DM Fudging
Robert Clinton Yocum
Timothy P. Coyle (timc...@ici.net) wrote:
> I am writing this post in the hopes that it will spur some
> lively conversation. The topic is DM fudging.
> I'm sure many of you DMs out there have been placed in the
> uncomfortable position of having to protect a viable and enjoyable
> campaign from instant implosion--usually as a result of the DM's
> carelessness, the players', or both.
> I contend that fudging is one of the most valuable, yet often
> misused, tools in the DM's arsenal. To get the conversation rolling,
> allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
> I ultimately handled it.
> Scenario: AD&D campaign, three PCs, levels 3 to 4. Party
> encounters a pack of ghasts, and their dice suddenly go VERY cold. As
> everyone lies on the floor, paralyzed, and the ghasts close in for the
> kill, I realize I've really screwed up.
> I have perhaps ten seconds to salvage the situation, and in a
> flash of relieved inspiration, I have a voice in the darkness whisper,
> "What have you found for me, my pets?"
> Enter Char'l Perronel, the Prince of Liches, an ad hoc creation
> that developed into one of the most complex (and strangely beloved)
> heavies my twisted mind :) has ever concocted. Campaign saved, and the
> players loved every minute of it.
> I'm rather interested to see what kind of response this posting
> will receive, to say the least...
Please. Your statement assumes that nothing has ever gone
wrong. Being able to cope with the unexpected is the defining quality of
a good DM.
Marc Quattromani
In article <32443F...@ici.net>, Timothy P. Coyle <timc...@ici.net> wrote:
>I am writing this post in the hopes that it will spur some
>lively conversation. The topic is DM fudging.
This is sure to start another undead thread :-)
> Scenario: AD&D campaign, three PCs, levels 3 to 4. Party
>encounters a pack of ghasts, and their dice suddenly go VERY cold. As
>everyone lies on the floor, paralyzed, and the ghasts close in for the
>kill, I realize I've really screwed up.
> I have perhaps ten seconds to salvage the situation, and in a
>flash of relieved inspiration, I have a voice in the darkness whisper,
>"What have you found for me, my pets?"
> Enter Char'l Perronel, the Prince of Liches, an ad hoc creation
>that developed into one of the most complex (and strangely beloved)
>heavies my twisted mind :) has ever concocted. Campaign saved, and the
>players loved every minute of it.
Some of the purists on this newsgroup would consider this fudging but
most refs wouldn't. This recovery is actually a dead-on analog to one
of the adventure-fiction writer's favorite techniques. That is: toss
your characters into ever more difficult situations, have disaster
befall, and have the recovery lead to still more difficulties to
overcome.
Such a writer might spend considerable effort putting the characters
into hot-water, then scramble to find a way out. Before you scoff at
this technique, remember that it is at the heart of many very popular
movies such as Star Wars, Speed, Die Hard n, etc. It can be overdone
but when well done makes for a gripping movie/book/D&D game.
I'd say it was a nicely done recovery for several reasons:
1) Unless you pubically hemmed and hawed too much, the players
won't have any idea you altered the scenario. Only you, the ref,
know.
2) It sounds like it enriched the campaign, providing further plot
material for the ref, always a good thing.
3) It was very colorful.
4) It was great suspense: the players stared at certain death, were
rescued by circumstances, but cirumstances with their own great
risks (i.e., perhaps being rescued by a lich is only prolonging
the inevitable :-)
For those refs who turn their nose up at bailing the party out by
altering a pre-planned scenario, since the difference is re-starting
the campaign and all the time and risk that entails, this seems a
better alternative. You could even consider it a meta-restart of the
campaign. As long as this sort of event is infrequent to extremely
rare, this seems a great way to handle these situations.
To me, it's a matter of referee credibility. Bailing a party out with
obviously fudged die-rolls, such as the 8 hits in a row from a long
sword for 1 point of damage I once experienced as a player, does far
more harm than good. The campaign is salvaged but at too great a cost
to the ref's prestiage.
But your lich solution, while it might be recognized as a fudge of
sorts by the perceptive player, is quite well hidden and should do
little harm to ref prestiage with the added benefit of creating a rich
source of further scenarios.
Marc Quattromani
Dave Brohman
Timothy P. Coyle (timc...@ici.net) wrote:
> I contend that fudging is one of the most valuable, yet often
> misused, tools in the DM's arsenal. To get the conversation rolling,
> allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
> I ultimately handled it.
I couldn't agree more. As a GM, I hate letting the dice be the sole
arbiter of fate. If, as is generally held, the GM represents everything in
the game aside from the PCs themselves, then he, and not the dice, is the
final agent of fate as well. If he dislikes a die roll, he is free to
change it.
Having said this, I must also say that I think this can be heavily abused.
A GM should not use this veto power to off PCs left, right and center, but
to make the game more interesting, exciting and survivable. This is not to
say that I do not believe PCs should never die, but I believe that
character death should be a major part of a campaign, not just the result
of a bad dice roll.
I have NEVER killed off a PC just by letting the result of a bad dice roll
determine his fate. I do not like killing PCs unless it is a dramaticaly
important moment in the story; and yet, my players always 'think' their PCs
are in mortal danger because they often 'almost' die.
What I do is I keep copies of all the charatcer sheets and I keep a
running total of each PC's hit points. Then I fudge die rolls that would
usually be fatal and make them 'almost fatal', dropping them to 0 hp or just
above. This keeps the players 'thinking' that they are always in mortal
danger, but also keeps the game going with the beloved PCs that the
players have spent months building and developing.
> Scenario: AD&D campaign, three PCs, levels 3 to 4. Party
> encounters a pack of ghasts, and their dice suddenly go VERY cold. As
> everyone lies on the floor, paralyzed, and the ghasts close in for the
> kill, I realize I've really screwed up.
> I have perhaps ten seconds to salvage the situation, and in a
> flash of relieved inspiration, I have a voice in the darkness whisper,
> "What have you found for me, my pets?"
> Enter Char'l Perronel, the Prince of Liches, an ad hoc creation
> that developed into one of the most complex (and strangely beloved)
> heavies my twisted mind :) has ever concocted. Campaign saved, and the
> players loved every minute of it.
I like this. Spur of the moment NPCs can be a fantastic addition to a
campaign. I remember running the original Ravenloft module many years ago.
The PCs encountered a bunch of villagers who, whenever the name Strahd (it
was Strahd wasn't it?) was mentioned would all spit "Ptooie!". After an
hour of this, they wanted to kill the villagers more than the vampire.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Brohman E-Mail : dbro...@chat.carleton.ca
Carleton University
Featuring Alexi Sayle as the Balowski Family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy P. Coyle
I am writing this post in the hopes that it will spur some
lively conversation. The topic is DM fudging.
uncomfortable position of having to protect a viable and enjoyable
campaign from instant implosion--usually as a result of the DM's
carelessness, the players', or both.
misused, tools in the DM's arsenal. To get the conversation rolling,
allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
I ultimately handled it.
Scenario: AD&D campaign, three PCs, levels 3 to 4. Party
encounters a pack of ghasts, and their dice suddenly go VERY cold. As
everyone lies on the floor, paralyzed, and the ghasts close in for the
kill, I realize I've really screwed up.
I have perhaps ten seconds to salvage the situation, and in a
flash of relieved inspiration, I have a voice in the darkness whisper,
"What have you found for me, my pets?"
Enter Char'l Perronel, the Prince of Liches, an ad hoc creation
that developed into one of the most complex (and strangely beloved)
heavies my twisted mind :) has ever concocted. Campaign saved, and the
players loved every minute of it.
I'm rather interested to see what kind of response this posting
will receive, to say the least...
TPC
Mormegil of Ket
> Timothy P. Coyle (timc...@ici.net) wrote:
>
> > I contend that fudging is one of the most valuable, yet often
> > misused, tools in the DM's arsenal. To get the conversation rolling,
> > allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
> > I ultimately handled it.
From a player's perspective DM fudging can be a bit irritating. An
example: I played a warrior who knew that one die he must sie. He would
inevitably meet a cruel end because as a Paladin, he had devoted himself
to erradicating evil. Someday he would meet an evil he could not defeat,
yet would not run from either. In a recent battle against pirates the
battle was going terribly bad for my Paladin. The GM had written a
terrible combat scenario and we were outnumbered 4 to 1. As damage came
in I noticed that the ammount of damage we took dropped from 5-7 points to
1-3 points. Moreover, the pirates insisted on fighting us face to face
rather than rear attacks. After a few rounds I simply walked away from
the table, disgusted at the GM's obvious tampering with the dice.
The moral: If you are going to be fudge, be clever about it. My GM is
terrible. I wish I had you fellows instead.
--
**********************************************
The preceding was brought to you courtesy of
orbital mind control lasers
fun to be had at http://users.deltanet.com/~mormegil
*****************************************************
Philip Kelley
GM fudging is necessary, but not necessarily a necessary evil unless
needlesly overused. If the random results of the dice or the poor (i.e.,
you didn't expect them) decisions of the players would otherwise spell
certain doom to your scene/adventure/evening/three-year-old campaign,
then it is almost your duty to use a bit of fudging to make sure it
doesn't happen.
The hard part comes in determining yow you fudge. What you would want to
do would be to give the players another chance, but not make it obvious.
The easy out would be to have some NPC happen along in the nick of time,
waste the baddies, save the PCs, and wander into the background. Very
unsatisfying for the players. Your solution with the Lich, as mentioned
in the other replies, smacks of impromptu genius, and obviously raised
the intensity of the campaign.
One of the hardest things to do as a GM (in my experience) is not not
fudge as often as you might think necessary. Players are a devious and
crafty lot, and can often come up with stunts and tactics that you would
never have dreamed of in months of planning. Case in point: in a recent
Champions game, my players were stuck in another dimension, robbed of
their powers, surrounded by an army, and thrown in a cell to be shot at
dawn. I thought I had overdone it a bit, and was planning a few possible
backup contingencies, when: (PC) "Do the guards leave?" (GM) "Well, after
gloating a bit and making unpleasant gestures, yes..." (PC) "Good, now
here's what we do..." and they proceeded to blow them away handily. When
the expected cavalry finally arrived (too late to have saved them from
execution), they were safely barricaded away, sniping at anyone who
showed their noses.
My point is, don't fudge unless its truly, absolutely necessary. If it
only *looks* bad, don't give in--let the players play it out. Who knows,
the dice may turn back on, or the muse of desperate inovation may visit
the quiet guy in the corner...
[By the way, this is my first post ever. If this somehow ends up in some
random use group, please accept my sincerest apologies.]
--
Philip Kelley
p-ke...@nwu.edu
R. John Morrow
"Timothy P. Coyle" (timc...@ici.net) writes:
> I am writing this post in the hopes that it will spur some
> lively conversation. The topic is DM fudging.
You must be new to the newsgroup because we just spent several
months debating this particular topic, and I for one an NOT getting into
it again - passions tend to run a bit high.
--
"You're dead for a real long time, you just can't prevent it,
So if money can't buy happiness, I guess I'll have to rent it."
- Weird Al-
Jim Sisolak
"TPC" == Timothy P Coyle <timc...@ici.net> writes:
TPC> I am writing this post in the hopes that it will spur some lively
TPC> conversation. The topic is DM fudging.[....]
TPC> lies on the floor, paralyzed, and the ghasts close in for the kill,
TPC> I realize I've really screwed up. I have perhaps ten seconds to
TPC> salvage the situation, and in a flash of relieved inspiration, I
TPC> have a voice in the darkness whisper, "What have you found [....]
What have you got against dead PCs?
--
JS
Al Jergensen
Timothy P. Coyle <timc...@ici.net> wrote in article
<32443F...@ici.net>...
>[snip]
> I contend that fudging is one of the most valuable, yet often
> misused, tools in the DM's arsenal. To get the conversation rolling,
> allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
> I ultimately handled it.
>
> Scenario: AD&D campaign, three PCs, levels 3 to 4. Party
> encounters a pack of ghasts, and their dice suddenly go VERY cold. As
> everyone lies on the floor, paralyzed, and the ghasts close in for the
> kill, I realize I've really screwed up.
> I have perhaps ten seconds to salvage the situation, and in a
> flash of relieved inspiration, I have a voice in the darkness whisper,
> "What have you found for me, my pets?"
> Enter Char'l Perronel, the Prince of Liches, an ad hoc creation
> that developed into one of the most complex (and strangely beloved)
> heavies my twisted mind :) has ever concocted. Campaign saved, and the
> players loved every minute of it.
I think what some people (and DM's too) forget that the game is about
having fun. If "fudging" such as you did in this case made your campaign
more fun for the DM and the players then go for it!
The main problem with such fudging is that you need to be careful (and it
sounds like you were) that it sounds like you planned it all along. I've
even gone to the extent of "studying" my notes while trying to figure out
what I'm going to do so that I don't kill off everyone. Of course this goes
both ways, if the bad guys are getting stomped too bad they may get
unexpected help as well!
This doesn't mean that I never kill off characters, I do. Without a chance
of dying there's no sense of risk which is no fun either...it depends more
on the player than anything. On the other hand, killing off the entire
party on a regular basis doesn't exactly lend itself to a lot of character
development.
AJ.
--
"Only the paranoid survive."
- Andrew Grove, Intel CEO
Jim Sisolak
"AJ" == Al Jergensen <ajerg...@juno.com> writes:
[..scenario..]
AJ> I think what some people (and DM's too) forget that the game is about
AJ> having fun. If "fudging" such as you did in this case made your campaign
AJ> more fun for the DM and the players then go for it!
That is the point. If the players are on the ball it CAN NOT make the game
more fun in the long run because they will *know* the DM is fudging and
that spoils any sense of danger or suspense.
AJ> The main problem with such fudging is that you need to be careful
They will figure it out, sooner or later. Probably sooner.
AJ> party on a regular basis doesn't exactly lend itself to a lot of
AJ> character development.
If they want character development they shouldn't take such large risks.
--
JS
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Timothy P. Coyle wrote:
>
> I am writing this post in the hopes that it will spur some
> I'm sure many of you DMs out there have been placed in the
> uncomfortable position of having to protect a viable and enjoyable
> campaign from instant implosion--usually as a result of the DM's
> carelessness, the players', or both.
> misused, tools in the DM's arsenal. To get the conversation rolling,
> allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
> I ultimately handled it.
>
> Scenario: AD&D campaign, three PCs, levels 3 to 4. Party
> encounters a pack of ghasts, and their dice suddenly go VERY cold. As
> everyone lies on the floor, paralyzed, and the ghasts close in for the
> kill, I realize I've really screwed up.
> I have perhaps ten seconds to salvage the situation, and in a
> flash of relieved inspiration, I have a voice in the darkness whisper,
> "What have you found for me, my pets?"
> Enter Char'l Perronel, the Prince of Liches, an ad hoc creation
> that developed into one of the most complex (and strangely beloved)
> heavies my twisted mind :) has ever concocted. Campaign saved, and the
> players loved every minute of it.
>
> will receive, to say the least...
>
> TPC
Sounds okay.
Scott
WRBRL-TV News Channel 3
"Scott A. H. Ruggels" <scott....@3do.com> wrote:
>Timothy P. Coyle wrote:
>>
>> I am writing this post in the hopes that it will spur some
>> lively conversation. The topic is DM fudging.
>> I'm sure many of you DMs out there have been placed in the
>> uncomfortable position of having to protect a viable and enjoyable
>> campaign from instant implosion--usually as a result of the DM's
>> carelessness, the players', or both.
>> I contend that fudging is one of the most valuable, yet often
>> misused, tools in the DM's arsenal. To get the conversation rolling,
>> allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
>> I ultimately handled it.
>>
>> Scenario: AD&D campaign, three PCs, levels 3 to 4. Party
>> encounters a pack of ghasts, and their dice suddenly go VERY cold. As
>> everyone lies on the floor, paralyzed, and the ghasts close in for the
>> kill, I realize I've really screwed up.
Let's face it, sometimes you have to fudge, or else it will be a
really short game. Sounds to me like you did a great job of handling
an off the cuff problem.
We all have to fudge a little to keep the game going. The biggest
question is, when do we fudge and when don't we fudge. I think most
will agree that they have to fudge a little to keep the entire party
from getting killed...
But some DM's fudge when they want the party to discover a really cool
magic item, or when they want them to see a really great part of a
dungeon they created...When do you fudge and when don't you.
It sounds to me like you really didn't fudge....you improvised very
well......
Franko Franicevich
> Timothy P. Coyle (timc...@ici.net) wrote:
> Scenario: AD&D campaign, three PCs, levels 3 to 4. Party
> encounters a pack of ghasts, and their dice suddenly go VERY cold. As
> everyone lies on the floor, paralyzed, and the ghasts close in for the
> kill, I realize I've really screwed up.
> I have perhaps ten seconds to salvage the situation, and in a
> flash of relieved inspiration, I have a voice in the darkness whisper,
> "What have you found for me, my pets?"
> Enter Char'l Perronel, the Prince of Liches, an ad hoc creation
Class A act...
Great stuff!
I'm going to keep this idea in the back of my head, in case I ever come up
with a situation like this...
--Frankie
--
Franko Franicevich, http://www.tripod.com/~SilverMage
Email: ffr...@cs.auckland.ac.nz
Mr. Mad
Timothy P. Coyle wrote:
>
> I am writing this post in the hopes that it will spur some
> lively conversation. The topic is DM fudging.
> I'm sure many of you DMs out there have been placed in the
> uncomfortable position of having to protect a viable and enjoyable
> campaign from instant implosion--usually as a result of the DM's
> carelessness, the players', or both.
> I contend that fudging is one of the most valuable, yet often
> misused, tools in the DM's arsenal. To get the conversation rolling,
> allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
> I ultimately handled it.
>
> encounters a pack of ghasts, and their dice suddenly go VERY cold. As
> everyone lies on the floor, paralyzed, and the ghasts close in for the
> kill, I realize I've really screwed up.
> I have perhaps ten seconds to salvage the situation, and in a
> flash of relieved inspiration, I have a voice in the darkness whisper,
> "What have you found for me, my pets?"
> Enter Char'l Perronel, the Prince of Liches, an ad hoc creation
> heavies my twisted mind :) has ever concocted. Campaign saved, and the
> players loved every minute of it.
>
> I'm rather interested to see what kind of response this posting
> will receive, to say the least...
>
> TPC
IMHO, changing the plot to fit the situation the dice deal is not
fudging, and the above example is an excellent one. When the DM changes
the dice rolls to fit the plot it is fudging, and whether or not that's
right is debatable.
Two instances, both of which have occured in Dusk. The first involved
the party being ambushed by kobolds. I intentionally set up
overwhelming odds with a chance to flee (after all, the party was
mounted,
the kobolds weren't). The party attacked the buggers, being veteran
hack 'n' slashers (the group didn't know me well). The kobolds took
them out by overbearing in less than a minute. The bard of the party
was knocked into negative HP's, and I told him,
"Just before you pass out from the pain of your wounds, one of the
kobolds taunts in a fairly good Dalsundrian, 'Don't let him die just
yet, humans are far more delicous when they're screaming.'"
The kobold shaman bound up his wounds. One party member escaped and
had a hell of a time convincing another group of NPC's to help. Even
later the party elf had to endure the taunts of his employer upon news
of the kobold victory.
In this instance I bent the plot around the dice, which is acceptable.
The kobolds behaved perfectly normally, if a little arrogantly.
In another instance I had no choice but to let the chips fall where
they lie. It's quite humorous in hindsight.
DM (Me): Well guys, you continue up this cavern passage crawling another
60 ft or so, and finally it opens up enough for you to walk standing
for the first time in hours.
Wild Mage: How much room do we have?
DM: The walls are uneven and watercut, but I'd say 3 ft's the average
width and 5 ft's the average height.
Couple of minutes pass.
DM: (description of something irrelavant to this story).... and then
you see it, a six legged creature of peculiar shape. His eyes lock with
Arvis (party fighter) and he turns to stone. Check off your actions on
your cards and pass them here.
Player's gasp when my eyes bug out slightly.
DM: Brian, am I reading this right?
Wild Mage: Yes, I'm casting fireball.
DM: Get out the Player's Handbook and read me the description of
fireball.
Wild Mage: (Player reads the description, stops on the line ...) The
fireball fills an area equal to its normal spherical volume.
DM: Roll surge check.
Party collectively gasps when 5 comes up, the surge number. Keep in
mind that at this point I was going to ignore the fact that a firebal
would consume all the oxygen in the passageway. As a 8th level party
they'd probably survive just the fireball.
DM: Roll surge
Wild Mage: Table 1 (TOM), number 99.
DM: (Reads entry) Spell persits for one turn duration, regardless of
stated duration.
I gave an icy stare at all the players, and Brian in particular, and
spoke Shang Tsung style, "Game Over."
Should I have fudged???? I didn't because a player brought it down on
himself.
_
/ \//\ Mr. Mad http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0
\ //// mailto:mlm...@pop.uky.edu
\M /
\/ Clinton / Gore '96
Franko Franicevich
In article <521dar$b...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
dbro...@chat.carleton.ca (Dave Brohman) wrote:
> I like this. Spur of the moment NPCs can be a fantastic addition to a
> campaign. I remember running the original Ravenloft module many years ago.
> The PCs encountered a bunch of villagers who, whenever the name Strahd (it
> was Strahd wasn't it?) was mentioned would all spit "Ptooie!". After an
> hour of this, they wanted to kill the villagers more than the vampire.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
I always find that the DM seems to like these sorts of characters more
than the PC's do...
Saying that, I'm just as guilty of the crime! ;-)
Marc Quattromani
In article <SISOLAK.96...@trans4.neep.wisc.edu>,
As a ref who isn't afraid to kill a party, I'd say there is nothing
wrong with dead PCs and lots wrong with a dead party. In fact, dead
PCs are a good thing in moderation: they work wonders for a campaign;
I highly recommend them.
As for dead parties, they are a real mine field. Sometimes it is
necessary. I certainly do not recommend any obvious fudges to avoid
it but the original poster had a quite reasonable way for dealing with
the issue.
When the entire party dies, your campaign has obviously come to a
complete stop. That can be good for the ref, allowing you to make
improvements, assimilate experience and so on before the next campaign.
It's also a great time for players to wander away or for the wind to
go out of the sails of your group's roleplaying effort.
A game restart like this carries risks that aren't necesssarily worth
it if you have a perfectly good campaign running already and a
perfectly reasonably way of continuing it, as the poster had.
Marc Quattromani
Ryan Secan
Timothy P. Coyle wrote:
>
> I am writing this post in the hopes that it will spur some
> I'm sure many of you DMs out there have been placed in the
> uncomfortable position of having to protect a viable and enjoyable
> campaign from instant implosion--usually as a result of the DM's
> carelessness, the players', or both.
> I contend that fudging is one of the most valuable, yet often
> misused, tools in the DM's arsenal. To get the conversation rolling,
> allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
> I ultimately handled it.
>
I am a firm believer in the fact that as GM, it is your job to make the
game entertaining for both the players and yourself. This will
necessarily entail fudging. It will certainly not be enjoyable for the
players to die in every encounter after going to all of the trouble to
make up a coherent character background, nor will it be enjoyable for
them to simply walk over everything that they encounter. Therefore, I
will fudge to make encounters more difficult if the players are having a
too easy time, and will fudge to give the characters a break if they are
getting hammered. Now this all goes with the stipulation that the
players are playing well, and haven't done anything outrageously studpid
to deserve their fate (or have planned the encounter so well that they
walk over their enemies). In these case, I let the chips fall where
they may. Now as for the the part of the job of DM where yiu have a
good time as well, I will always fudge if there is something
particularly interesting that I want the players to find out. The key
to all fo this is to make sure that everyone is having fun. If the
players begin to fell like they can't die, or that it doesn't matter
what they do, things will get boring very quickly. Like everything else
in the world, use carefully and in moderation.
Ryan
The Amorphous Mass
Ryan Secan <rse...@com1.med.usf.edu> wrote:
>
>I am a firm believer in the fact that as GM, it is your job to make the
>game entertaining for both the players and yourself. This will
>necessarily entail fudging.
Not necessarily. The key is that not everyone has the same definition of
"entertaining."
> It will certainly not be enjoyable for the
>players to die in every encounter after going to all of the trouble to
>make up a coherent character background, nor will it be enjoyable for
>them to simply walk over everything that they encounter.
And if the DM is even halfway competent, the players simply will not
either rout or be routed by _every_ encounter. Not every encounter will
be lethal -- that's why all those Teleport-style spells have casting times
of 1, and it's also why the Death's Door rule is offered.
> Therefore, I
>will fudge to make encounters more difficult if the players are having a
>too easy time, and will fudge to give the characters a break if they are
>getting hammered. Now this all goes with the stipulation that the
>players are playing well
If the PCs are getting hammered, they can try to leave. If they
don't have any way to leave, then that's their problem. If the PCs
are kicking tail, then you can simply say that you thought the opponent
would be tougher than it was; if the opponent is rolling poorly, then it
can try to leave. If it doesn't have any way to leave, then it deserves
its fate. Finally, if every single encounter challenges the PCs to the
same extent, isn't that just as bad as having them always succeed or
fail spectacularly? Shouldn't they get to feel good about bringing the
house down on an opponent every once in a while, especially if they know
that they did it fair and square (no fudging)? Are your players immature
enough that they can't take a pounding (fair and square) in good humor?
Tragedy and misfortune are part of the fun, too.
Now, in reference to the scenario in the original post, I'm not sure
if I'd consider that a fudge -- a /deus ex machina/, certainly, but that's
a firmly established tool in the literary toolbox. :-) Fudging distorts
the rules; the original poster put a plausible wrinkle in the plot. The
chief and crucial difference is that the former messes with the game rules
that the _players_ count on to play the game, and the latter messes with
the scenario, which the players shouldn't have any idea about. If the
change makes sense (and a lich controlling ghouls makes sense) then as far
as the players are concerned, nothing untoward has happened. In fact, if
the GM is the improvising type, the players might not even attach much
significance if she hems and haws a little before introducing the lich.
>to all fo this is to make sure that everyone is having fun. If the
>players begin to fell like they can't die, or that it doesn't matter
>what they do, things will get boring very quickly. Like everything else
>in the world, use carefully and in moderation.
And use the many other less obvious ways to prevent imbalance before
resorting to the fudge. It takes remarkably little time for the players to
catch on to DM fudging, and the presence of fudging axiomatically means that
the players can no longer plan on the probabilities and possibilities set
down in the rules of the game -- that, in a very real sense, it doesn't
matter what they do, because when it matters most the results will be
essentially arbitrary.
As I said the last time that this thread appeared (the starting article
was refreshingly different, but many of the replies are the same old same
old), I used to believe in fudging, but I've found that the game is much
more enjoyable without it, from both sides of the referee's screen.
--
The Amorphous Mass
james-r...@uiowa.edu
aka Hyacinth, elven ambassador to the Human Island of Haven.
Joe Feyas
abide is mages who can't use spells (or wands or spell-like effects for
that matter).
Players should know how to use the spells. Epecially at 8th lervel...
Joe
--
Would you like Microsoft or Microsoft with your Microsoft?
Phil Lemmons, Editor in Chief PC WORLD
Lawrence R. Mead
Dave Brohman (dbro...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
: Timothy P. Coyle (timc...@ici.net) wrote:
:
: > I contend that fudging is one of the most valuable, yet often
: > allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
: > I ultimately handled it.
: I couldn't agree more. As a GM, I hate letting the dice be the sole
: arbiter of fate. If, as is generally held, the GM represents everything in
: the game aside from the PCs themselves, then he, and not the dice, is the
: final agent of fate as well. If he dislikes a die roll, he is free to
: change it.
:
: Having said this, I must also say that I think this can be heavily abused.
: A GM should not use this veto power to off PCs left, right and center, but
: to make the game more interesting, exciting and survivable. This is not to
: say that I do not believe PCs should never die, but I believe that
: character death should be a major part of a campaign, not just the result
: of a bad dice roll.
:
: I have NEVER killed off a PC just by letting the result of a bad dice roll
: determine his fate. I do not like killing PCs unless it is a dramaticaly
: important moment in the story; and yet, my players always 'think' their PCs
: are in mortal danger because they often 'almost' die.
:
: What I do is I keep copies of all the charatcer sheets and I keep a
: running total of each PC's hit points. Then I fudge die rolls that would
: usually be fatal and make them 'almost fatal', dropping them to 0 hp or just
: above. This keeps the players 'thinking' that they are always in mortal
: danger, but also keeps the game going with the beloved PCs that the
: players have spent months building and developing.
: > Scenario: AD&D campaign, three PCs, levels 3 to 4. Party
: > kill, I realize I've really screwed up.
: > I have perhaps ten seconds to salvage the situation, and in a
: > flash of relieved inspiration, I have a voice in the darkness whisper,
: > "What have you found for me, my pets?"
: > Enter Char'l Perronel, the Prince of Liches, an ad hoc creation
: > that developed into one of the most complex (and strangely beloved)
: > heavies my twisted mind :) has ever concocted. Campaign saved, and the
: > players loved every minute of it.
: I like this. Spur of the moment NPCs can be a fantastic addition to a
: campaign. I remember running the original Ravenloft module many years ago.
: The PCs encountered a bunch of villagers who, whenever the name Strahd (it
: was Strahd wasn't it?) was mentioned would all spit "Ptooie!". After an
: hour of this, they wanted to kill the villagers more than the vampire.
I, too, like the above "rescue" a lot and have used such devices as well.
However, note that no die roll was fudged - something I refuse to do.
DMGorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu)
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html
Lawrence R. Mead
Philip Kelley (p-ke...@nwu.edu) wrote:
: GM fudging is necessary, but not necessarily a necessary evil unless
:
: Philip Kelley
: p-ke...@nwu.edu
Good advice Phil. On many many occasions I thought the party was nailed -
but I have learned to trust them. PC's will come up with the most remarkable
"saves" without much help from me. But still, I have my contingencies
planned well in advance so I usually don't need to fudge (basically
dishonest).
Psychochild
Philip Kelley <p-ke...@nwu.edu> writes:
>GM fudging is necessary, but not necessarily a necessary evil unless
>needlesly overused. If the random results of the dice or the poor (i.e.,
>you didn't expect them) decisions of the players would otherwise spell
>certain doom to your scene/adventure/evening/three-year-old campaign,
>then it is almost your duty to use a bit of fudging to make sure it
>doesn't happen.
[a bit snipped]
>My point is, don't fudge unless its truly, absolutely necessary. If it
>only *looks* bad, don't give in--let the players play it out. Who knows,
>the dice may turn back on, or the muse of desperate inovation may visit
>the quiet guy in the corner...
>[By the way, this is my first post ever. If this somehow ends up in some
>random use group, please accept my sincerest apologies.]
>Philip Kelley
>p-ke...@nwu.edu
Alright! Let's hear it for the clueful newbie! :)
What about the other side of the coin? I mean, fudging to make the game
a bit harder. I'll give an example.
I was running an AD&D campaign (I like some of the mechanics, but most
of the stuff is just homebrew). It was a quasi-historical campaign (I
used a lot of the historical handbooks and had the Romans, Greeks,
Vikings and Celts all coexisting in their respective places
simultaneously. It was quite fun, even if not "realistic". :)
I decided I wanted a witch to completely harm a fighter, but make his
wounds unhealable by the party priest. This was to lead up to a point
where the party would have to find someone to heal the poor fighter, and
lead into the next scenario I had planned, meeting a wandering group of
Amazon priestesses that practiced healing arts. Well, when the fighting
had started, I decided the witch was using a dagger with a bit of magic
on it. Well, the 1d4+1 wasn't enough to hurt the burly fighter, so I
upped the damage a bit on him. He was quite perceptive, and noticed
that everyone else was taking less damage. He got kinda irate in the
middle of the combat, and it took a bit of "foreshadowing" to smooth
things over. :) Of course, this was WAAAAY back when I was just
starting to GM.
But, the point of the story is: what about fudging against the PCs,
especially in terms of story? I know this treads a bit on the
"diceless" people's favorite territory, but I'm not ready (and neither
are my PCs) to make that jump yet. :)
In my wiser and more experienced view, I think this is a very good
technique to get a plot moving. After readin the posts, it's clear (to
me, at least) that a lot of the people on this thread are in the middle
ground between the pure "dice" people, and the pure "diceless" people.
We want some kind of "randomness", but sometimes that randomness is just
too damn random. :)
Comments welcomed.
"And I now wait / to shake the hand of fate...." -"Defender", Manowar
Brian Green, pch...@iastate.edu aka Psychochild
|\ _,,,---,,_ *=* Morpheus, my kitten, says "Hi!" *=*
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ "If you two are so evil, then why don't
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' you just...EAT THIS KITTEN!"
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) - "The Tick", Saturday morning cartoon.
Check out: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~pchild to find out more 'bout me!
Dan Mallison II
Are you suggesting that we should all sit down and play
"Accountants"? Part of the "fun" is knowing that we're doing
stuff that in real life would get us PERMANENTLY dead or thrown
in jail. I'd never be a successful "hero" in real life because
I don't have the physical build for it. And the equalizer,
guns, can be owned by the baddies too...
Dan II
--
Howard D. Mallison II
Computer Operations Technician
UVa Medical Center Computing
hd...@galen.med.virginia.edu
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Joe Feyas wrote:
> abide is mages who can't use spells (or wands or spell-like effects for
> that matter).
> Players should know how to use the spells. Epecially at 8th lervel...
>
> Joe
I would have to agree, usually fudging is used to cover a >GM's< run of
luck, or poor tactial balance, but doing it to cover for a player's
mistake is not a good idea. In my opinion, Stupidity kills more often
than not, so i would have it that the spell fries the party.
Scott
Lise Mendel
Scott A. H. Ruggels <scott....@3do.com> wrote:
>
> I would have to agree, usually fudging is used to cover a >GM's< run of
> luck, or poor tactial balance, but doing it to cover for a player's
> mistake is not a good idea. In my opinion, Stupidity kills more often
> than not, so i would have it that the spell fries the party.
>
> Scott
Isn't the fireball in an enclosed space one of _every_ D&D (or AD&D)
players "no shit, there we were" stories? There's always the one
_stupid_ mage who learns that spell and fries the party. Bouncing
lightning bolts tend to re-occur, too.
I've never heard of player mistakes of _this_ sort where the DM fudged
to let the characters survive. It's not a matter of assumption clash,
since the mechanics are in the rule book, which (presumably) the player
has read.
OTOH - fudging to cover stupidity where the GM simply assumed the
player had different knowledge is not necessarily a bad thing, unless
you're playing a game where the player knowledge is supposed to be
identical to character knowledge....
--
Lise Mendel
Mommy to Abigail (5/9/93) and Dorothy (10/19/95)
http://www.access.digex.net/~catalyst/
I reserve the right to repost e-mailed flames wherever it amuses me to
MH-AB
In <529bss$e...@news.iastate.edu>
---------------------------
Philip Kelley wrote (in his 1st ever post!): ...[SNIP - Get used to it
Phil :) ] ...My point is, don't fudge unless its truly, absolutely
necessary. If it only *looks* bad, don't give in--let the players play
it out. Who knows, the dice may turn back on, or the muse of desperate
Psychochild replied: Alright! Let's hear it for the clueful newbie! :)
What about the other side of the coin? I mean, fudging to make the
game a bit harder...[SNIP]...But, the point of the story is: what about
fudging against the PCs, especially in terms of story?...[SNIP]
---------------------------
Welcome to the NG, Phil. You seem competent enough not to warrant
a RTFM or Flame, but IRC you've got to get everyone ROFL before you are
considered a Reg. So keep posting. IMHO, you'll be one PDQ. TTYL. :P
As for fudging...
I suppose it depends on how you run your game. If you can prepare
for each session with regular good judgment and gauging, then you
probably have no use for fudging (cf. DMGorgon). If you're a concept
first, wing the rest, to hell with details beforehand, improviso DM,
then I'd expect that you'd fudge all the time.
My opinion, as humble as I'd like to think it is, is that if you
do, don't let THEM (the players) know. Otherwise, do as you will.
Rancorr Blackmane
------------
"I cannot confirm or deny your theory." - Steve M.
Marc Quattromani
In article <1996092500...@a-ko.digex.net>,
Lise Mendel <cata...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>Isn't the fireball in an enclosed space one of _every_ D&D (or AD&D)
>players "no shit, there we were" stories? There's always the one
>_stupid_ mage who learns that spell and fries the party. Bouncing
>lightning bolts tend to re-occur, too.
It certainly is! Seems that even the experienced players get a little
carried away with that first fireball upon attaining 5th level and
free the party. The best such fireball in my memory was the one cast
a devil, frying the entire party, not harming the devil and burning
some magic goop they needed to escape. Quite amusing.
>I've never heard of player mistakes of _this_ sort where the DM fudged
>to let the characters survive. It's not a matter of assumption clash,
>since the mechanics are in the rule book, which (presumably) the player
>has read.
I agree. Seems like the height of bad fudging. With a fudged, hidden
die-roll, the players might guess the ref cheated. But choosing to
ignore something obvious like that is just pubically stating "Do
anything you want; I can't bring myself to kill you." That's about
as bad a mistake as a ref can make.
Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
Marc Quattromani
The Amorphous Mass
ma...@pyramid.com ("Marc Quattromani") wrote:
>
>Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
>the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
>cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
>ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
>radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
>volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
Yes, but magic don't work like dat. After all, how many spells do you
know that have an area of effect of eg 10' radius sphere + 5' radius/level?
A Fireball cast at ground level is a 20 foot radius hemisphere for
simplicity's sake. Now this makes it a little more difficult to attempt the
"Fireball in a narrow hallway" trick because if the Fireball doesn't increase
in radius because the ground prevents it from forming a sphere, then why
should it increase in radius when the floor, walls and ceiling prevent it
from filling a spherical volume? After all, "conforms to the space it
is cast in" doesn't _necessarily_ mean that the full volume is preserved.
It's actually a pretty tricky call, because if you accept that a Fireball
can take up less than 33,000 cubic feet then all of a sudden it's not so
crazy to lob them down narrow corridors, as long as your allies are more
than 20 feet from ground zero (and as long as the corridor isn't filled with
methane... :-). OTOH, if you insist that a Fireball always occupies 33,000
cubic feet, then you had better get familiar with your calculator. After
all, most of the time the Fireball will be cast 5 or 6 feet above the ground,
so it's not an _exact_ hemisphere...
IDHTPHBIFOM, so there's a possibility I missed something in the spell
description. Nevertheless, if the spell does say somewhere that it does
expand out to its full size if at all possible then the question of why
the "hemisphere" has the same radius as the full sphere remains. (Simple
answer: It doesn't make _that_ much of a difference in the AoE, and you
don't have to do any calculatin').
Noah Dowd
Marc Quattromani wrote:
>
> Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
> the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
> cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
> ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
> radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
> volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
That would be 33,000 cubic feet, equivalent to a sphere of 20' radius
or a hemisphere of 25' radius. I think the total volume is even
mentioned somewhere...
-Noah
--
"I like you, I always have."
-The King, in _True Romance_
Richard Campbell
In article <52bve5$p...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
The Amorphous Mass <robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>After all, "conforms to the space it
>is cast in" doesn't _necessarily_ mean that the full volume is preserved.
No, but "the fireball fills an area equal to its normal spherical volume"
does.
--
Richard Campbell "The ants will get him, sure. But not THIS one...
gt3...@prism.gatech.edu And not the one behind him either, goddammit! Don't
(John Steakley, ARMOR) you see?....The ants scare him. But he can fight
the individuals because...Because they piss him off!
The Amorphous Mass
gt3...@prism.gatech.edu (Richard Campbell) wrote:
>In article <52bve5$p...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>The Amorphous Mass <robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>>After all, "conforms to the space it
>>is cast in" doesn't _necessarily_ mean that the full volume is preserved.
>
>No, but "the fireball fills an area equal to its normal spherical volume"
>does.
I did say I didn't have the book in front of me. *sigh*. So the "simple
explanation" at the end of my post will have to suffice. Does anyone really
feel like computing the max radius of a Fireball cast 5 feet above the
ground? How about the radius at ground level? What if it was cast on
a termite mound -- would the solid volume of the mound displace it, and if
so how much bigger would it get?
Yes, I'm being silly. :-)
Nick Meredith
Noah Dowd <no...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>Marc Quattromani wrote:
>>
>> Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
>> the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
>> cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
>> ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
>> radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
>> volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
>That would be 33,000 cubic feet, equivalent to a sphere of 20' radius
>or a hemisphere of 25' radius. I think the total volume is even
>mentioned somewhere...
33,000 cubic feet, or 33 cubes each of 10'x10'x10'.
So, provided you know the ceiling height, and it's low enough to
constrain the blast, it's pretty easy to just cross off the
appropriate number of squares on a floorplan, starting from ground
zero. A quick bit of approximation soon shows where is hit by the
blast - a quick and simple way of showing how far the flashback gets
up corridors.
==========================================================
Regards
Nick Meredith - ni...@discover.co.uk - Coventry, England
Richard Campbell
In article <52c6e2$c...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
The Amorphous Mass <robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
> I did say I didn't have the book in front of me. *sigh*. So the "simple
>explanation" at the end of my post will have to suffice. Does anyone really
>feel like computing the max radius of a Fireball cast 5 feet above the
>ground? How about the radius at ground level? What if it was cast on
>a termite mound -- would the solid volume of the mound displace it, and if
>so how much bigger would it get?
> Yes, I'm being silly. :-)
Still, all you really have to do is eyeball it...
the only question, after all, is what NPC's/PC's got hit with it...
things like, did I set that chair on fire, or that scroll, or that...
can be guessed at.
Galen Brooks
[snipped scenario about huge fireball in a corridor]
There might have been a way that the GM could have rescued that scenario
without stretching credulity beyond the breaking point. If I recall, one
player had been turned to stone just before the fireball went off. If
the GM then tells everyone that the player changes back from stone
slowly, he might have been able to do something about helping the other
players.
Would that be an allowable fudging of the rules? The players might not
realize that the scenario had been "tweaked" on them, and even if they
did notice, they might even go along with it.
- Galen
D. Rapp
Psychochild wrote:
>
> What about the other side of the coin? I mean, fudging to make the game
>
> Comments welcomed.
> ...
> ...A good game is like a good story - you often need to rewrite. Sometimes that
rewriting occurs during the game. A game that is either too difficult for the
level (or gaming experience) of the players or far too easy is not fun for
anyone and you may soon find yourself DMing an empty room. If it ain't broke,
don't fix it. But if it is--do something about it!
--Debbi
Marc Quattromani
In article <32498C...@bnr.ca>, Noah Dowd <no...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>Marc Quattromani wrote:
>>
>> Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
>> the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
>> cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
>> ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
>> radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
>> volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
>
>That would be 33,000 cubic feet, equivalent to a sphere of 20' radius
>or a hemisphere of 25' radius. I think the total volume is even
>mentioned somewhere...
Yep, that's what the rules would indicate. But I wonder how many
referees actually have your typical fireball, cast at or near ground
level, have a radius of 25 feet? :-)
From recollection of other refs and myown play, they tend to be 20
foot radius, barring any major obstructions.
BTW I'm not trying to make a big issue of this. I just think it's kind
of amusing that the PHB carefully states the volume and a radius but
that in typical usage the radius is not 'correct'. I would assume
most people (as I have done), see the 20 foot radius and leave it
at that.
Marc Quattromani
Keith Davies
Lise Mendel (cata...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: OTOH - fudging to cover stupidity where the GM simply assumed the
: player had different knowledge is not necessarily a bad thing, unless
: you're playing a game where the player knowledge is supposed to be
: identical to character knowledge....
I'm the same way; if *I* forgot to give my players information, I don't
sting them for it. Sometimes the world changes to meet what they
expect, other times I allow them to retract their actions. If it's
knowledge that they had to work for and didn't get (such as having to
speak with the Guildmaster of ... - and they didn't bother) then it's
their own fault, and they suffer for their lack of preparation.
OTOH, I once had a thief climb up a wall past a window, tie a rope off
at the top and tell me he was going to swing down and smash through the
window - he didn't have any lockpicks or other tools, and his skill was
low anyway.
I hadn't expected him to do this, so I didn't bother describing the
window to him much; he looked in and I said he saw what looked like a
gold figurine. When he said he was going to jump I said "the window is
two feet square...." with a bit of question to it. I would have allowed
him to retract because it was a decision based on information that he
should have had that I didn't give him. He was 6'4" and said "oh man,
this is gonna hurt".
Style points! I *had* to let him try then, with a better chance than
if he had made the decision with knowledge. His willingness to
continue with what he said, regardless of surprisingly (for him) adverse
conditions had to be rewarded.
BTW, he made it.
Keith
--
Keith Davies - Entropy Software | GCS3.0 d-(+) s+:+ a22 C++ UL++(++++) P+
kda...@pinc.com | L+ E W+(+++) N++ K w++@ !O M-- V-(--)
voice: (604) 385-8536 | PS+++ PE+(-) Y PGP-(--) t 5 X R+ tv---
modem: (604) 386-8536 | b+++ DI++ D+ G e+ h--- r+++ y++++
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.
Keith Davies
Marc Quattromani (ma...@pyramid.com) wrote:
: Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
: the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
: cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
: ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
: radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
: volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
The books states that the total volume is 33000+ feet^3 - the volume
of a sphere with a radius of 20'. I would say that the hemisphere
would have a radius of 25'.
Jason M. Hamari
Lise Mendel <cata...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>Isn't the fireball in an enclosed space one of _every_ D&D (or AD&D)
>players "no shit, there we were" stories? There's always the one
>_stupid_ mage who learns that spell and fries the party. Bouncing
>lightning bolts tend to re-occur, too.
Actually, this has never happened in our group. We just never were in an
enclosed space when this spell was cast. Is that so wrong? ;-)
At one point, though, my fighter/thief had armor of Blackflame (immune to
fire). The bard used me for targeting. I would run into the middle of a
group of goblins (for example), and when I decided that I was pretty much in
the center of them, I'd raise my hand. The bard would then cast a fireball,
targeting it on my hand. BOOM! Frieds goblins all around, and me without
my fork!
Bruce L Grubb
In article <52bq1c$g...@pyrodactyl.or.pyramid.com>, ma...@pyramid.com ("Marc
Quattromani") wrote:
> In article <1996092500...@a-ko.digex.net>,
> Lise Mendel <cata...@access.digex.net> wrote:
> >Isn't the fireball in an enclosed space one of _every_ D&D (or AD&D)
> >players "no shit, there we were" stories? There's always the one
> >_stupid_ mage who learns that spell and fries the party. Bouncing
> >lightning bolts tend to re-occur, too.
>
> It certainly is! Seems that even the experienced players get a little
> carried away with that first fireball upon attaining 5th level and
> free the party. The best such fireball in my memory was the one cast
> a devil, frying the entire party, not harming the devil and burning
> some magic goop they needed to escape. Quite amusing.
One of my best memories was of a 8th level mage who had not cast a fireball
indoors since 5th level. He cast the fireball at what he thought was a
save distance from the party. He had forgotten that under 1st edition
rules a fireball's radius was a fuction of (x ft*mage's level) cubed. At
least he -did- kill the trolls though he also fried the entire party in the
process.
> >I've never heard of player mistakes of _this_ sort where the DM fudged
> >to let the characters survive. It's not a matter of assumption clash,
> >since the mechanics are in the rule book, which (presumably) the player
> >has read.
>
> I agree. Seems like the height of bad fudging. With a fudged, hidden
> die-roll, the players might guess the ref cheated. But choosing to
> ignore something obvious like that is just pubically stating "Do
> anything you want; I can't bring myself to kill you." That's about
> as bad a mistake as a ref can make.
>
> Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
> the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
> cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
> ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
> radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
> volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
Dragon had an article on this that I believe wound up in one of the Best of
Dragon issues. In any case, you go by the total volume of the spell: a 20'
radius sphere =~ 25' radius hemisphere =~ 32' cube.
Gregory Bernath
In article <52c6e2$c...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>Does anyone really
>feel like computing the max radius of a Fireball cast 5 feet above the
>ground? How about the radius at ground level?
Ah, an excuse to avoid real studying!
Well, let's see. Set the volume integral up in cylindrical coordinates,
evaluate, chug through the algebra, and you find that the radius "r" is the
real root of the cubic equation
r^3 + 1.5*h*r^2 + 0*r - (0.5*h^3 + 2*R^3) = 0
where R is the normal radius (20 feet) and h is height above ground of
the detonation point (0 < h < 20). Solving for various h's,
h r
------------
0 25.20
5 22.96
10 21.32
15 20.32
20 20.00
>What if it was cast on
>a termite mound -- would the solid volume of the mound displace it, and if
>so how much bigger would it get?
If the termite mound had a volume of 20 cubic feet, it would increase the
radius by about 0.005 feet (1/64 inch).
Hey, you asked. :-)
--
Greg Bernath gber...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
Phil Rhodes
Marc Quattromani wrote:
<snip>
>
> Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
> the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
> cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
> ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
> radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
> volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
>
> Marc Quattromani
I think that you need to calculate the volume of the area the PC's
are in. A 20' r. sphere has a volume of (pulling out calculator...)
33,510 cubic feet. This is about 33.5 10' cubes. So, in a hallway
that is 10' high by 10' wide, the fireball better go off at least
170 feet away and the hall had better be at least 340 feet long.
A side passage/room will change this.
I may have missed this, but does a fireball have any kind of force
to it? For example, will it blow open doors, or 'leak; under/around
them?
--
Phil
(Phillip...@baylor.edu)
Paul Zoski
As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
himself?
Now that's a way to make friends in your party....
--
Paul J. Zoski e-mail: pj...@ms.uky.edu
718 Patterson Office Tower WWW: http://www.ms.uky.edu/~pjz1
Office Phone: (606)-257-6806 Fax: (606)-257-4078
I have made this letter longer than usual because I
lack the time to make it shorter. --- Blaise Pascal
JB
robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (The Amorphous Mass) wrote:
>ma...@pyramid.com ("Marc Quattromani") wrote:
>>
>>Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
>>the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
>>cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
>>ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
>>radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
>>volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
> Yes, but magic don't work like dat. After all, how many spells do you
>know that have an area of effect of eg 10' radius sphere + 5' radius/level?
>A Fireball cast at ground level is a 20 foot radius hemisphere for
>simplicity's sake. Now this makes it a little more difficult to attempt the
>"Fireball in a narrow hallway" trick because if the Fireball doesn't increase
>in radius because the ground prevents it from forming a sphere,
Okay I'll jump in here.
The ground does _not_ prevent a fireball from forming a sphere on its
own. There is no invisible wall above the fireball to prevent the
flames from going _up_. Wouldn't be a perfect sphere, haphazard
perhaps, but it's not going to flatten the fireball too much on the
ground. If you're going to use physics, a flame of that power will
tend to go _up_ first. After all, unless you have a low ceiling
overhead, that's the path of least resistance. So you'll end up having
something more like a huge pillar of flame than a ball, but it'll
still roughly conform to the basic dimensions of the fireball. It'll
look odd, that's all.
Now, if you DO have a low ceiling, that changes the ball game
completely... let's see.. throw a fireball down a 10' tall by 10' wide
corridor, one that goes straight for a long ways, and you're looking
at a 330' long fireball that fills the entire passage. It would go
equally in both directions, so unless you're throwing it at more than
150' you're looking at some serious backfire here.
Besides, if you're in a 10'*10' corridor, you should use a lightning
bolt anyway. :)
JB
John Wilkerson
Paul Zoski wrote:
>
> As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
> any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
> some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
> himself?
>
> Now that's a way to make friends in your party....
Yes,
A party I was running a while back ran into the situation that they were
being overrun by a large force of orcs. It was obvious that they were
intent on getting the mage and doing him great harm. In his defence he
fireballed on himself killing half the party sending the rest
unconcoious save one and killing all the orcs.
As it turned out the thief had a ring of fire resistance and survived
the great cook-out. He promptly walked up behind the mage and burried
his short sword to the hilt. Took all the mages belongings as well as
the other fallen party members and made haste to the nearest town never
to be seen again.
The mage responded to the very irate group that his plan would have
worked if the thief had just played along and not undermined his
ultimate plan. The mage said he knew that the party members would be
hurt but he had planned to revive the cleric with his own personal
healing potion and then help the cleric revive the rest of the party.
The players then began soundly beating him with slices of cold stale
pizza.
john
Eric Fulton
Paul Zoski wrote:
>
> As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
> any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
> some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
> himself?
>
> Now that's a way to make friends in your party....
>
and a rather amusing story of a cone of cold which i'll relate.
Mage: wild mage, level 6 or 7 or something.
Name: Xenylplup
Well, we were fighting in a library, and Xenylplup, not wanting
to torch all the books decided to mow down some wimps with this cone of
cold spell he fancied. He also fancied Nahul's Reckless Dweomer, and
would literally study nothing else :). So I cast the Dweomer, asked
for a cone of cold, and got:
----A catered 5 course banquet.
Needless to say, it looked better than trail rations, so I let the
party continue the fight, sat down and ate. (I had stoneskin and
nothing bothered me long enough to wear it down.)
Did I say Xenylplup was a bit...detatched...from reality?
The Amorphous Mass
pj...@t6.ms.uky.edu (Paul Zoski) wrote:
>As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
>any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
>some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
>himself?
No, but I had a paladin with a Helm of Brilliance throw up a Wall of Fire
at ground zero to get rid of rot grubs...
Helms of Brilliance rock. :-)
Marc Quattromani
In article <324A5D...@baylor.edu>,
Phil Rhodes <Phillip...@baylor.edu> wrote:
>Marc Quattromani wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
>> the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
>> cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
>> ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
>> radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
>> volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
>>
>
>I think that you need to calculate the volume of the area the PC's
>are in. A 20' r. sphere has a volume of (pulling out calculator...)
I just asked as a joke :-)
I suspect that most people use a 20 foot radius for the fireball on
open ground. When they are figuring more complex shapes, like in a
building or dungeon, they will then figure out where the 33,000 cubic
feet goes: but that's inconsistent. The 20 foot radius hemisphere has
about 16,500 cubic feet in it depending on how high above ground the
center is. Refs who do this are doubling the volume when they move
from the simple radius to the calculated volumes. I've done it myself
in the past.
It really isn't all that important, of course. Just kind of a fun
quirk that most people probably hadn't thought about.
>I may have missed this, but does a fireball have any kind of force
>to it? For example, will it blow open doors, or 'leak; under/around
>them?
I don't think it does blast damage but will leak around things.
Marc Quattromani
Sam Spectre
Paul Zoski (pj...@t6.ms.uky.edu) wrote:
: As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
: any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
: some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
: himself?
There were two mages in my group, myself and another person. We opened a
door (I believe it was in Temple of Elemental Evil) and the other mage
threw in a fireball (to kill some orcs or something I seem to remember);
he was successful, the orcs were killed, but it was a small room, and the
backlash laid waste to half the party. He was way-negative, but I told
the paladin in the gorup that he should secure the area (go down the
hallway and make sure we hadn't alerted anything), he did... While he was
gone, my mage threw a lightning bolt down the throat of the charred mage.
Wizards should be more careful.
- Sam
Mr. Mad
Paul Zoski wrote:
>
> As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
> any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
> some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
> himself?
>
One mage in Carthasana concocted this nasty fireball variant along
those lines.
Yarenic's Flame Pulse (Evocation, Elemental Fire)
Level: 5
Range: 0
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous
Casting Time: Average (5)
Area of Effect: 20' radius around caster
Saving Throw: 1/2
Yarenic used this spell to "drive away pests." Simply a ground zero
fireball that does not harm its caster, it wasn't very popular amoung
his allies either. The material components and damage are as per
fireball.
_
/ \//\ Mr. Mad http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0
\ //// mailto:mlm...@pop.uky.edu
\M /
\/ Clinton / Gore '96
Eric Putnam
On 26 July 1996 pj...@t6.ms.uky.edu (Paul Zoski) wrote:
> As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
> any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
> some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
> himself?
After a knock-down, drag-out fight with Strahd von Zarovich in the
original I6 Ravenloft module, our PCs had him cornered in his tiny
little crypt next to his coffin. The DM that introduced me to Ravenloft
(and hooked me on it, incidentally) was rubbing his hands together with
glee.
Things were not going well. Though we had all started out between 10th
and 12th level, we were all down to 6th or 8th and had lost most of our
hp. Strahd was wearing a little around the edges, and the sun was
about to rise, but in that confined little space it was next to certain
that he was going to get the better of us before he was forced into his
coffin.
My magic-user (this was 9 or 10 years ago, IIRC) had had enough. Strahd
had basically mopped his castle's floor with us ever since we'd gotten
in, and all we were trying to do was release the land from his Evil grip.
I summoned up all the nobility I could muster and said,
"I still have a /fireball/ and I'm gonna use it. Objections?"
The consensus of the other players was that no matter what happened to
us, we had to finish Strahd. The fighters held Strahd off while my
magic-user started casting in that final round. When he realized what I
was doing, he was one mad vampire. I seem to remember he nearly got
through to my magic-user. But the /fireball/ went off before he could
make it.
*Blam!* (We played with concussive-force /fireballs/ back then.)
It was a beautiful sight; a piece of castle blew out in a billowing cloud
of fire, exposing the crypt to the sky as dawn broke.
"Got 'im," I said. None of the PCs had survived, so the DM wouldn't tell
us whether I had, but it was beautiful all the same.
Needless to say, I've had a lot of respect for Strahd ever since....
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Eric C. Putnam | "Can you explain zat? Can YOU explain zat?"
epu...@osf1.gmu.edu | "I can't explain zat."
One Guy's Opinion...| "I can't explain zat either."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
SMOG
pj...@t6.ms.uky.edu (Paul Zoski) wrote:
>As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
>any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
>some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
>himself?
>Now that's a way to make friends in your party....
>--
>Paul J. Zoski e-mail: pj...@ms.uky.edu
>718 Patterson Office Tower WWW: http://www.ms.uky.edu/~pjz1
>Office Phone: (606)-257-6806 Fax: (606)-257-4078
> I have made this letter longer than usual because I
> lack the time to make it shorter. --- Blaise Pascal
I just recently had my 13lv mage toss a fireball at his own feet.
Bunch of ogres, small room. he was gone for, so he thought he would
take them with me. The rest of the party was not so happy.
Just goes to show you, when the mage says, "um, someone keep these
guys off me" stop arguing over who is spose to be guarding the rear,
and HELP HIM!
Zinn
Jason Hatter
Paul Zoski (pj...@t6.ms.uky.edu) wrote:
: As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
: any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
: some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
: himself?
No, but I did have a mage in a party who cast a lightning bolt directly at
a fleeing werewolf who was 15 feet away, with a flat cliff face 15 on the
other side of the werewolf...
Tosted the 'wolf, the mage, and the mages horse...
And the party thought the mage was so unlucky that they didn't even bother
looting his body for magic items (bracers AC 4, magic wand, and magic
dagger)...
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
RPG stuff at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/rpg.html
featuring Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.html
Phil Rhodes
Marc Quattromani wrote:
>
> In article <324A5D...@baylor.edu>,
> Phil Rhodes <Phillip...@baylor.edu> wrote:
> >Marc Quattromani wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >> Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
> >> the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
> >> cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
> >> ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
> >> radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
> >> volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
> >>
> >> Marc Quattromani
> >
> >I think that you need to calculate the volume of the area the PC's
> >are in. A 20' r. sphere has a volume of (pulling out calculator...)
> [...]
>
> I just asked as a joke :-)
I forgot to turn 'Humor mode' on this morning. ;)
> I suspect that most people use a 20 foot radius for the fireball on
> open ground. When they are figuring more complex shapes, like in a
> building or dungeon, they will then figure out where the 33,000 cubic
> feet goes: but that's inconsistent. The 20 foot radius hemisphere has
> about 16,500 cubic feet in it depending on how high above ground the
> center is. Refs who do this are doubling the volume when they move
> from the simple radius to the calculated volumes. I've done it myself
> in the past.
I checked the spell description, and the fireball fills a volume of
33,000 feet - no matter what shape that may be. So, I don't think that
it can be cast as a hemisphere with a volume of 16,500. If the spell
is centered at ground level, the radius would become 25 feet, with the
same volume as the sphere of 20 foot radius.
I guess 'Humor mode' is still off ...
>
> It really isn't all that important, of course. Just kind of a fun
> quirk that most people probably hadn't thought about.
>
> >I may have missed this, but does a fireball have any kind of force
> >to it? For example, will it blow open doors, or 'leak; under/around
> >them?
>
> I don't think it does blast damage but will leak around things.
>
> Marc Quattromani
--
-Phil
(Phillip...@baylor.edu)
Keith Davies
Paul Zoski (pj...@t6.ms.uky.edu) wrote:
: As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
: any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
: some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
: himself?
No, but I once has a fairly critically wounded character with a
necklace of missiles - and there was a cave full of trolls below us
(we were in a tunnel near the roof). We had to get past the trolls
to get out and we were in no condition to fight - everyone was hurting,
the priest of out of healing and the mage had a magic missile left.
I told the wizard to get ready to cast his MM (our DM ruled that our
spells took a form appropriate to our modes of magic - he was a fire
mage). I ran down among the trolls screaming "Can't get me! Your
mother was an amoeba!" and other insults. About the time the trolls
were caught up to me I threw the necklace in the air and shouted at
the mage to hit it.
My, but that was loud. The entire cavern filled with fire, killing
all the trolls, my character (more than a little bit ;)) and charred
the rest of the party - but the DM gave them minimal damage and
automatic saves because they had reasonable cover and he didn't want
to waste my heroic action.
Keith Davies
The Amorphous Mass (robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
: No, but I had a paladin with a Helm of Brilliance throw up a Wall of Fire
: at ground zero to get rid of rot grubs...
: Helms of Brilliance rock. :-)
And I thought a Necklace of Missiles was bad...
Did he *know* that the Helm would completely and utterly destroy him
and forget, not know, or not care because he was going to die if he
didn't do *something*?
Keith Davies
Eric Fulton (eric....@sun.com) wrote:
: Paul Zoski wrote:
: > As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
: > any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
: > some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
: > himself?
: Not recently, I've had mages lightning bolt themselves, ice storm,
More-or-less session transcript:
DM (me): you walk down the corridor and come to a corner..
party : we go around the corner
DM : at the far end of this stretch you see some lights - about
100' away
wizard : I ready my wand of lightning and move to the fore
DM : you see one of the lights at the far end get obscured and
a large figure raise it's arms to shoulder level (you can tell
because it is backlit) [wands had a somatic component to use...]
wizard : right! pre-emptive strike time - I fire my wand.
DM : In the bright light of the lightning bolt you see a mirror
about fifty feet away...
Barbara Haddad
> >That would be 33,000 cubic feet, equivalent to a sphere of 20' radius
> >or a hemisphere of 25' radius. I think the total volume is even
> >mentioned somewhere...
>
> Yep, that's what the rules would indicate. But I wonder how many
> referees actually have your typical fireball, cast at or near ground
> level, have a radius of 25 feet? :-)
>
> From recollection of other refs and myown play, they tend to be 20
> foot radius, barring any major obstructions.
>
> BTW I'm not trying to make a big issue of this. I just think it's kind
> of amusing that the PHB carefully states the volume and a radius but
> that in typical usage the radius is not 'correct'. I would assume
> most people (as I have done), see the 20 foot radius and leave it
> at that.
I run the 25'r 'ground burst' rule. One of the more useful tools I
have in my game are a series of clear plastic forms that are cut out to
represent the exact sizes of certain very common spells (fireball - with
5' gradiations marked on the circle; lightning - both the 40'x10' & the
80'x5' versions; burning hands & the like) -- scaled to fit my battlemap.
It really does stop a lot of the arguing about what is & is not inside
a spell's area....
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad - mel...@shakala.com
Shakala Communications, Inc. CA +1-408-734-2289
Ennead
Jim Sisolak (sis...@trans4.neep.wisc.edu) wrote:
: What have you got against dead PCs?
They're lousy conversationalists, and after a while they start to
smell.
-- Sarah
The Amorphous Mass
ct9...@camosun.bc.ca (Keith Davies) wrote:
>The Amorphous Mass (robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
>: No, but I had a paladin with a Helm of Brilliance throw up a Wall of Fire
>: at ground zero to get rid of rot grubs...
>: Helms of Brilliance rock. :-)
>
>And I thought a Necklace of Missiles was bad...
>
>Did he *know* that the Helm would completely and utterly destroy him
>and forget, not know, or not care because he was going to die if he
>didn't do *something*?
Basically. He actually managed to survive it by making a crucial item
save, although he did take a great deal of damage. Why did he do it? Well,
we were chasing after a lich, and we entered a room. The whole ceiling was
magically identified as a trap, but we couldn't find any trigger for it. So
my paladin, ever fearless, walks in, and when nothing happens the others
follow warily. When we're all in the room, the ceiling vanishes and we all
get covered in a very large amount of rotten meat, chock full of hundreds
of rot grubs. Thinking quickly, (and taking a considerable amount of damage
from being eaten) the paladin tells everyone to jump into the fire, and
sets off a Wall of Fire centered on himself, thinking that if he lives, he
lives, and if he doesn't, he dies saving the party (or at least killing
them all very very quickly :-). Fortunately for everyone in a rather
large radius, the Helm made its save vs. magical fire.
I should note that this occurred during one of the super-high-powered one-
shot dungeon crawls that we played from time to time in order to satisy
our basest desires, so the 10th level paladin, like all the characters, was
decked out in extreme magic: +5 plate mail, +5 shield, 2 +6 Holy Avenger
longswords (one as a backup), a Scarab of Protection, and the Helm (there
were some other things, too, but he did stay within the 10-item limit).
His bonded mount was a pegasus.
Sometimes pure, shameless excess is fun. :-)
DuaneVP
Okay, I gotta get in my $.02 on this (Fireball has been one of my pet
peeves for ages). Firstly, I HEARTILY suggest DM's re-read descriptions
of spells before working up their house rules that cover them. :-) It's
always best to make sure you _have_ been reading correctly rather than
simply _assuming_ you've read correctly. Now then...
People seem to be placing their fireballs directly on the ground with
astonishing ease. I don't know how you run it in _your_ campaign, but at
least according to the PH description the caster verbally states distance
and height. There is a streak that heads from the caster to his stated
target point and if that streak hits anything (like a crowd of intervening
orcs, friends, etc) the fireball will detonate on that instead.
What I'm saying here is that you aren't SUPPOSED to be able to target
a fireball at ground level in a group of orcs in the first place - you're
gonna hit one of the orcs and not the ground. So, standard practice
should be to target a fair distance above where the effect is to be
centered. 10' is probably fairly safe for an altitude of detonation in
most circumstances and though there will be a _slight_ increase in the
radius of effect at that height it isn't nearly enough to even bother
worrying about.
Having covered targetting there is the problem of its' expanding to
fit an area. For a spell that gets used so often it's appalling to me
that the manner of this expansion is so vaguely described and so difficult
to adjudicate. Even if the target area does have a conveniently uniform
10' ceiling height, when you are dealing with something slightly more
complex than simple, square rooms and corridors and you have player
characters on the very edge of the effects the counting out of 33 ten foot
square cubes is seldom accurate enough to determine a proper area of
effect.
Example: Assume you have a dungeon with uniform 10' ceilings. The
PC's (including the fireball caster) are in a large 100' square room. The
orcs are entering the room from a 10' wide corridor in the middle of one
wall. The fireball goes off right at the doorway. The DM starts counting
out 33 cubes.
Problem: Do 16.5 cubes stay in the room and the other 16.5 go
rocketing down the hall 165 feet? Or, should the radius of the fireballs
area be the same for the portion of flame in the room and in the hall thus
keeping the bulk of the fireball in the room?
The description also says a fireball "creates little pressure". But,
how much pressure is that "little"? It "generally conforms" to an area -
but HOW general is "generally"?
Personally, I found it all too much frustration and bother. In my
campaign I limited the area of effect to a _maximum_ of a 20' radius. If
you target it on the floor you only get the upper half of the globe as
your area of effect. As for how small of an opening it will expand
through I have left that a little vague (common rat-hole sized or better)
but this has yet to be tested so I don't sweat it.
Downtime
aka Duane VanderPol
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" - Thomas
Watson, IBM Chairman, 1943
Keith Davies
: >The Amorphous Mass (robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
: >: No, but I had a paladin with a Helm of Brilliance throw up a Wall of
: >: Fire at ground zero to get rid of rot grubs...
: >: Helms of Brilliance rock. :-)
: >
: >And I thought a Necklace of Missiles was bad...
: >
: >Did he *know* that the Helm would completely and utterly destroy him
: >and forget, not know, or not care because he was going to die if he
: >didn't do *something*?
: sets off a Wall of Fire centered on himself, thinking that if he lives, he
: lives, and if he doesn't, he dies saving the party (or at least killing
: them all very very quickly :-). Fortunately for everyone in a rather
: large radius, the Helm made its save vs. magical fire.
no kidding. I assumed from your previous post that it *had* gone off.
Must have been a little nervous there - "the rot grubs are gone, but
Jim the Pure has to make an item save or we're all toast anyway". BTW,
I seem to recall that in situations like this the item *doesn't* receive
the character's bonuses - it's up to the item alone to survive this one.
: I should note that this occurred during one of the super-high-powered one-
: shot dungeon crawls that we played from time to time in order to satisy
: our basest desires, so the 10th level paladin, like all the characters, was
: decked out in extreme magic: +5 plate mail, +5 shield, 2 +6 Holy Avenger
: longswords (one as a backup), a Scarab of Protection, and the Helm (there
: were some other things, too, but he did stay within the 10-item limit).
: His bonded mount was a pegasus.
: Sometimes pure, shameless excess is fun. :-)
Yep. For one shots like this I generally have rules along the lines of:
x XP total - split it up *however* you want, ignore normal class/race
limitations : ("I wanna elven paladin/magic-user!")
x goody points - buy extra proficiencies, special abilities, spells,
magic items, followers, cash (not always useful) : ("an' he has
weightless full plate +6 he can wear while casting spells from
his flying dragon an' ...")
Wouldn't want to live there, but it's a **fun** place to visit...
Jerry Cullingford
In article <52e7cl$o...@t3.mscf.uky.edu>, Paul Zoski <pj...@t6.ms.uky.edu> wrote:
>As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
>any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
>some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
>himself?
>
Been there, done it, burnt the tee shirt :-). Without the aid of fire
resistance, too - I *was* somewhat desperate at the time, though :-),
and it did work out in the end - took out the opposition and left me
in a salvageable condition. That helped to establish that character's
"nobody takes me out, but me!" reputation.
Then there was the time another character fireballed the party's druid
(I think he was trying to get the druid's (who *always* went around with
a resist fire up) attention during an argument. Oops! turns out the druid
hadn't got it running that time. Ahem...
--
_|_ Jerry Cullingford j...@crosfield.co.uk (Work)
/ | Hemel Hempstead, UK j...@selune.demon.co.uk (Home)
\_|_ je...@shell.portal.com (alternate)
\__/ www.selune.demon.co.uk (soon)
The Amorphous Mass
j...@crosfield.co.uk (Jerry Cullingford) wrote:
>That helped to establish that character's "nobody takes me out, but me!"
>reputation.
Now *those* are Famous Last Words if I've ever heard 'em.
David K. Folger
> IMHO, changing the plot to fit the situation the dice deal is not
>fudging, and the above example is an excellent one. When the DM changes
>the dice rolls to fit the plot it is fudging, and whether or not that's
>right is debatable.
I tend to agree with this. I'm an experienced gamer, and I've seen a lot of
different styles. My own personally prefered approach to gaming is story
creation. I, as DM, set the stage. I make up the world and throw in NPCs.
The story, however, is written by the combined efforts of myself, my
players, and the dice. The dice are a _very_ important part of story
telling. The approach I take is, what fun is it if you already know what's
going to happen? That's why we need randomness. That's why game systems are
put together, that's why RPGs have rules as opposed to being a role-playing
free for all.
As for my experience with DMs that change dice rolls to fit their plot, I
must say I can't stand this style. In this case, the DM has created a story
and is just telling it under the guise of a game. DMs that use this style
typically stack the odds against the players to keep the players going in
the direction the DM wants them to go, and at the same time, alters rules
and dice rolls so that the players don't die before getting to their (or,
rather the DM's) goal.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
It's not a joke, even if you meant it as one.
I was once in a D&D game where the PCs were off exploring some far
island, and one of the characters died. None of the characters were
high enough level to resurrect the PC, but back home resurrections
were a fairly cheap and common procedure.
So the others PCs tossed the body in the hold of their ship, and
wandered off to do heroic deeds, forgetting about their fallen
companion.
The PCs return, one month later. Did I mention this was a *tropical*
island?
Neel
-----
Check out a rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ at:
http://www.mit.edu/people/neelk/rgfa-glossary.html
-----
Noah Dowd
Paul Zoski wrote:
>
> As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
> any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
> some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
> himself?
>
Well, I've had an enemy mage do that. Toasted himself and nearly
the entire party. Boy, were my players surprised! (and not pleasantly,
I might add)
-Noah
--
"I like you, I always have."
-The King, in _True Romance_
Canon McClune
Sorry about throwing this in here but as I was reading it I remember a time
when my DM had to make the choice between fudging and a quick plot
change....it goes something like this....
My character...an 11th level elven archer(with a really nice bow:)....
and best friends 13th level half-elf fighter were confronted by a green
dragon...As the Great Wyrm green dragon dove at us my character remembered
that a few adventures back he had found a potion of some kind of dragon
control....well as i declared that I was drinking it our DM looked on his
sheet to see exactly what it was...yes a potion of green dragon
control...it seems that he had forgotten that little piece of information
before planing an 8 hour adventure of which we were about 15 minutes
into...*smile*
........when out of no where our surroundings changed, the green dragon
drooped like a rock dead in the air.... a the Great Wyrm RED dragon came
swooping down at us...
now sure there are many things our DM could have done but I really enjoyed
the adventure after it was over and will always remember it because of that
one single event......
just thought i would share this with you guys....
BTW in this a do not represent my company in any way.....and Brian I did
this during my lunch hour...:)
canon
Brett D Altschul
In article <52ej0c$u...@sanjuan.islandnet.com>,
Keith Davies <ct9...@camosun.bc.ca> wrote:
>Did he *know* that the Helm would completely and utterly destroy him
>and forget, not know, or not care because he was going to die if he
>didn't do *something*?
First of all, rot grubs will also utterly destroy you if you don't deal with
them, so I doubt he had that much choice. At least you have a chance that the
helm remains intact.
Demon Sultan of Khaipur
Brett Altschul
David Andrew Lopez
Paul Zoski (pj...@t6.ms.uky.edu) wrote:
: As an aside (sorry to ruin this technical discussion) but are there
: any stories out there of really cocky mages, usually equiped with
: some sort of fire resistence, who casts a fireball centered on
: himself?
: Now that's a way to make friends in your party....
:
:
Not exactly. I had a fighter character once who had
complete immunity to all fire (short of godly fire) both
magical and normal (after being blasted to death at least once
before). The party needed the help of some Salamanders to
finish an adventure successfully, and the fighter calmly
walked right into their bonfire to negotiate with them.
Impressed the hell out of 'em, too.
--
-----
"If a Frank is your friend, he is clearly not your neighbor."
- anonymous greek proverb
bane
In article <324A5D...@baylor.edu>, Phil Rhodes <Phillip...@baylor.edu> says:
Snip
>I may have missed this, but does a fireball have any kind of force
>to it? For example, will it blow open doors, or 'leak; under/around
>them?
>Phil
To join in...
That was what I was wondering... if were going to get technical...
isn't a fireball pea sized until it hits something or reaches a target
area then it explodes? If so, it is an explosion of fire and needs
to follow the physics of such a natural phenomena (I am no physisist,
so what they are I don't know). What about a fireball thrown in a
normal house... can it blow through the walls? How about that side
corridor, does it explode so violently that most of the fire shoots
past it?
Guess, at some point, we have to say its just a game.
As far as fudging on something like that... I'd fudge... and I have...
but when I do it is for good reason (in my demented mind), and I still
find another way to hurt the players... like I let them survive a
fireball, but maybe their shield or backpack gets singed instead. It
all balances out. (No pack, nothing to carry loot in. heheheh).
Bane
bane
fudging isn't always nessicary... here's an AD&D adventure that I though
was ruined, but wound up being a very important event in my campaign
history...
A group of low level players (1-3) who explore the hidden labrinth of
a necromancer.
On the first level is an evil temple and some orcs.
On the second level, the entry chamber is guarded by a controlled wraith.
Players go in, find the evil vestments and symbols, and burn/destroy
them... now they have no way to get past the wraith.
They 'befriend' a rather feminine male orc warrior, who warns them never
to go to the next level... only the priests go there. (robes & symbol is
the way past)
Players try to go down... I fudge by saying it takes the undead one round
to obviously whisp out of his coffin... the players decide to run after
another round... what are they going to do.
One player could have made replicas of the items (good enough to get by
I decide), but instead plead to the temple... a druid offering his services
to the temple in exchange for holy water. They give them it.
After a bit of draining, running, using special weapons, and throwing the
water, the wraith is at 6hp... and one vial left... the player rolls a
20 and 7pts dmg... the wraith is actually killed!!! Then they take out the
priests.
The high priest pronounced a curse on the elf 'I kill you, even if from
beyond the grave!!!'
Elf goes to loot the high priests chambers and puts on a cloak of
poisonousness without a thought (it was a nice looking cloak and then
*poof*, he's dead).
Problems? The players are drained, trashed, and one is dead. There is
no way to get any restorations or resurrections.
Solutions? We had a half elf fighter/priest... he was drained to a
0level warrior... result? A religious experience made him a single
classed character (he felt the light of his goddess, a moon goddess
who was opposed to the undead {ironic, eh?}, fill him... he realized that
his devotion was not pure, and now he dedicated himself to his goddesses'
cause!).
The other solution came from my player, who wound up co-GMing after a
while... I had a 'false god' who claimed to be the one true god (he
was, the others were his guardian creations during the god's self
exile). He said, how about I see the god during dreams while I was
dead, his face replacing my father's and my mentor's... then I get
taken to the empire of this gods believers, I am resurrected... the
price? I am now an undying loyal follower of the god. I said... AWESOME!!!
So... did I fudge... did the player help me fudge? I think so, but
in the end it made for a rather memorable adventure, and added a heck
of a lot to the characters who made it through.
Bane
Simon Smith
In message <521dar$b...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> Dave Brohman wrote:
> Timothy P. Coyle (timc...@ici.net) wrote:
>
> > I contend that fudging is one of the most valuable, yet often
> > misused, tools in the DM's arsenal. To get the conversation rolling,
> > allow me to describe one of my own howlers in poor game design, and how
> > I ultimately handled it.
>
> I couldn't agree more. As a GM, I hate letting the dice be the sole
> arbiter of fate. If, as is generally held, the GM represents everything in
> the game aside from the PCs themselves, then he, and not the dice, is the
> final agent of fate as well. If he dislikes a die roll, he is free to
> change it.
>
> Having said this, I must also say that I think this can be heavily abused.
> A GM should not use this veto power to off PCs left, right and center, but
> to make the game more interesting, exciting and survivable. This is not to
> say that I do not believe PCs should never die, but I believe that
> character death should be a major part of a campaign, not just the result
> of a bad dice roll.
>
> I have NEVER killed off a PC just by letting the result of a bad dice roll
> determine his fate. I do not like killing PCs unless it is a dramaticaly
> important moment in the story; and yet, my players always 'think' their PCs
> are in mortal danger because they often 'almost' die.
Here's a slightly different view of the same problem. My own die-fudge rate
is about one roll every three to five years. My preferred technique is to
distort the odds in the direction I want before any dice are rolled. In
other words, by the time the dice come into play, I've already done all the
fudging I intend to.
From this it follows that rolling the dice is the point at which the
arguments about whether a character can succeed or not are finally resolved
and the character's fate is determined.
In my games, though, characters usually know they are fail*ing* before they
actually fail. This gives 'em a chance to do something about it. If they
try to bull their way through (as one player does occasionally), their
ultimate success or failure is down to simple luck. At this point, I've
done my GMing bit; now the dice decide what really does happen. If that
means character death - well, sorry, but my players can't say they didn't
see it coming...
> What I do is I keep copies of all the charatcer sheets and I keep a
> running total of each PC's hit points. Then I fudge die rolls that would
> usually be fatal and make them 'almost fatal', dropping them to 0 hp or just
> above. This keeps the players 'thinking' that they are always in mortal
> danger, but also keeps the game going with the beloved PCs that the
> players have spent months building and developing.
[snip]
Here's an extremely evil idea:
If you're keeping the character's hit points secret, you don't have to fudge
die rolls at all. Just record what happens. If you find that the main
warrior can routinely get himself down to -25 hit points - well he's
obviously living on borrowed time. You can just use that as an indicator
that the character could pop his clogs at GM's discretion. And *choose* a
suitably dramatic point for his death, if such a situation arises. If the
player objects when/if his character *does* die - well, you can just show
him the record sheet. 'Actually, you *should* have died eight rounds ago
under the standard rules. But I use negative hit points as an indicator
that you're on your last legs and can die at any time I choose. I've been
being *nice* to you.' Another way of looking at the same situation is - if
your PCs would usually be reduced to negative hit points, the your monsters
are too gross. You can use this sort of thing as an indicator of how tough
your scenarios are - and make adjustments accordingly.
--
Simon Smith
Caffeine *is too* a substitute for sleep.
Daniel John DeMarc Jr.
In <324632...@pop.uky.edu> "Mr. Mad" <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> writes:
>
>Timothy P. Coyle wrote:
>>
>> I am writing this post in the hopes that it will spur some
>> lively conversation. The topic is DM fudging.
>>
I think the morality of the "fudge" depends on the situation. EX:
I, the DM, had spent all of the previous evening detailing this awesome
evil NPC. A Death Knight, complete with a name, personality notes,
history, command structeres, and assorted slaves. I went out and
bought a perfect miniature. I painted it lovingly.
On the big night, when I introduced the D.K., I expected to trounce the
party and send them running...then use the D.K. as one of those
long-term pain in the neck adversaries. What happened? The whole
party converged thier attacks on myy poor Death Knight and rolled
awesomely, made all thier saves too. They destroyed it in one round.
I was heart broken. I wanted to fudge it big time " Oh that was an
illusion of the real death knight....yeah, thats the ticket".
I resisted the urge baecause i would have been unfair...It was my petty
disappointment that made me want to fudge, not a good reason at all.
When i do fudge...I do it for one reason....will it make the game more
fun for the PCs.
--Dan
bane
In article <52me0s$m...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>, robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (The Amorphous Mass) says:
> It isn't an explosion, though.
So then, if the ball is a special effect, then one must assume the
flame is generated simultaneously in the entire area... and in that
case it would first fill in the normal radius and slowly expand out...
I'll raise this point- if that is how it works, then would
it not be possible that unconnected chambers in an enclosed area
take up flame volume?
sigh
The way my group always handled it was the count out the squares
in volume... and we did fudge on the assumption that is was an
explosive force, When it was a close call (they could or couldn't
be hit by their own spell) we'd give it some chance of hitting and
roll the percentiles...
Bane
Jeffrey R. Bourne
Daniel John DeMarc Jr. wrote:
> I, the DM, had spent all of the previous evening detailing this awesome
> evil NPC. A Death Knight, complete with a name, personality notes,
> history, command structeres, and assorted slaves. I went out and
> bought a perfect miniature. I painted it lovingly.
> On the big night, when I introduced the D.K., I expected to trounce the
> party and send them running...then use the D.K. as one of those
> long-term pain in the neck adversaries. What happened? The whole
> party converged thier attacks on myy poor Death Knight and rolled
> awesomely, made all thier saves too. They destroyed it in one round.
> I was heart broken. I wanted to fudge it big time " Oh that was an
> illusion of the real death knight....yeah, thats the ticket".
>
> I resisted the urge baecause i would have been unfair...It was my petty
> disappointment that made me want to fudge, not a good reason at all.
> When i do fudge...I do it for one reason....will it make the game more
> fun for the PCs.
>
> --Dan
with the dungeon module X2 Castle Amber. The climax encounter is with
a constuct called the Collossus. 100HD, 350hp monster. There was a
special powder with enough 'uses' to try 5 times. The chars had found
the powder, but didn't really know what it was for. When they
encountered the thing 1 character grabbed the tube of powder, flew into
the creature's face and hit on the first try. With maxed rolls on
initiative, saves, hits, (and 1s on collossus's to hit) it was dead, and
no PC even scratched. Man, did I want to fudge and change reality. I
was just stunned. Thinking back I would have 'fudged' somewhat and
slowly dissolved it, giving it some chance at retribution and a merry
chase, but I was so crushed that my monster was dead like that I
couldn't think of anything to do, but take a 10 minute break.
Scott A. H. Ruggels
>
> Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
> the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
> cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
> ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
> radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
> volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
>
> Marc Quattromani
Good question Marc. I would say that in all cases, conserve the volume
so a 20 spherical volume would contain x. and x would fill an equivalent
volume. Now I cannot do the calculations because I am effectively
innumerate (artist and all that) but i would immagine that a detonation
in a stereotypical 10x10 corridor would propagate a fair distance along
the corridor.
Now the question is if one were to cast a firebal into a rigid or
semirigid container of significantly less volume that that contained by
a 20 sphere. how does one calclate the overpressure damage, that occurs
on top of that caused by the heat and concussive effect?. It is true in
propellants that if one doubles the amount of explosive, one cubes the
energy released. The Grenade in a small room problem, as it were.
Scott
"There is no problem that cannot be solved by a sufficient application
of high explosives".
Scott A. H. Ruggels
The Amorphous Mass wrote:
>
> methane... :-). OTOH, if you insist that a Fireball always occupies 33,000
> cubic feet, then you had better get familiar with your calculator. After
> all, most of the time the Fireball will be cast 5 or 6 feet above the ground,
> so it's not an _exact_ hemisphere...
> IDHTPHBIFOM, so there's a possibility I missed something in the spell
> description. Nevertheless, if the spell does say somewhere that it does
> expand out to its full size if at all possible then the question of why
> the "hemisphere" has the same radius as the full sphere remains. (Simple
> answer: It doesn't make _that_ much of a difference in the AoE, and you
> don't have to do any calculatin').
>
Boy.. these discussions make me intensely nostalgic. We always assumes
that one would get sufficine t control to dial the power down after 6th
level. 5th level was basically a hand grenade.
Scott
Duggy
bane <ba...@frazmtn.com> wrote:
>robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (The Amorphous Mass) says:
>
>> It isn't an explosion, though.
>
>So then, if the ball is a special effect, then one must assume the
>flame is generated simultaneously in the entire area... and in that
>case it would first fill in the normal radius and slowly expand out...
>
Why can't it be both non-explosive and expand out from the center?
Consider the effect to be similar to what would happen if all the air
in the sphere suddenly became flammable, with the spark at the center.
Say the flame SWOOOSHED out from the center to ignite all the radius
(or volume) it can...
Other points brought up in this thread, under this mode of thought,
still require a decision. Does it remove all the oxygen in the area of
effect while it burns? Do doors stop it? I think fine details like
this are up to each GM, who should decide what s/he likes for his/her
world and just be consistent in the matter.
In fact, I think the whole matter should be up to the GM. If you
want bomb-like fireballs, so be it. Have them knock people down and
blow doors off, if you like. I actually prefer it that way; makes the
spell more fearsome. Consider a battlefield, men vs kobolds (or
something). Human mage casts fireball into the kobolds; many in the
area are now krispy.
Consider the OTHERS fighting, though. With the non-consussive
fireball, many night not even NOTICE that a fireball has gone off,
except maybe for a flash out of the corner of their eye as they fight.
With a blasting fireball, it'll scare the bejeezes out of them with
sound and flying things. I prefer the latter description. If a mage
started flinging fireballs into a large group of wuss-creatures, most
of them wouldn't "not notice", most would "run like hell"...
It all boils down to the same conclusion as many discussions in
here: up to the GM. I prefer cuncussive 'balls; YMMV.
Doug
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Richard Campbell wrote:
>
> Still, all you really have to do is eyeball it...
> the only question, after all, is what NPC's/PC's got hit with it...
> things like, did I set that chair on fire, or that scroll, or that...
> can be guessed at.
>
Guess? Guess?! What the hell are you doing? There is no 'guess'! There
is only calculation. What th'; hell kinda rules lawyer are you?!?!
:-)
Scott
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Nick Meredith wrote:
>
> Noah Dowd <no...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>
> >Marc Quattromani wrote:
> >>
> >> Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
> >> the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
> >> cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
> >> ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
> >> radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
> >> volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
>
> >or a hemisphere of 25' radius. I think the total volume is even
> >mentioned somewhere...
>
>
> So, provided you know the ceiling height, and it's low enough to
> constrain the blast, it's pretty easy to just cross off the
> appropriate number of squares on a floorplan, starting from ground
> zero. A quick bit of approximation soon shows where is hit by the
> blast - a quick and simple way of showing how far the flashback gets
> up corridors.
>
> ==========================================================
> Regards
> Nick Meredith - ni...@discover.co.uk - Coventry, England
Brilliant solution. I applaud you for making the complex, somewhat less
so. Thank you...
Scott
Scott A. H. Ruggels
exactly the problem I usually have with 'strong storytelling GM's as
well.
Nicely stated.
Scott
Bruce L Grubb
> >
> > Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
> > the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
> > cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
> > ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
> > radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
> > volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
> >
> > Marc Quattromani
>
>
> Good question Marc. I would say that in all cases, conserve the volume
> so a 20 spherical volume would contain x. and x would fill an equivalent
> volume. Now I cannot do the calculations because I am effectively
> innumerate (artist and all that) but i would immagine that a detonation
> in a stereotypical 10x10 corridor would propagate a fair distance along
> the corridor.
Try slightly over 335 foot. (Volume is ~33510 ft^3). Hope the party was
-really- far away from that one. :)
Phase
ba...@frazmtn.com (bane) writes:
>So then, if the ball is a special effect, then one must assume the
>flame is generated simultaneously in the entire area... and in that
>case it would first fill in the normal radius and slowly expand out...
flame", but the "burst of the fireball creates little pressure and
generally fills an area equal to its normal spherical volume".
(PHB2ed, p 149)
Does that help?
-
Phase FX - http://www.cs.sc.edu/~jason-e
"Be careful with me... I'm sensitive,
and I'd like to stay that way." - Jewel Kilcher
TBSHS - Performing Arts
**********************************************************************
As DMs, haven't we ALL been down this road before? I know how Jeremy
feels about his painted figurines, etc. What about the hours we put in
trying to balance our campaigns to interest and excite our players?
I must admit that - YES! - I have fudged. I have fudged when a fight
should have been more exciting than it was (or was turning out to be).
I have ONLY fudged when it is in the PLAYER'S interest, and never to
gratify my own sense of "DM power over meagre characters".
Therefore, I think it is OK to fudge if the OUTCOME is going to benefit
the players in some way (and their characters are not in any way in
danger of dying).
Generally, I think fudging is acceptable, so long as you don't make a
habbit of it and it is carefully disguised as being a natural part of
the game.
- BRUCE.
**********************************************************************
Jonas Bolander
<Regarding discussion on DM fudging>
Personally, I've found that my tendency as a GM to fudge during play
depends very much on what genre I use. In more 'cinematic' campaigns
like Feng Shui's HK-action and certain AD&D campaigns I will certainly
give my players a break (unless they have done anything really stupid)
if it looks like the storyline will come to an abrupt halt. Likewise
I will 'adjust' their opponents or give the PC's some bad luck ("So,
your fireball has just set the forest on fire. Dense clouds of smoke
engulfs you, making further ranged attacks difficult.") if a battle
seems to become an anti-climactic one-round slaughter of NPC's.
When, on the other hand I am GM'ing more 'hard' campaigns like
Cyberpunk, SLA Industries and Kult I try to work out more details
in advance and if the players don't stay sharp they have a very
good chance of failing the scenario or ending up dead.
By 'more details' I mean things like making detailed maps,
accurate security and fixed timelines. If the terrorists will
kill their hostages in 3 hours and the PC's spend four hours
preparing themselves for break-in all they will find is dead
bodies, or if one unlucky PC fails a Sneak roll past a guard I
have positioned in advance they end up as bullet-riddled corpses.
The advantage of this is that it keeps the players on their toes,
ultimately giving more of a feeling of satisfaction as the players
know that they might not succeed in every scenario and when they
do succeed they have done it by their own wits and guts. The
downside is when someone fails a simple Detect roll and the party
is blown to shreds by a booby-trap.
On the other hand one has to know when to fudge a little even in
that type of campaign. :)
Jonas Bolander
"So, PC1 fumbles and puts a 12.7mm HEAP round in your back. Luckily
she doesn't have to feel bad about it as both the napalm covering
your Deathsuit and the chainaxe-wielding Stormer seems to kill
you this round anyway."
Marc Quattromani
In article <325050...@3do.com>,
Scott A. H. Ruggels <scott....@3do.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
>> the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
>> cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
>> ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere? Or do you get a sphere of
>> radius 16 and a hemisphere of 20 feet? A hemisphere has half the
>> volume of a sphere, afterall :-)
>>
>> Marc Quattromani
>
>
>Good question Marc. I would say that in all cases, conserve the volume
Although people are taking it a *little* too seriously :-) Myself, I
usually rule that casting near ground is close enough to a hemisphere
and give it a 20' radius. If I have to compute volume in funny shaped
regions, I use 16,500 cubic feet but don't bother getting too precise
(my dungeons aren't usally on a neat 10x10 grid so precision would be
a fair challenge with little added benefit; when in doubt I usually
cut the player a break).
>Now the question is if one were to cast a firebal into a rigid or
>semirigid container of significantly less volume that that contained by
>a 20 sphere. how does one calclate the overpressure damage, that occurs
>on top of that caused by the heat and concussive effect?. It is true in
>propellants that if one doubles the amount of explosive, one cubes the
>energy released. The Grenade in a small room problem, as it were.
As others have noted, GMs are free to do what they like. However, it
is complicated enough calculating area of effect. Throw in blast
damage causing knockdown to people int he area of effect, flying
furniture, bursting doors, knocked over wooden walls, and the whole
thing can become quite a headache. Since DM adjudication of this can't
help but be somewhat subjective (since there are so many different
objects and barriers to resolve), and the result might seriously effect
a character, the potential for DM-player argument is quite
high. Furthermore, players are likely to start abusing the blast
portion of the spell and doing even more with a spell that is powerful
enough as is.
On the plus side, a nice explosion is quite satisfying and it is fun to
wreak havoc in a nicely furnished castle or the like. Take your pick.
>Scott
>"There is no problem that cannot be solved by a sufficient application
>of high explosives".
Quite true :-)
Marc Quattromani
Marc Quattromani
In article <32505E...@3do.com>,
>> As for my experience with DMs that change dice rolls to fit their plot, I
>> must say I can't stand this style. In this case, the DM has created a story
>> and is just telling it under the guise of a game. DMs that use this style
>> typically stack the odds against the players to keep the players going in
>> the direction the DM wants them to go, and at the same time, alters rules
>> and dice rolls so that the players don't die before getting to their (or,
>> rather the DM's) goal.
>
>exactly the problem I usually have with 'strong storytelling GM's as
>well.
>Nicely stated.
Perhaps you haven't met the right storyteller :-) But I definitly
agree there is nothing worse than feeling the GM is leading you down a
particular plotline from which one departs only at extreme risk. It's
quite distasteful. Some of the worst D&D I've experienced has been
of this sort.
However, it is still possible to have a strong story with the players
guiding direction. It requires flexibilty on the refs part, a rich
world with multiple plot-thread options, a willingness on the refs
part to weave NPCs and threads back into the story, and a willingness
on the ref's part to abandon threads the players aren't pursuing.
It is also very helpful for the ref to do contingency planning; not so
much to force the players down a certain path (although that can be
occasionally useful) but to help keep good plot threads alive.
Let's face it- thinking of good story ideas is difficult. Why waste a
good one when some clever planning might prolong it? There are limits
but it is within the perview of the ref to help plot threads.
For instance, if you have a thread involving a PC as an heir to some
title, have the player create a sibling who can pick up the reins
should the PC die. (If you tend to fudge dice, this can also help
you avoid the temptation since you know the story will live on beyond
the particualr PC.)
Or when creating a scenario, make sure that player failure doesn't
necessarily result in catastrophe. PC death is good and so is PC
failure but it doesn't need to end a campaign or a promising story
thread. Have the failure result in a set-back, maybe a serious one
like capture and loss of all items, or banishment or some such.
Out-right end of a campaign or thread is sometimes appropriate but
consider ahead of time if that is what you want when planning the
scenario. If isn't, you can often come up with other "failure modes".
Relying on good play from the players is a mistake. Players have their
bad nights. If consistent good play is required to succssfully resolve
any thread, it will never happen. Failures is good but so is *some*
success.
By keeping threads alive and weaving these threads forcefully back
into the game sessions, you will create a rich story and be a
storytelling ref without forcing your idea of a story down the player's
throats. Notice which PCs and plot threads are colorful and intrigue
the players and keep using them (survival of the fittest plot :-)
I posted something called "Ipra's Eyes" on another thread that was an
example of this. Ipra Eyes were a pair of sapphires the party sought.
It was originally intended as a one-shot scenario. They failed to
acquire them but over time, the eyes and the huyling and human who
took them took on major significance in the story. They still haven't
acquired the sapphires but the whole plot line has merged with several
others to become one of the more interesting 'stories' that have ever
occured in my campaigns. I never planned on it and I didn't force a
particular story-concept on the players but I did keep re-introducing
visions from the eyes and the NPCs involved.
Marc Quattromani
David K. Lewis
In article <325050...@3do.com>, "Scott A. H. Ruggels" <scott....@3do.com> writes:
> >
> > Here's a rules-lawyer question for the group. I belive the PHB states
> > the fireball fills a radius 20 feet sphere. Does that mean, if you
> > cast it in free space you get a 20' radius sphere but cast against the
> > ground you get a 25 radius hemisphere?
In theory yes, but in practicality I don't think the area would make a
uniform hemisphere.
If you cast a fireball at ground level then 50% of the volume (16,500 cu/ft)
would go to increasing the area of effect. However, I don't think that this
extra area would go into making a uniform hemisphere, I feel that it would
make a humped donut shape (similar to the football hall of fame). Here is
an ASCII representation of the side view of what I think it would look like:
_____
_____/ \______
|__________________|
Where the middle section is the top of the hemisphere and the left/right
sections where the extra area where the explosion would go. The extra
area from the explosion would go out and up (more out than up). For
calculations sake let's say that it would go up half the height of the
original hemisphere which would be 10' and that the rest of the area
would go outward.
This would give us a height of 10 feet in the ring and 10 to 20 feet in the
hemisphere and a radius of 30 feet. Here are the calculations for that
number:
Area of the 20'r center is: 1256 sq/ft (3.14*20*20)
This is the ground area of the hemisphere.
Total area of outer circle: 2906 (1256 (above) + 1650 (16,500/10))
This is the total ground area of the entire
structure. The 16,500 extra area was
divided by 10 to account for the 10' in height.
This allows us to deal in sq/ft instead of
cu/ft.
So our equasion is: r^2 * 3.14 = 2906
r^2 = 925.4777
radius = 30.42 feet
So a uniform hemisphere would be a 25' radius and an area as drawn above
would have a 30' radius. When I run I use the drawing above as it is more
realistic, although not perfect.
> Good question Marc. I would say that in all cases, conserve the volume
> so a 20 spherical volume would contain x. and x would fill an equivalent
> volume. Now I cannot do the calculations because I am effectively
> innumerate (artist and all that) but i would immagine that a detonation
> in a stereotypical 10x10 corridor would propagate a fair distance along
> the corridor.
The area would fill up 33 10x10x10 foot sections of the hallway.
> Now the question is if one were to cast a firebal into a rigid or
> semirigid container of significantly less volume that that contained by
> a 20 sphere. how does one calclate the overpressure damage, that occurs
> on top of that caused by the heat and concussive effect?. It is true in
> propellants that if one doubles the amount of explosive, one cubes the
> energy released. The Grenade in a small room problem, as it were.
This would be a GM call.
As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
Christian Groff
TBSHS - Performing Arts wrote:
>
> Jeffrey R. Bourne wrote:
> >
> > Daniel John DeMarc Jr. wrote:
> > > I, the DM, had spent all of the previous evening detailing this awesome
> > > evil NPC. A Death Knight, complete with a name, personality notes,
> > > history, command structeres, and assorted slaves. I went out and
> > > bought a perfect miniature. I painted it lovingly.
> > > On the big night, when I introduced the D.K., I expected to trounce the
> > > party and send them running...then use the D.K. as one of those
> > > long-term pain in the neck adversaries. What happened? The whole
> > > party converged thier attacks on myy poor Death Knight and rolled
> > > awesomely, made all thier saves too. They destroyed it in one round.
> > > I was heart broken. I wanted to fudge it big time " Oh that was an
> > > illusion of the real death knight....yeah, thats the ticket".
> > >
He forgot the DM rule: NEVER put any background into characters unless
you are going to have them in the background! He should have made the NPC
like Lord Soth: Never fights directly. People who put ages of work into a
good NPC and lose him because the players did something brilliant(or
moronic,in the case of allied NPCs) are hurting themselves. Most NPCs
should be faceless.
> > >
> > > --Dan
> > I had a similar situation, years ago. I was using the original D&D rules
> > with the dungeon module X2 Castle Amber. The climax encounter is with
> > a constuct called the Collossus. 100HD, 350hp monster. There was a
> > special powder with enough 'uses' to try 5 times. The chars had found
> > the powder, but didn't really know what it was for. When they
> > encountered the thing 1 character grabbed the tube of powder, flew into
> > the creature's face and hit on the first try. With maxed rolls on
> > initiative, saves, hits, (and 1s on collossus's to hit) it was dead, and
> > no PC even scratched. Man, did I want to fudge and change reality. I
> > was just stunned. Thinking back I would have 'fudged' somewhat and
> > slowly dissolved it, giving it some chance at retribution and a merry
> > chase, but I was so crushed that my monster was dead like that I
> > couldn't think of anything to do, but take a 10 minute break.
Well,that's the mistake we all make. Thinking to have an epic battle and
finding out that,through sheer inspiration or luck,the PCs won
no-hands-down. It is a shame,but it's unfair to make things so that you
can have another chance. The fudge rule doesn't apply to DMs: However,
they have many years ahead of them: You can always get back at them!
> **********************************************************************
> As DMs, haven't we ALL been down this road before? I know how Jeremy
> feels about his painted figurines, etc. What about the hours we put in
> trying to balance our campaigns to interest and excite our players?
>
> I must admit that - YES! - I have fudged. I have fudged when a fight
> should have been more exciting than it was (or was turning out to be).
> I have ONLY fudged when it is in the PLAYER'S interest, and never to
> gratify my own sense of "DM power over meagre characters".
>
> Therefore, I think it is OK to fudge if the OUTCOME is going to benefit
> the players in some way (and their characters are not in any way in
> danger of dying).
>
> Generally, I think fudging is acceptable, so long as you don't make a
> habbit of it and it is carefully disguised as being a natural part of
> the game.
> - BRUCE.
> **********************************************************************
I don't see why the fudge rule doesn't apply to DMs. Probably to avoid DM
favortism.
EPOCH DRAGON
odragon
> > I had a similar situation, years ago. I was using the original D&D rules
> > with the dungeon module X2 Castle Amber. The climax encounter is with
> > a constuct called the Collossus. 100HD, 350hp monster. There was a
> > special powder with enough 'uses' to try 5 times. The chars had found
> > the powder, but didn't really know what it was for. When they
> > encountered the thing 1 character grabbed the tube of powder, flew into
> > the creature's face and hit on the first try. With maxed rolls on
> > initiative, saves, hits, (and 1s on collossus's to hit) it was dead, and
> > no PC even scratched. Man, did I want to fudge and change reality. I
> > was just stunned. Thinking back I would have 'fudged' somewhat and
> > slowly dissolved it, giving it some chance at retribution and a merry
> > chase, but I was so crushed that my monster was dead like that I
> > couldn't think of anything to do, but take a 10 minute break.
No way! This is exactly what the PC's in my campaign did. Our whole
D&D experience was a bit munchkiny, but it was fun. In fact this specific
situation generated one of the funniest moments in our RPG careers. It was
over 10 years ago but we still laugh about.
-The "War Machine" (D&D munchkin PC powerhouse group) nervously waiting
for Collussus to appear, feeling the earth shaking.
-Collossus appears, downing giant trees as it approaches through the woods.
-PC's emit a collective "HOLY S**T! THEY WEREN'T KIDDING!"
-Human fighter with a fly spell is hiding behind a tall tree at the edge of the
woods. When jumbo clears the woods he flys straight up to his eyes and "poof."
-Time stops as Jumbo blinks, then begins to fall straight forward.
-Jumbo hits the ground with earthquake force, almost crushing the other PC's.
-Halfing, who was standing approx. 110 feet from the creature
(now 10ft from the creatures head) and just watched it fall says:
"That was hard."
Players almost fall out of their chairs laughing.
<sigh>
I'm glad i didn't fudge. I'm sure it wouldn't have been so memorable if i had.
O'Dragon
--
http://fox.nstn.ca/~odragon/sashmain.html
************************************************************
Anne B. Nonie Rider
Now wait a minute, a PLAYER decides to throw a fireball in
a small space when his CHARACTER would know better, and you're
arguing about whether to fudge?
To the player, Fireball's a tool and an item on the spell list.
To the character, it's something he practiced for months
under a wide range of conditions. His books and mentor
taught him about it; he's singed his eyebrows... No WAY
is he going to toss it in that narrow hall without knowing
better. The question to me is just how to remind him.
Player: "I throw a fireball."
GM: "Despite the size of the corridor and the radius of
the fireball?"
OR
"Didn't your master warn you about this?"
OR
"Make your Intelligence roll. Yeah? Think about how big
fireballs expand to."
OR
"Let me get this straight. You're casting a spell that..."
OR
(at the *very* least) "Mary, make your perception roll. You see
that John's reaching for his wand of fireballs."
--Nonie
hnei...@access.awinc.com
dk...@cas.org (David K. Lewis) wrote:
>In article <325050...@3do.com>, "Scott A. H. Ruggels" <scott....@3do.com> writes:
>In theory yes, but in practicality I don't think the area would make a
>uniform hemisphere.
<Lengthy description of how a fireball at ground level should spread
deleted>
>So a uniform hemisphere would be a 25' radius and an area as drawn above
>would have a 30' radius. When I run I use the drawing above as it is more
>realistic, although not perfect.
Personally, I've always believed "realistic magic" is an oxymoron.
Realistically, a few hand gestures over a ball of sulfur and bat dung,
accompanied with inarticulate mumbling, does not cause a pea-sized
fire to leap forth in the direction one is pointing and blossom into a
33,000+ cubic foot inferno with no fuel.
Simply put, if magic followed the laws of physics, it wouldn't be
magic.
That said, your diagram is no less reasonable than my 25' hemisphere.
Something should happen to the extra volume (ie we shouldn't end up
with a 20' hemisphere), since the spell description specifies the
spell always brings out the same amount of fire.
>The area would fill up 33 10x10x10 foot sections of the hallway.
I generally use that as my rule, despite the fact that, on many
dungeon maps, assuming the hallways are really 10' wide basically
assumes the walls are two dimensional (how often do you see two
parallel 10' wide hallways on a D&D map with a line between them - if
the corridors are 10' wide, the wall has no width). But assuming
1,000 cubic feet per 10' of hallway seems to work. If I were to go
through the bother of exact calculations, I'd also need a method of
determining precisely where each character is standing (knowing which
10' x 10' section no longer being adequate if they're near the edge of
the blast).
>> Now the question is if one were to cast a firebal into a rigid or
>> semirigid container of significantly less volume that that contained by
>> a 20 sphere. how does one calclate the overpressure damage, that occurs
>> on top of that caused by the heat and concussive effect?. It is true in
>> propellants that if one doubles the amount of explosive, one cubes the
>> energy released. The Grenade in a small room problem, as it were.
>This would be a GM call.
They all are. I'd suggest two possibilities. One, the fireball
exerts no pressure, so it simply stops at the wall. Two, there must
be an opening the pea-sized ball flew into -how was the container
corked "instantaneously"?
If you play by the "fireballs do exert pressure" ruling, the person in
real danger would be the guy standing just outside the container's
opening - all the pressure will be coming out there.
>As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Ditto.
Indy
bgr...@acca.nmsu.edu (Bruce L Grubb) wrote:
>One of my best memories was of a 8th level mage who had not cast a fireball
>indoors since 5th level. He cast the fireball at what he thought was a
>save distance from the party. He had forgotten that under 1st edition
>rules a fireball's radius was a fuction of (x ft*mage's level) cubed. At
>least he -did- kill the trolls though he also fried the entire party in the
>process.
>
More likely he was remembering the actual *rulebook* and not some
house rules. From PH1, p 73 under Fireball: " Area of Effect: 2"
radius sphere" -- absolutely no mention of any variation by level of
the mage. Range, yes... 10" + 1"/level. But not AoE.
Never go on an adventure without a hat!
Indy
in...@interconnect.net
http://www2.interconnect.net/indy/
Ennead
Anne B. "Nonie" Rider (nri...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
: Now wait a minute, a PLAYER decides to throw a fireball in
: a small space when his CHARACTER would know better, and you're
: arguing about whether to fudge?
You know, this was bothering me, too. I wasn't going to jump into
this thread, rules lawyering discussions not being my, er, _ouvre,_ but
now that Nonie's spoken up, I guess I'll put in my two cents as well.
I don't really think that _fudging_ is the issue here. The
question here, as I see it, is precisely how to convey to the player the
IC knowledge she really ought have without breaking SOD or disrupting the
tone of the game.
: To the player, Fireball's a tool and an item on the spell list.
: To the character, it's something he practiced for months
: under a wide range of conditions. His books and mentor
: taught him about it; he's singed his eyebrows... No WAY
: is he going to toss it in that narrow hall without knowing
: better. The question to me is just how to remind him.
Precisely. No player wants to feel that the GM is making
decisions for him, but at the same time, I would consider it a gross
dereliction of duty for a GM to allow the character to display ignorance
which is properly the _player's_ without some form of intercession.
-- Sarah
David K. Lewis
In article <52se95$5...@noc.van.hookup.net>, hnei...@access.awinc.com writes:
> dk...@cas.org (David K. Lewis) wrote:
>
> >In article <325050...@3do.com>, "Scott A. H. Ruggels" <scott....@3do.com> writes:
>
> >In theory yes, but in practicality I don't think the area would make a
> >uniform hemisphere.
> <Lengthy description of how a fireball at ground level should spread
> deleted>
>
> >So a uniform hemisphere would be a 25' radius and an area as drawn above
> >would have a 30' radius. When I run I use the drawing above as it is more
> >realistic, although not perfect.
>
> Personally, I've always believed "realistic magic" is an oxymoron.
> Realistically, a few hand gestures over a ball of sulfur and bat dung,
> accompanied with inarticulate mumbling, does not cause a pea-sized
> fire to leap forth in the direction one is pointing and blossom into a
> 33,000+ cubic foot inferno with no fuel.
I agree with you if you are saying that realistic magic is an oxymoron
if you are talking about "cause" (as in your example above), but not
when talking about "effect" (as in the expansion of an explosion).
Most magical effects can easily conform to realistic physics, this is
not to say that they have too. When the spell fireball uses terms
like "explosive" and "detonates" it is reasonable to conclude that
they are describing the effect in terms we understand today so that
we know how to judicate the effect.
One spell in D&D whose effects don't conform to real world physics
is Lightning Bolt. Lets set aside the fact that it rebounds (I
don't want to get into that discussion) and just discuss how it
rebounds. The spell description has it rebound back at the caster
*regardless* of the angle of incidence. This is obviously not
how realworld objects rebound and I have changed that for my
campaign.
> Simply put, if magic followed the laws of physics, it wouldn't be
> magic.
This is a very false statement. What you and I know how to do today
would be magic to stone age peoples, but would still conform to the
laws of physics. It would just be laws and principals that they
didn't understand.
Conversly, in a D&D world mages could very well be using/applying laws
of physics that the layman doesn't understand. It is all in how
you set up your world, but even if "magical cause" doesn't obey
the laws of physics it doesn't mean that "magical effect" doesn't.
Most gamers I know think it is a good thing to have "magical effect"
obey the laws of physics, where possible. If you feel differently
then you will be the first that I have heard of in 20 years of
gaming (note that this is not a bad thing, just not common in my
experiences).
However, if your statement above is to mean "If I understand how to
do something, then it wouldn't be magic.", then there is no point in
discussing it. Because if you feel this way magic in your world would
disappear in a puff of logic, since mages obviously know how to do it.
> That said, your diagram is no less reasonable than my 25' hemisphere.
When applying real world physics to an explosion (as I stated I was
doing), yours *is* less reasonable. However, mine is not entirely
accurate either, just more accurate than yours in that context.
Yours is easier to explain to a GM so I have used it on occasion.
> Something should happen to the extra volume (ie we shouldn't end up
> with a 20' hemisphere), since the spell description specifies the
> spell always brings out the same amount of fire.
We agree on this, and I have used your diagram when playing in other
campaigns where the GM didn't have enough of a math background to
calculate the area of a non-uniform solid.
> >The area would fill up 33 10x10x10 foot sections of the hallway.
>
> I generally use that as my rule, despite the fact that, on many
> dungeon maps, assuming the hallways are really 10' wide basically
> assumes the walls are two dimensional
I think you meant to say three dimensional here (i.e., length, height,
and Time, but no Depth).
> (how often do you see two
> parallel 10' wide hallways on a D&D map with a line between them - if
> the corridors are 10' wide, the wall has no width).
Most graphs are written to show the open spaces and not the closed wall
system. It is a simple matter to say that the walls are x feet thick
without actually drawing them to this thickness. It won't change the
actual spaces that the PCs investigate, it will just make the whole
complex larger in total area, than what is drawn, but identical in
explorable area (which is all the PCs and DM are usually concerned with).
> But assuming
> 1,000 cubic feet per 10' of hallway seems to work. If I were to go
> through the bother of exact calculations, I'd also need a method of
> determining precisely where each character is standing (knowing which
> 10' x 10' section no longer being adequate if they're near the edge of
> the blast).
Knowing the 10x10 section is adaquate, if they are on a section which is
at the edge of the blast simply give them a bonus to their saving throw
proportional to the amount the blast covers their section.
> >> Now the question is if one were to cast a firebal into a rigid or
> >> semirigid container of significantly less volume that that contained by
> >> a 20 sphere. how does one calclate the overpressure damage, that occurs
> >> on top of that caused by the heat and concussive effect?. It is true in
> >> propellants that if one doubles the amount of explosive, one cubes the
> >> energy released. The Grenade in a small room problem, as it were.
>
> >This would be a GM call.
>
> They all are.
Yes, everything in D&D is a DM call including the published rules.
Unless a poster specifically asks for an opinion, I conclude they
are asking for a rules interpretation. I was simply pointing
out that the rules don't cover this, so make it up.
> I'd suggest two possibilities. One, the fireball
> exerts no pressure, so it simply stops at the wall.
Reasonable, since the spell description says: "The burst of the fireball
creates little pressure and conforms to the shape of the area in which
it occurs".
> Two, there must be an opening the pea-sized ball flew into -how was
> the container corked "instantaneously"?
This is faulty reasoning as there doesn't have to be an opening as in
D&D there are many ways to accomplish feats. They could have cast it
though a 1 way dimensional portal, cast it into a time stopped area
and then closed the area up, wished that a fireball detonated in the
area, etc.
If you replace the word "must" in your statment with "is probably",
then I would agree with you.
> If you play by the "fireballs do exert pressure" ruling
Where is this ruling, the spell description even says that it exerts
little pressure, or are you speaking of a GM ruling.
As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
Phase
dk...@cas.org (David K. Lewis) writes:
>I agree with you if you are saying that realistic magic is an oxymoron
>if you are talking about "cause" (as in your example above), but not
>when talking about "effect" (as in the expansion of an explosion).
>
>Most magical effects can easily conform to realistic physics, this is
>not to say that they have too. When the spell fireball uses terms
>like "explosive" and "detonates" it is reasonable to conclude that
>they are describing the effect in terms we understand today so that
>we know how to judicate the effect.
where the 'purpose' of the spell is more important than the
physical way it manifests. I myself tend to lean towards applying
physics to spell effects however, especially for my MacGyver-like
characters. (: It's also easier to go with physics for rule
ambiguities.
>One spell in D&D whose effects don't conform to real world physics
>is Lightning Bolt. Lets set aside the fact that it rebounds (I
>don't want to get into that discussion) and just discuss how it
>rebounds. The spell description has it rebound back at the caster
>*regardless* of the angle of incidence. This is obviously not
>how realworld objects rebound and I have changed that for my
>campaign.
correctly reflecting bolts. "When this type of lightning bolt
strikes a solid surface, the bolt reflects from the surface at an
angle equal to the angle of incidence." (PHB2ed, p161)
But back to what I was saying before, bringing physics into things
can cause much debate, as with the Continual Light and Continual
Darkness spells. The 'purpose' of those spells are obvious, but
how you should interpret them are not.
>> Simply put, if magic followed the laws of physics, it wouldn't be
>> magic.
>
>This is a very false statement. What you and I know how to do today
>would be magic to stone age peoples, but would still conform to the
>laws of physics. It would just be laws and principals that they
>didn't understand.
>
>Conversly, in a D&D world mages could very well be using/applying laws
>of physics that the layman doesn't understand. It is all in how
>you set up your world, but even if "magical cause" doesn't obey
>the laws of physics it doesn't mean that "magical effect" doesn't.
>Most gamers I know think it is a good thing to have "magical effect"
>obey the laws of physics, where possible. If you feel differently
>then you will be the first that I have heard of in 20 years of
>gaming (note that this is not a bad thing, just not common in my
>experiences).
Though some people don't like that for some spells.
A valid question though, Do mages understand physics as we know them?
Or are they limited to their magical metaphysics and the common sense
physics of the common people?
>However, if your statement above is to mean "If I understand how to
>do something, then it wouldn't be magic.", then there is no point in
>discussing it. Because if you feel this way magic in your world would
>disappear in a puff of logic, since mages obviously know how to do it.
The Net.Wizard's Handbook gives some interesting views on magic
as chaos, art, and science.
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Phase wrote:
>
> ba...@frazmtn.com (bane) writes:
>
> >So then, if the ball is a special effect, then one must assume the
> >flame is generated simultaneously in the entire area... and in that
> >case it would first fill in the normal radius and slowly expand out...
>
> Well according to the book, "A fireball is an explosive burst of
> flame", but the "burst of the fireball creates little pressure and
> generally fills an area equal to its normal spherical volume".
> (PHB2ed, p 149)
>
> Does that help?
>
Actually these statements seem a little cointradictory. Explosive
usually means a dramatic release of pressure. Tim the Enchanter was
throwing classic fireballs. Pretty explosive, and they filled a volume
quite nicely.
Scott
Dan Mallison II
I can agree with the last paragraph. I'm currently running in
a campaign as an "Undead Hunter". The system calls for me
to cast a specific spell to poof a specific undead. A spell
that is powerful enough for a vampire won't bother a skeleton
because the two are "different". The problem is that every
time I ask the GM what kind of undead it is that I'm facing so
I can throw the proper spell, he says that I don't know. This
would be okay if the character generation had decreed that the
PC was young, but this character is 50 years old. He ought to
know SOMETHING about his "job".
Anyhow, I think we finally got it worked out so that he can be
vague (for the benefit of the other PC's) and still let me know
the scoop. I ended up having to dump a marginally useful skill
and take up "Research" which tells him that my PC has studied
the Undead.
As far as the Fireball goes, we've always played that you can
dial it from your current level down to 5th level (or in
between) if you're higher than 5th.
It's my opinion that the GM should make the players aware of
info that the PC's know as well as make sure that the PC's
don't act on knowledge that the players know.
Dan II
--
Howard D. Mallison II
Computer Operations Technician
UVa Medical Center Computing
hd...@galen.med.virginia.edu
hnei...@access.awinc.com
dk...@cas.org (David K. Lewis) wrote:
>In article <52se95$5...@noc.van.hookup.net>, hnei...@access.awinc.com writes:
>> dk...@cas.org (David K. Lewis) wrote:
>> Personally, I've always believed "realistic magic" is an oxymoron.
>> Realistically, a few hand gestures over a ball of sulfur and bat dung,
>> accompanied with inarticulate mumbling, does not cause a pea-sized
>> fire to leap forth in the direction one is pointing and blossom into a
>> 33,000+ cubic foot inferno with no fuel.
>I agree with you if you are saying that realistic magic is an oxymoron
>if you are talking about "cause" (as in your example above), but not
>when talking about "effect" (as in the expansion of an explosion).
>Most magical effects can easily conform to realistic physics, this is
>not to say that they have too. When the spell fireball uses terms
>like "explosive" and "detonates" it is reasonable to conclude that
>they are describing the effect in terms we understand today so that
>we know how to judicate the effect.
But, to decide how the fireball expands, you need to define the
"physics" of the fireball. Does the pea-sized ball contain the fire,
which expands outwards with explosive force? Does the air surounding
the pea suddenly become flammable?
>One spell in D&D whose effects don't conform to real world physics
>is Lightning Bolt. Lets set aside the fact that it rebounds (I
>don't want to get into that discussion) and just discuss how it
>rebounds. The spell description has it rebound back at the caster
>*regardless* of the angle of incidence. This is obviously not
>how realworld objects rebound and I have changed that for my
>campaign.
The spell description allows this alternative, but which one you use
depends on how you want the game to work. I don't believe "real
world" electrical bolts would reflect off stone walls. Note that the
spell description also requires those struck twice to save twice, but
does not call for two sets of damage (both save for half). If twice
as much electricity flows through the creature, shouldn't he take
twice as much damage?
>> Simply put, if magic followed the laws of physics, it wouldn't be
>> magic.
>This is a very false statement. What you and I know how to do today
>would be magic to stone age peoples, but would still conform to the
>laws of physics. It would just be laws and principals that they
>didn't understand.
It would appear to be magic, but it would not BE magic. Real magic
doesn't exist.
>Conversly, in a D&D world mages could very well be using/applying laws
>of physics that the layman doesn't understand. It is all in how
>you set up your world, but even if "magical cause" doesn't obey
>the laws of physics it doesn't mean that "magical effect" doesn't.
They could - but then the mages are advanced scientists, not users of
magic.
>Most gamers I know think it is a good thing to have "magical effect"
>obey the laws of physics, where possible. If you feel differently
>then you will be the first that I have heard of in 20 years of
>gaming (note that this is not a bad thing, just not common in my
>experiences).
Where possible, and where it doesn't upset or overly complicate the
game, the standard laws of physics apply. However, even many game
worlds intentionally overrule our physics - smoke powder works and
gunpowder doesn't, for example. A horse with wings is capable of
flying, a giant defies the cube-square law, a fireball hot enough to
melt steel doesn't ignite hair, etc.
>However, if your statement above is to mean "If I understand how to
>do something, then it wouldn't be magic.", then there is no point in
>discussing it. Because if you feel this way magic in your world would
>disappear in a puff of logic, since mages obviously know how to do it.
Mages know how to use it. They don't necessarily understand it. They
know the right mumblings and hand passes over bat guano and sulfer
create a fireball (recycled example), but nothing says they know why
this combination works. A caveman could learn, by watching a bic
lighter in use, that flicking the bic creates flame, but he wouldn't
know why, nor would he understand why it stops working when the fluid
runs out.
I can understand how to do something (eg. dial my phone to talk to
someone half a world away) without knowing why it works. The
difference is in whether anyone understands why. Magic may be
inexplicable, or it may work by logic all its own. I challenge anyone
to take the information we have on material components and provide
consistent logic that would allow the prediction of the material
components for new spells.
The mage knows his fireball works, but he can't reduce his material
components by half and know he will get a fireball half as big - he
might get the same result, he might get what he expects, he might get
nothing, or he might spontaneously combust. He has no way of
predicting because magic does not follow "cause and effect". In
casting a monster summoning spell, the mage cannot even predict what
type of creature he will receive - a true random effect should be
impossible if one knows all the variables.
>> That said, your diagram is no less reasonable than my 25' hemisphere.
>When applying real world physics to an explosion (as I stated I was
>doing), yours *is* less reasonable. However, mine is not entirely
>accurate either, just more accurate than yours in that context.
>Yours is easier to explain to a GM so I have used it on occasion.
Key term - REAL WORLD physics. A perfectly correct model, a "expands
in all openings equally" model and your model are all reasonable
structures for fireball expansion on a magical world. The only
structure I would find problematic would see different expansion
methods used interchangeably - this would violate the internal
consistency of that spell.
>> Something should happen to the extra volume (ie we shouldn't end up
>> with a 20' hemisphere), since the spell description specifies the
>> spell always brings out the same amount of fire.
>We agree on this, and I have used your diagram when playing in other
>campaigns where the GM didn't have enough of a math background to
>calculate the area of a non-uniform solid.
>> >The area would fill up 33 10x10x10 foot sections of the hallway.
>>
>> I generally use that as my rule, despite the fact that, on many
>> dungeon maps, assuming the hallways are really 10' wide basically
>> assumes the walls are two dimensional
>I think you meant to say three dimensional here (i.e., length, height,
>and Time, but no Depth).
Fair enough - I went with the "standard" three dimensions of space.
>> (how often do you see two
>> parallel 10' wide hallways on a D&D map with a line between them - if
>> the corridors are 10' wide, the wall has no width).
>Most graphs are written to show the open spaces and not the closed wall
>system. It is a simple matter to say that the walls are x feet thick
>without actually drawing them to this thickness. It won't change the
>actual spaces that the PCs investigate, it will just make the whole
>complex larger in total area, than what is drawn, but identical in
>explorable area (which is all the PCs and DM are usually concerned with).
If you apply this logic to some maps, it likely works. On others,
however, it won't unless you assume the walls differ in thickness. In
any case, it's a minor issue and, even if we assume away the "where
did the wall go" issue, we're still left with the unlikeliness of
perfectly smooth walls and ceilings, and perfectly clean corridors,
such that every 10' section contains exactly 1,000 cubic feet of open
space.
>> But assuming
>> 1,000 cubic feet per 10' of hallway seems to work. If I were to go
>> through the bother of exact calculations, I'd also need a method of
>> determining precisely where each character is standing (knowing which
>> 10' x 10' section no longer being adequate if they're near the edge of
>> the blast).
>Knowing the 10x10 section is adaquate, if they are on a section which is
>at the edge of the blast simply give them a bonus to their saving throw
>proportional to the amount the blast covers their section.
Actually, if I judge them to be right on the edge, I'll generally let
them save for half or no damage (either they were just on the fringe,
or they backed off enough to be out of the fire). My point is that
perfect precision is unnecessary, as long as it's reasonably close.
From your comments, I don't think we disagree on this point.
>> >> Now the question is if one were to cast a firebal into a rigid or
>> >> semirigid container of significantly less volume that that contained by
>> >> a 20 sphere. how does one calclate the overpressure damage, that occurs
>> >> on top of that caused by the heat and concussive effect?. It is true in
>> >> propellants that if one doubles the amount of explosive, one cubes the
>> >> energy released. The Grenade in a small room problem, as it were.
>>
>> >This would be a GM call.
>>
>> They all are.
>Yes, everything in D&D is a DM call including the published rules.
>Unless a poster specifically asks for an opinion, I conclude they
>are asking for a rules interpretation. I was simply pointing
>out that the rules don't cover this, so make it up.
Agreed - but where someone asks the question, they generally are
looking for some guidance where a rule doesn't exist. Besides, you
get a much more interesting discussion if you get a few different
ideas into the mix.
>> I'd suggest two possibilities. One, the fireball
>> exerts no pressure, so it simply stops at the wall.
>Reasonable, since the spell description says: "The burst of the fireball
>creates little pressure and conforms to the shape of the area in which
>it occurs".
I think it's consistent with the rules, however there have been a
number of posters who consciously modify the rule to allow a fireball
to exert explosive force. I should have been more clear that I was
bringing this possibility into the discussion.
>> Two, there [EDIT - probably would] be an opening the pea-sized ball flew into -how was
>> the container corked "instantaneously"?
>This is faulty reasoning as there doesn't have to be an opening as in
>D&D there are many ways to accomplish feats. They could have cast it
>though a 1 way dimensional portal, cast it into a time stopped area
>and then closed the area up, wished that a fireball detonated in the
>area, etc.
>If you replace the word "must" in your statment with "is probably",
>then I would agree with you.
Done. Or it could have been a delayed blast fireball. It just
struck me as the same logic as "we open the door, cast a fireball in
and shut the door so we don't get burned", a strategy which I feel
contradicts the nature of the basic fireball spell.
>> If you play by the "fireballs do exert pressure" ruling
>Where is this ruling, the spell description even says that it exerts
>little pressure, or are you speaking of a GM ruling.
As noted above, a house rule used by several of the posters (though
not myself).
>As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
I seem to agree with some of your opinions - are you entitled to a
royalty of some sort :-)?
[I compiled my house rules a few months ago, and headed them with a
disclaimer that these were applicable to my campaign alone, as there
are other DM's in the group, and we have some agreed house rules. One
person asked if that meant other DM's were prohobited from adopting
them!]