show quite clearly, that no house-ruling is going on, and that by RAW the hat-trick is legal? Because I can provide it.
-Nearyn
Actually, if you can't cite a Dev, then you can't.
Just like I can't prove a dead person can't move, RAW.
Do you want the citations from the rules, that show quite clearly, that no house-ruling is going on, and that by RAW the hat-trick is legal? Because I can provide it
What do you consider the rules, if not a dev statement?
-Nearyn
|
|
Ridiculous though it may seem, I have no issue of shrinking a giant hat. I do have an issue with cloth stopping an antimagic emanation...if you wear gloves, that would mean that your rings still worked. Your amulet is inside the robe? It works. The hood covers your headband? It's still functioning.
It stuns me how basic logic is almost never brought to these arguments.
How about this - my wizard is covered, head-to-toe by his cloth outfit, even including a silk veil...so all of his personal spells are protected.
What silliness.
|
Ridiculous though it may seem, I have no issue of shrinking a giant hat. I do have an issue with cloth stopping an antimagic emanation...if you wear gloves, that would mean that your rings still worked. Your amulet is inside the robe? It works. The hood covers your headband? It's still functioning.
It stuns me how basic logic is almost never brought to these arguments.
The hat need not be made of cloth. The shrink spell renders it cloth-like.
The wizard I am building has a base 24 will save.
How ? Do you max WIS and take Iron will ? I mean, 24 will save mean 12 [base] + 5 [object] + WIS + FEAT + TRAIT (as you stated that the +5 gardian weapon doesn't count in this). It means that you need to have +7 with those 3. There is a trait that add +1, and a feat that add +2, so you need to have 18 WIS to do this. For a wizard, it is not the best (far from it actually). And as a wizard, you have -4 to your save.
And yes, I could have used a much better DC for the spell (with spell focus and greater, school/bloodline powers. I could also optimize INT... But I didn't for a reason : to not have to look through all books to make my point. The point is that it is difficult for a non Will-optimized wizard to even have 70% chance to resist a mind-affecting spell.
And you need to optimize greatly to be able to resist a non-optimized caster WHILE YOU HAVE WILL AS A GOOD SAVE.
|
|
The hat need not be made of cloth. The shrink spell renders it cloth-like.Ridiculous though it may seem, I have no issue of shrinking a giant hat. I do have an issue with cloth stopping an antimagic emanation...if you wear gloves, that would mean that your rings still worked. Your amulet is inside the robe? It works. The hood covers your headband? It's still functioning.
It stuns me how basic logic is almost never brought to these arguments.
So what material is it? This is why I have problems with emanations in the first place, ruling it to mean that that determines the center of a pervasive effect.
In fact, you've just made it obvious that the fighter covered head-to-toe in adamantine armor, has an excellent argument to be unaffected.
Ridiculous though it may seem, I have no issue of shrinking a giant hat. I do have an issue with cloth stopping an antimagic emanation...if you wear gloves, that would mean that your rings still worked. Your amulet is inside the robe? It works. The hood covers your headband? It's still functioning.
It stuns me how basic logic is almost never brought to these arguments.
Nobody has claimed that a layer of cloth, in its own right, should stop magic, nor that wearing clothes should do the same.
People have used a teepee as a suggestion, because a teepee is a tent, a construction, an object that provides full cover. This is also the reason people have gone on to explain, that the hat could be a cone of metal shrunk and made clothlike. Its like trying to target someone inside a tent, from outside the tent. It is not allowed, because you don't have line of effect or line of sight for that matter.
So don't worry EldonG, I don't think anyone wants wearing an outfit to stop magic :)
-Nearyn
What you say here is valid, and very different from what I called you on above. What I called you on was your statement that "many, if not most, tables would laugh it away." That right there is a statistic that you can't back up (or else you would have backed it up when I first called you on it). It is a belief based on your personal experiences - which makes it an anecdote.So either back up your claim that most tables would laugh it away (you made *that* argument, and as you said above, the person making the claim has the burden of proof), or simply admit that you made an error, that you would like to retract that statement until proof can be found, and you would like to stick with your valid argument quoted in this post.
I still think many if not most tables would laugh it away. I can say that all I want. I'm not saying you have to agree with me.
That isn't the same as saying the silly magic hat must be accepted at your table or you are house ruling.
Do you not see the distinction?
Of course it is not the same. Why do you think I've been trying to separate those two arguments you have been making. If you have noticed, I haven't once commented on the legality or allowance of the hat trick. What I have been commenting on is your use of anecdotes. So once again, admit that you can't back up your anecdote.
I am simply calling you out on your hypocrisy. On one hand, you are demanding that others bear the burden of proof for their arguments, while on the other you are making arguments with no proof (and saying, "I can do that all I want.").
So either back up your claim that most tables would laugh it away or admit that it's just an anecdote.
|
|
Of course it is not the same. Why do you think I've been trying to separate those two arguments you have been making. If you have noticed, I haven't once commented on the legality or allowance of the hat trick. What I have been commenting on is your use of anecdotes. So once again, admit that you can't back up your anecdote.I am simply calling you out on your hypocrisy. On one hand, you are demanding that others bear the burden of proof for their arguments, while on the other you are making arguments with no proof (and saying, "I can do that all I want.").
So either back up your claim that most tables would laugh it away or admit that it's just an anecdote.
I'm not making two arguments. I am making one argument.
The silly hat falls into the same realm as "Dead people can move". Neither is specifically forbidden by the rules, but I don't see a lot people arguing for the later.
I personally believe most tables would approach the hat in the same way the dead people moving issue. If your table doesn't, I'm not saying you are doing it wrong, but I am saying that if you are having problems with wizard power and allowing things like that...well I think I can make a diagnosis...
I am not saying something is legal. I have no burden to prove anything.
Edit: Actually, it is less credible than the dead people can't move argument, given the volume issue.
Nearyn, you're asking me to find rules for you that allow you to subdivide any area of volume willy-nilly to cover exactly what you like so as to be able to super-expand spell areas.
I don't HAVE to find my rules. My rules are printed out in the per level spell descriptions. 1 Cubic foot at a time. One 20x10x10 block at a time. That's how volumes of spells work.
Not 'calculate the minimum possible volume this object would take up if it was compressed to minimally optimal size, and assume the spell can gerrymander to take advantage of it, regardless of the actual area the spell is now encompassing.'
YOU find a rule that allows you to do that. All I have to do is read strictly by the area by level of any spell with variable volume, and not 'read into' more then that. My spells don't gerrymander.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*SIGH*
It's discussions like this that drive people away from RPGs, you folks realize that, right? There's a reason that most every edition of this game from 2nd Edition right on into Pathfinder have all indicated "Go with what the GM says and hold rules arguments til after the game." I realize that's great for forums, but it reaches a point where 6 pages of argument over a single application of a spell or two gets past the stage of rationality.
If you have a player who's attempting to break line of effect for an AMF by enlarging a hat (or dispelling a shrunken hat), you're dealing with a player who's looking for every conceivable advantage they can get either to "pull something over" on the GM, or because they're paranoid the GM is actively doing everything possible to "get the player".
If it's the former, that is not a player I'd want in my group.
If it's the latter, that is not a GM I'd want to play under.
When players stop bulldog-clamping onto the minutiae of rules, GMs frequently stop handing down heavy-handed rules declarations that ultimately just wind up making the game less-fun for everyone.
Use the RAW. If someone isn't clear on how something works, the GM can make a call to keep the game moving. If a player disagrees with a particular rules call, let 'em talk with the GM privately after the game is over to see if consensus can be reached.
I like me some munchkining, but damn...
Thank you. Just a little common sense goes a long ways.
Ciretose, the hat trick will actually work in theory.
When the AMF approaches, it suppresses the magic on the hat. THe hat swells to full size, forming cover against the emnation. Since the hat is still being hit by the AMF, the magic on it is still suppressed and it stays as cover.
Whether it will actually execute properly is a completely different story. having it work exactly as intended is highly unlikely, just given normal physics, and an act of mercy by the GM.
==Aelryinth
It has to qualify as cover. Armor doesn't qualify.
A Tower Shield used to be the option, until someone pointed out that if you used a Tower Shield as cover, you couldn't do anything else, and then someone else came up with the 'portable cover' trick.
I'm not sure if a teepee would qualify as cover, since, for instance, you can shoot an arrow through it, but the standard is usually a wooden square or circle, which would do the job.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's only a "volume issue" because people are trying to claim empty space is part of a material.
And again it's not clothe and even if it is so what? Glass stops line of effect. Curtains (if thick enough) will stop line of effect.
This is strictly "I don't like it so no." Territory, we have the rules plain as day saying what blocks line of effect. A teepee would stop a charm person spell just as well. If the teepee had enough hp it would even block a fireball. Your just pssy cause it messes with ONE SPELL and that bugs you.
All this "little holes in it" crap is just that. IF it was woven by someone incompotent enough to leave enough full on holes to meet the line of effect requirements it would be useless as a teepee and no one would use it.
And again it could just as easily be a metal (or other material) cone.
I'm not making two arguments. I am making one argument.
I still think many if not most tables would laugh it away. I can say that all I want. I'm not saying you have to agree with me.
That isn't the same as saying the silly magic hat must be accepted at your table or you are house ruling.
Do you not see the distinction?
Two arguments. Right there. If you didn't have two arguments, why did you ask whether I could see the distinction? If you only made one argument, what is there a distinction between to see?
Many are very much wrong to think that wouldn't be completely laughed out of many, if not most, tables...
This is the claim that you made. Are you going to admit to it being an anecdote and that your anecdotes do not hold any more weight than another's anecdotes, or are you going to continue to evade?
It is quite hypocritical to state that others must hold the burden of proof for their claims while at the same time say:
I have no burden to prove anything.
for your own claims.
What blocks the emanation of an AMF, to begin with?
If my adamantine armor doesn't, then stone shouldn't.
If something provides full cover, it blocks emanation. It is just one of "those things". You know, whenever the game has to make something be a certain way, in order to work? Like how you become better at not getting hit, by wearing armor, rather than it providing damage reduction.
If something provides full cover, it blocks the emanation. So lets say you are dealing with some emanation of a special 20ft radius anti-magic field. You could block that by walking behind a wall that could provide you with full cover, relative to the center of the emanation. You might still be within it's area, but it would not affect you.
-Nearyn
If the spell didn't include air, things would blow up as the un-shrunk air tried to escape from the shrinking object. If you're talking a hollow sphere, you're effectively super-compressing the air for nothing.
Shrink Item has no choice but to include the air to avoid abusing that rule, and stop people giggling and shrinking down huge clouds of poison gas to tote around.
Shrink Item is going to consider a hollow boulder and a solid boulder to be occupying the same volume. That's all there really is to it.
===Aelryinth
Nearyn, you're asking me to find rules for you that allow you to subdivide any area of volume willy-nilly to cover exactly what you like so as to be able to super-expand spell areas.
This is dishonest. I have only ever asked you to back up your own claims, not find rules that support my own.
-Nearyn
I am curious to something:
For all those who believe and are arguing that the hat trick and other wizard tricks are legal by RAW, do you also have problems or issues with wizard power? Do you argue that wizards are too powerful?
|
|
Ciretose, the hat trick will actually work in theory.
When the AMF approaches, it suppresses the magic on the hat. THe hat swells to full size, forming cover against the emnation. Since the hat is still being hit by the AMF, the magic on it is still suppressed and it stays as cover.
Whether it will actually execute properly is a completely different story. having it work exactly as intended is highly unlikely, just given normal physics, and an act of mercy by the GM.
==Aelryinth
Except...it is a made up world.
There aren't any actual real worlds. So is it GM fiat to say it works perfectly, or GM fiat to point out that a clothlike object on your head suddenly and immediately jerking to full weight and becoming the solid object capable of blocking an elination might cause you grievous harm, whiplash, knock you prone, fall on top of you.
It was mounted on your head, after all.
Hard to say since, you know, it is all made up.
So when in doubt, you use your best judgement as to what makes the most sense to you. So when the player asks you for something that sounds silly, you have a few options.
It is fiat to allow it, it is fiat to disallow it, it seems to me the most reasonable response is "Really? Come on, stop being that guy..."
YMMV.
And again, I don't care if you do this at your table, it is only when you claim this is "the" rule and all others are house rules that I have an issue.
And then I really, really have an issue when you allow stuff like this then run around the boards pointing out how broken "X" is because of this.
If the spell didn't include air, things would blow up as the un-shrunk air tried to escape from the shrinking object. If you're talking a hollow sphere, you're effectively super-compressing the air for nothing.
Shrink Item has no choice but to include the air to avoid abusing that rule, and stop people giggling and shrinking down huge clouds of poison gas to tote around.
Shrink Item is going to consider a hollow boulder and a solid boulder to be occupying the same volume. That's all there really is to it.
===Aelryinth
Question about the reverse:
If it didn't include air and the item became un-shrunk, would a vacuum be created for which the outside air would have to rush in?
I am curious to something:
For all those who believe and are arguing that the hat trick and other wizard tricks are legal by RAW, do you also have problems or issues with wizard power? Do you argue that wizards are too powerful?
As one of those people, my belief is that no, they are not too powerful. I find that they, like most other classes are undeniably good at what they do, however because of the versatility of magic, they can do alot of things, really damn well.
I don't like direct power-comparison, because I find that it is usually leaving out the roleplaying. You could very well argue that a wizard is more powerful than a rogue for instance, and bring in number-comparisons to back you up, and you would not be wrong. But it would not take account of the many wonderful things you can accomplish with roleplaying, creativity and a bit of dedication.
A character with good social skills could get powerful, loyal allies. People with great martial prowess could amass great wealth, not to mention kicking the snot out of nearly any class, unfortunate enough to get within reach, and some can work wonders with their minds.
If the game was a competetive online game, with lots of PVP, I could see it being an issue, but as it stands, with the game-world being the players' oyster, and the DM being the tour-guide to a world of fun and fantasy, I don't see the problem.
/Endofrant :)
-Nearyn
If the spell didn't include air, things would blow up as the un-shrunk air tried to escape from the shrinking object. If you're talking a hollow sphere, you're effectively super-compressing the air for nothing.
Shrink Item has no choice but to include the air to avoid abusing that rule, and stop people giggling and shrinking down huge clouds of poison gas to tote around.
Shrink Item is going to consider a hollow boulder and a solid boulder to be occupying the same volume. That's all there really is to it.
Totally agree :)
|
|
I'm not making two arguments. I am making one argument.I still think many if not most tables would laugh it away. I can say that all I want. I'm not saying you have to agree with me.
That isn't the same as saying the silly magic hat must be accepted at your table or you are house ruling.
Do you not see the distinction?
Two arguments. Right there. If you didn't have two arguments, why did you ask whether I could see the distinction? If you only made one argument, what is there a distinction between to see?
Many are very much wrong to think that wouldn't be completely laughed out of many, if not most, tables...This is the claim that you made. Are you going to admit to it being an anecdote and that your anecdotes do not hold any more weight than another's anecdotes, or are you going to continue to evade?
It is quite hypocritical to state that others must hold the burden of proof for their claims while at the same time say:
I have no burden to prove anything.for your own claims.
Are you intentionally misspelling my handle?
One is a statement of opinion, and one is an argument.
I can't prove my opinion, that is why is an opinion and not an argument. I either lack the resources to prove or disprove the statement or it is unprovable. In this instance, I lack the resources (and inclination...)
I can prove an arguement. There is a definable right and wrong answer.
It is my opinion that most tables would laugh this idea out of the room. I don't own a polling service, and if I did I am not sure this rises to a level of importance that I would use them.
That is the opinion.
The argument is that the silly hat does not fall under the same level of applicability as saying that you add the Base Attack Bonus to attack. I am saying that the application described is itself a house rule, based on weak interpretation and assumptions.
It is as defendable as saying a dead person can move, in that the only basis for the application is that it isn't specifically forbidden.
That basis does not nearly meet the burden of calling it "RAW".
Omission is not permission.
Are you intentionally misspelling my handle?
No, I am not. I apologize.
|
|
It has to qualify as cover. Armor doesn't qualify.
A Tower Shield used to be the option, until someone pointed out that if you used a Tower Shield as cover, you couldn't do anything else, and then someone else came up with the 'portable cover' trick.
I'm not sure if a teepee would qualify as cover, since, for instance, you can shoot an arrow through it, but the standard is usually a wooden square or circle, which would do the job.
==Aelryinth
...and I'll admit it's a houserule, but it puts an end to silliness like this. AMF, like Darkness and Deeper Darkness, are only emanations as far as determining the center - beyond that, they are pervasive, and not blocked.
This hat thing is pretty far afield from the original argument, unless there are those here who think that this is what is necessary to build the theoretical wizard who is prepared for everything.
Now to me it looks to me that if you cast Polymorph Any Object on a hat-shaped tipi-like construction this trick could maybe work. I'd never have any wizard of mine with a Wisdom over 7 try it, though. Its success in practice assumes too many things: that the hat is perfectly centered on the head, that the wizard is motionless when he or she enters the AMF, that the wizard is fully within the AMF when it goes off, etc. Any slight variation could easily leave an unfortunate hat-wearer hilariously pinned under the edge of his own giant chapeau.
Oh, I'm also with Aelryinth on the volume argument. This is anecdotal, yes, but previous to this discussion I had never encountered anyone who argued spell volume worked the other way, and I've been gaming close to three decades. Just lucky, I guess.
However, talking about headwear and geometry is not that intrinsically interesting. Is an AMF field the only thing would-be uberwizards truly believe they have to fear?
I can prove an arguement. There is a definable right and wrong answer.
Then why include such statements as
Many are very much wrong...
and then follow that with an opinion?
You are making the argument that people would be wrong to think such a thing.
If you really are simply "making the opinion" that people would be wrong, then why do you not simply admit you were in error when you said that your anecdote (or opinion) holds more weight than another's?
|
|
Let us look at this in detail.
So you are wearing a hat. And you wear this hat in combat situations, so it either fits well or it is somehow attached to your head.
If the hat fits well, because it is clothlike, what happens when this object wrapped in a snug manner around your head suddenly and likely violently becomes solid and huge.
And if the hat is attached...well that won't go well at all...
Is the presumption you are always standing at an angle where the hat won't collapse on you, fall awkwardly, etc...
These are presumptions of "good" GM fiat, presuming the concept is even viable.
It is this "good" GM fiat that seems to rarely be noted in these discussions that decry "Bad" GM fiat for forbidding these kinds of things.
It is why my favorite GM often tells his brother, who loves playing wizards "Do you want me to tell you why your character wouldn't do that, since your character is smarter than you are and would realise how dumb that is?"
|
|
I can prove an arguement. There is a definable right and wrong answer.Then why include such statements as
Many are very much wrong...and then follow that with an opinion?
You are making the argument that people would be wrong to think such a thing.
If you really are simply "making the opinion" that people would be wrong, then why do you not simply admit you were in error when you said that your anecdote (or opinion) holds more weight than another's?
Because I was making a sarcastic comment toward someone?
Did you really not get that? :)
I can prove an arguement. There is a definable right and wrong answer.Then why include such statements as
Many are very much wrong...and then follow that with an opinion?
You are making the argument that people would be wrong to think such a thing.
If you really are simply "making the opinion" that people would be wrong, then why do you not simply admit you were in error when you said that your anecdote (or opinion) holds more weight than another's?
Because I was making a sarcastic comment toward someone?
Did you really not get that? :)
Ah, so you were making a slightly ironic statement when you said someone would be wrong to think such a thing. So when you literally said they would be wrong to think that, you didn't really mean they would be wrong; you were just being ironic.
Or is "sarcasm" not the word you were looking for?
|
|
Ah, so you were making a slightly ironic statement when you said someone would be wrong to think such a thing. So when you literally said they would be wrong to think that, you didn't really mean they would be wrong; you were just being ironic.Or is "sarcasm" not the word you were looking for?
I think I was going more for the cheap shot in the "If many people jumped off a bridge" angle, but I don't remember the exact context. I didn't know there would be a test :)
I think I was going more for the cheap shot in the "If many people jumped off a bridge" angle, but I don't remember the exact context. I didn't know there would be a test :)
Ah, so you were making a slightly ironic statement when you said someone would be wrong to think such a thing. So when you literally said they would be wrong to think that, you didn't really mean they would be wrong; you were just being ironic.Or is "sarcasm" not the word you were looking for?
Relevant: http://xkcd.com/1170/
|
|
This hat thing is pretty far afield from the original argument, unless there are those here who think that this is what is necessary to build the theoretical wizard who is prepared for everything.
Now to me it looks to me that if you cast Polymorph Any Object on a hat-shaped tipi-like construction this trick could maybe work. I'd never have any wizard of mine with a Wisdom over 7 try it, though. Its success in practice assumes too many things: that the hat is perfectly centered on the head, that the wizard is motionless when he or she enters the AMF, that the wizard is fully within the AMF when it goes off, etc. Any slight variation could easily leave an unfortunate hat-wearer hilariously pinned under the edge of his own giant chapeau.
Oh, I'm also with Aelryinth on the volume argument. This is anecdotal, yes, but previous to this discussion I had never encountered anyone who argued spell volume worked the other way, and I've been gaming close to three decades. Just lucky, I guess.
However, talking about headwear and geometry is not that intrinsically interesting. Is an AMF field the only thing would-be uberwizards truly believe they have to fear?
Let's eliminate the silly headgear, and I'll show you why this is problematic at any rate. If you have AMFs truly emanating from a center point, and cover blocks it...and a tower shield provides cover...and I walk that tower shield up to the emanation, and place it right next to it, I now have a 'shadow' in the emanation in the shape of that shield, and anything behind it is no longer covered by the rules of the AMF.
Solved.
If it is indeed pervasive, that simple trick is null and void. If not, AMFs border on useless.
This hat thing is pretty far afield from the original argument, unless there are those here who think that this is what is necessary to build the theoretical wizard who is prepared for everything.
Now to me it looks to me that if you cast Polymorph Any Object on a hat-shaped tipi-like construction this trick could maybe work. I'd never have any wizard of mine with a Wisdom over 7 try it, though. Its success in practice assumes too many things: that the hat is perfectly centered on the head, that the wizard is motionless when he or she enters the AMF, that the wizard is fully within the AMF when it goes off, etc. Any slight variation could easily leave an unfortunate hat-wearer hilariously pinned under the edge of his own giant chapeau.
Oh, I'm also with Aelryinth on the volume argument. This is anecdotal, yes, but previous to this discussion I had never encountered anyone who argued spell volume worked the other way, and I've been gaming close to three decades. Just lucky, I guess.
However, talking about headwear and geometry is not that intrinsically interesting. Is an AMF field the only thing would-be uberwizards truly believe they have to fear?
Let's eliminate the silly headgear, and I'll show you why this is problematic at any rate. If you have AMFs truly emanating from a center point, and cover blocks it...and a tower shield provides cover...and I walk that tower shield up to the emanation, and place it right next to it, I now have a 'shadow' in the emanation in the shape of that shield, and anything behind it is no longer covered by the rules of the AMF.
Solved.
If it is indeed pervasive, that simple trick is null and void. If not, AMFs border on useless.
Tower shields give cover for that space only, and only from one edge of the space.
We can derive this from the language in the Tower Shield section:
That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only.
Additionally, if someone wanted to, they could read even more literally into that and state that the tower shield only protects you from attacks which target you, and therefore emanations and burst spells wouldn't count.
Edit: I wouldn't agree to that reading, but I could see the argument made.
Edit 2: The wording actually says that spells which target you can still target you as if you didn't have cover, because you are holding the shield.
a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding
However, it also says that it provides cover for any attack which pass through that edge:
You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this edge
So that would suggest that burst and emanation spells are blocked - but for that square only.
|
|
This hat thing is pretty far afield from the original argument, unless there are those here who think that this is what is necessary to build the theoretical wizard who is prepared for everything.
Now to me it looks to me that if you cast Polymorph Any Object on a hat-shaped tipi-like construction this trick could maybe work. I'd never have any wizard of mine with a Wisdom over 7 try it, though. Its success in practice assumes too many things: that the hat is perfectly centered on the head, that the wizard is motionless when he or she enters the AMF, that the wizard is fully within the AMF when it goes off, etc. Any slight variation could easily leave an unfortunate hat-wearer hilariously pinned under the edge of his own giant chapeau.
Oh, I'm also with Aelryinth on the volume argument. This is anecdotal, yes, but previous to this discussion I had never encountered anyone who argued spell volume worked the other way, and I've been gaming close to three decades. Just lucky, I guess.
However, talking about headwear and geometry is not that intrinsically interesting. Is an AMF field the only thing would-be uberwizards truly believe they have to fear?
Let's eliminate the silly headgear, and I'll show you why this is problematic at any rate. If you have AMFs truly emanating from a center point, and cover blocks it...and a tower shield provides cover...and I walk that tower shield up to the emanation, and place it right next to it, I now have a 'shadow' in the emanation in the shape of that shield, and anything behind it is no longer covered by the rules of the AMF.
Solved.
If it is indeed pervasive, that simple trick is null and void. If not, AMFs border on useless.
Tower shields give cover for that space only, and only from one edge of the space.
We can derive this from the language in the Tower Shield section:
That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only.Additionally,...
Exactly. An AMF should not be subject to such things, unless they follow that basic logic...and they don't...so I think it's fair to assert that by RAI, it's a pervasive thing.
Exactly. An AMF should not be subject to such things, unless they follow that basic logic...and they don't...so I think it's fair to assert that by RAI, it's a pervasive thing.
I edited my post while you were commenting. Sorry. :)
|
|
Exactly. An AMF should not be subject to such things, unless they follow that basic logic...and they don't...so I think it's fair to assert that by RAI, it's a pervasive thing.I edited my post while you were commenting. Sorry. :)
No problem...my point, I think, is solid. Consider what the shield trick does with Darkness spells...really, it should do nothing...and there was a statement made (I believe by James Jacobs) stating as much...that that was the intention. *shrug*
That makes the spell work well. Other interpretations are only worth anything for silly arguments on the internet. I think common sense is the way to go...but that's just me.
Exactly. An AMF should not be subject to such things, unless they follow that basic logic...and they don't...so I think it's fair to assert that by RAI, it's a pervasive thing.I edited my post while you were commenting. Sorry. :)No problem...my point, I think, is solid. Consider what the shield trick does with Darkness spells...really, it should do nothing...and there was a statement made (I believe by James Jacobs) stating as much...that that was the intention. *shrug*
That makes the spell work well. Other interpretations are only worth anything for silly arguments on the internet. I think common sense is the way to go...but that's just me.
IIRC, I ruled the tower shield and darkness spell worked - but for that space only. So the character wasn't in darkness himself (magical darkness, that is, not ordinary darkness), but he still couldn't see outside of that square. It ended up boiling down to the tactic being worthless.
If we ruled the same tactic with AMF, all that would mean is the character's magic would still work in his/her square, but outside of that it wouldn't. Let's do some hypotheticals on this, assuming my ruling.
If the character cast a fireball, it would shoot out until the edge of his square and then fizzle in the AMF. If the character tried to teleport, would he just pop out of his square and pop in somewhere else, or would he have to travel through the AMF, thereby negating his teleport? I don't know.
Regardless, it is a very rare occurrence that a wizard would be holding a tower shield. I once saw someone claim that their Schrodinger's wizard was holding a magic sword in one hand, a magic wand (or was it a rod?) in their other hand, and still expected to be able to cast. I wonder if that same person would also expect to be able to carry this tower shield, too (oh, and what is this wizard's strength score? Can s/he carry a 45 lbs shield strapped to his/her arm?).
I skipped a few post but are people trying to argue that volume which is made of a specific mathmatical formula works differently in fantasy land?
Volume=LWH or S1xS2xS2 IIRC
If the spell didn't include air, things would blow up as the un-shrunk air tried to escape from the shrinking object. If you're talking a hollow sphere, you're effectively super-compressing the air for nothing.
Shrink Item has no choice but to include the air to avoid abusing that rule, and stop people giggling and shrinking down huge clouds of poison gas to tote around.
Shrink Item is going to consider a hollow boulder and a solid boulder to be occupying the same volume. That's all there really is to it.
===Aelryinth
Perhaps we could solve this problem the way Archimedes did. Submerge the item to be shrunk in water, the volume depends on the amount of water displaced.
Now your hollow sphere will displace more water since the air inside is trapped, which will add to it's displaced water volume. However, an open conical shape will trap no air and displace the proper amount of water.
It's silly to consider the open space as volume. It's a bunk argument and here's why: I can take a circular piece of cloth laid flat on a table... Shrink that piece of cloth... grab the point and raise it up to a cone, but according to you I can not take that same piece of cloth... raise point up into a cone and then proceed to shrink the item.
It's a mind-numbing argument.
I think the spell and the authors assumes a solid(not flexible) container. Once you start using things that are flexible it kind of goes outside of the math.
I think the spell and the authors assumes a solid(not flexible) container. Once you start using things that are flexible it kind of goes outside of the math.
Actually, I'm sure they had flexible items in mind. After all, shrunken items composition can become cloth-like, which is quite flexible. They were certainly taking it into account when shrunk, it would be reasonable to assume they thought about that before the item was shrunk.
Now, when considering volumes in regards to cu/ft per level, one needs to consider the math behind the volume of hollow cones does not include the airspace inside the cone.