AD&D 2nd edition Stoneskin
The Nature Boy
I really do not think that the spell is as powerful as people believe
for about two reasons or so:
1) All attacks wipe out a stoneskin for each hit. Granted. But the
best part is that the attacker does not even need to roll a to hit. At least
it does not say so in the game. It just seems that the person would not defend
themselves knowing the stoneskin was protecting them.
2) Magical spells still affect the person as normal. So, if a mage has
stoneskin on himself, have your mage bombard him with magic missiles. :)
3) If a mage casting with stoneskin gets hit, shouldn't his spell be
disrupted? The spell only provides a layer over the skin, not a force wall of
any source. Therefore, he should get distracted and lose his spell if he does
get hit.
PHOENIX
*******************************************************************************
*Bernard E Cana * Aka: PHOENIX * E-mail address to: *
*215 Spaulding Quad, SUNYAB* Casanova * V076...@UBVMS.BITNET *
*Buffalo, NY 14261 * Hawkmoon * V076...@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU *
*(716) 636-4903 * * *
*******************************************************************************
Kevin Maurice Hudson
TNB> News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
TNB> Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
TNB> I really do not think that the spell is as powerful as people
TNB> believe for about two reasons or so:
TNB> 1) All attacks wipe out a stoneskin for each hit. Granted.
TNB> But the best part is that the attacker does not even need
TNB> to roll a to hit. At least it does not say so in the game.
TNB> It just seems that the person would not defend themselves
TNB> knowing the stoneskin was protecting them.
This is not true. It's a reflex to defend yourself. Also, any self
respecting mage will try to get the spell to last as long as possible,
defending himself as best he can.
TNB> 2) Magical spells still affect the person as normal. So, if a
TNB> mage has stoneskin on himself, have your mage bombard him with
TNB> magic missiles. :)
We play it that each missle is a seperate attack. This drains stoneskin
veryfast.
TNB> 3) If a mage casting with stoneskin gets hit, shouldn't his spell
TNB> be disrupted? The spell only provides a layer over the skin,
TNB> not a force wall of any source. Therefore, he should get
TNB> distracted and lose his spell if he does get hit.
We do cause the mage to loose his spell if he gets hit in the process
of casting the spell.
Even so, the spell is pretty powerful, but has enough limitations.
If all else fails, send a creature with three attacks/round against
the mage and see how long the spell lasts. 8-)
--
Kevin Hudson
hud...@dragon.cpe.ulowell.edu
Kevin Maurice Hudson
w> In article <HUDSON.91O...@dragon.cpe.ulowell.edu> hud...@dragon.cpe.ulowell.edu (Kevin Maurice Hudson) writes:
> This is not true. It's a reflex to defend yourself. Also, any self
> respecting mage will try to get the spell to last as long as possible,
> defending himself as best he can.
w> Read the spell. It is very well written and hard to misinterpret.
w> Each attack takes off a stoneskin. It doesn't matter if the mage
w> is jumping out of the way. Magical defense is seperate issue.
w> Example; shield spell prevents magic missiles from affecting the
w> mage.
Yes, it can be read as any attack regardless as to whether it would have
hit or not. However, we give the mage the benefit of the doubt and only
count attacks that would have been successful.
> TNB> 3) If a mage casting with stoneskin gets hit, shouldn't his
> spell TNB> be disrupted? The spell only provides a layer over the
> skin, TNB> not a force wall of any source. Therefore, he should get
> TNB> distracted and lose his spell if he does get hit.
w> What are you talking about? This is a really weird and major
w> alteration of the spell. You don't even roll the to-hit roll, you
w> just count attacks. It can even protect against a vorpal blade!
Some of us do make a to-hit roll to see if it looses a point.
w> There is a point of abuse on this spell. There is no time limit on
w> the spell. Therefore, a mage might cast the spell three times a
w> day for a month before going on an adventure.
It's alot easier to just say that only one is effective at a time. If
the mage does not like the number of attacks that the spell can absorb,
let the party slap him around a few times so he can recast it. ;-)
--
Kevin Hudson
hud...@dragon.cpe.ulowell.edu
Lester Ward
Being real into the duality of the universe, what is the conjuring
equivilant of Ritual Sorcery? I kinda have ideas already, but
I'll wait to see if anyone develops along a very different track
than mine (not that mine is revolutionary or anything, I see it
as obvious, but obvious to one is not to another.)
Wordman
w...@phoenix.sch.symbolics.com
> TNB> News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
> TNB> Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
>
>
> TNB> I really do not think that the spell is as powerful as people
> TNB> believe for about two reasons or so:
> TNB> 1) All attacks wipe out a stoneskin for each hit. Granted.
> TNB> But the best part is that the attacker does not even need
> TNB> to roll a to hit. At least it does not say so in the game.
> TNB> It just seems that the person would not defend themselves
> TNB> knowing the stoneskin was protecting them.
>
> This is not true. It's a reflex to defend yourself. Also, any self
> respecting mage will try to get the spell to last as long as possible,
> defending himself as best he can.
Read the spell. It is very well written and hard to misinterpret. Each
attack takes off a stoneskin. It doesn't matter if the mage is jumping
out of the way. Magical defense is seperate issue. Example; shield spell
prevents magic missiles from affecting the mage.
> TNB> 2) Magical spells still affect the person as normal. So, if a
> TNB> mage has stoneskin on himself, have your mage bombard him with
> TNB> magic missiles. :)
>
> We play it that each missle is a seperate attack. This drains stoneskin
> veryfast.
At least you read this correctly. The spell description tells you that
a each magic missile does dammage AND counts as an attack on the stoneskin.
> TNB> 3) If a mage casting with stoneskin gets hit, shouldn't his spell
> TNB> be disrupted? The spell only provides a layer over the skin,
> TNB> not a force wall of any source. Therefore, he should get
> TNB> distracted and lose his spell if he does get hit.
What are you talking about? This is a really weird and major alteration of
the spell. You don't even roll the to-hit roll, you just count attacks.
It can even protect against a vorpal blade!
> We do cause the mage to loose his spell if he gets hit in the process
> of casting the spell.
This goes for any spell being cast.
>
> Even so, the spell is pretty powerful, but has enough limitations.
> If all else fails, send a creature with three attacks/round against
> the mage and see how long the spell lasts. 8-)
There is a point of abuse on this spell. There is no time limit on the
spell. Therefore, a mage might cast the spell three times a day for
a month before going on an adventure.
What to do about this:
1: Nothing, let this stand as it is.
2: Give it a time limit if not used, see 2nd ed invisibility(24 hours).
3: The spell allows a mage to protect against 1d4+ 1 attacks/ 2 levels.
therefore you could say this a maximum number you can have on you at
one time. No matter how many times you cast the spell on you.
4: Set a price on the matterial component and make the player keep track
of the number of uses has.
5: If you the DM really hate this spell, don't let the players have it.
In my game I plan out long ahead for the spells the group has. It
seems as though some DMs just give the mages whatever spells they want
the bitch about how powerful they are. It is the DMs fault for being
to easy on the mage.
Wayne J. Rasmussen
Nicholas Weaver
>
>What to do about this:
>
> of the number of uses has.
Number 4 seems the most effective, unless in a Monty Haul campaign.
Diamond dust costs a good amount of money...
But then, there is my favorite method for dealing with stoneskin.
My characters and any NPCs when I am DMing, as well as my rather strange
mage, use this trick a lot when dealing with stoneskined opponents.
1. Carry a bag of gravel.
2. When dealing with stoneskined opponents, simply take a handful of gravel
and throw it at them. Each stone would be counted as a separate attack, which
would do no damage, but just overwhelmes with so many attacks... You could
probably through enough gravel in one round to take out just about ANY
amount of stoneskin.
Nicholas Weaver
(Favorite PC. Howard the mage. Creater of Howard's Handy Hand Grenade (tm))
.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Nicholas C. Weaver>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nwe...@ocf.berkeley.edu |Disclaimer: I don't represent anyone but
193w...@qal.berkeley.edu |myself. Not UC. Not the OCF. And definatly
Non NeXT mail only please. |not Elvis
w...@phoenix.sch.symbolics.com
> ==> On 18 Oct 91 16:01:36 GMT, w...@PHOENIX.SCH.Symbolics.COM said:
>
> w> In article <HUDSON.91O...@dragon.cpe.ulowell.edu> hud...@dragon.cpe.ulowell.edu (Kevin Maurice Hudson) writes:
> > respecting mage will try to get the spell to last as long as possible,
> > defending himself as best he can.
>
> w> Each attack takes off a stoneskin. It doesn't matter if the mage
> w> is jumping out of the way. Magical defense is seperate issue.
> w> Example; shield spell prevents magic missiles from affecting the
> w> mage.
>
> Yes, it can be read as any attack regardless as to whether it would have
> hit or not. However, we give the mage the benefit of the doubt and only
> count attacks that would have been successful.
the spell per the book.
>
> > TNB> 3) If a mage casting with stoneskin gets hit, shouldn't his
> > spell TNB> be disrupted? The spell only provides a layer over the
> > skin, TNB> not a force wall of any source. Therefore, he should get
> > TNB> distracted and lose his spell if he does get hit.
>
> w> alteration of the spell. You don't even roll the to-hit roll, you
> w> just count attacks. It can even protect against a vorpal blade!
>
> Some of us do make a to-hit roll to see if it looses a point.
a variation. The spell states it is attacks not to-hits which counts. You
should tell people that your way is a variation. If you don't then your
are just spreading habits around which are bad. If you ever Play in the
AD&D open at Gencon it will be run by the book, which is by the number of
attacks.
>
> w> There is a point of abuse on this spell. There is no time limit on
> w> the spell. Therefore, a mage might cast the spell three times a
> w> day for a month before going on an adventure.
>
> It's alot easier to just say that only one is effective at a time. If
> the mage does not like the number of attacks that the spell can absorb,
> let the party slap him around a few times so he can recast it. ;-)
> --
Wayne J. Rasmussen
David Cook
>
> TNB> 3) If a mage casting with stoneskin gets hit, shouldn't his
> spell TNB> be disrupted? The spell only provides a layer over the
> skin, TNB> not a force wall of any source. Therefore, he should get
> TNB> distracted and lose his spell if he does get hit.
>
> w> What are you talking about? This is a really weird and major
> w> alteration of the spell. You don't even roll the to-hit roll, you
> w> just count attacks. It can even protect against a vorpal blade!
I believe there has been a misunderstanding here ... what 'TNB'
(sorry, lost the original name) _meant_ was :
A mage has stoneskin cast on himself. Later, during combat,
he is trying to cast a spell of some sort. As per the combat
rules, if he is hit, his concentration will be disrupted,
_even_though_ he has a stoneskin cast on himself - ie
the stoneskin stops the _damage_ from the attack, but
is not a 'force wall'-type effect, letting him fire
off all the spells he wants.
(At least, I hope that's what TNB meant :-)
(I just _hate_ seeing one misunderstanding stuff up a whole
thread)
--
David T Cook | e-mail: dc...@spam.adelaide.edu.au | Phone: +61 8 228 5709
Assistant Computer Manager, Stats, Pure and Applied Maths LMG, Adelaide Uni
"The wonderful thing about USENET is that anyone can express their opinion."
"The worrying thing is that they _do_." | Free Tibet !!
Todd South
>In article <HUDSON.91O...@dragon.cpe.ulowell.edu> hud...@dragon.cpe.ulowell.edu (Kevin Maurice Hudson) writes:
>>
>> This is not true. It's a reflex to defend yourself. Also, any self
>> respecting mage will try to get the spell to last as long as possible,
>> defending himself as best he can.
>
>Read the spell. It is very well written and hard to misinterpret. Each
>attack takes off a stoneskin. It doesn't matter if the mage is jumping
>out of the way. Magical defense is seperate issue. Example; shield spell
>prevents magic missiles from affecting the mage.
Your logic is semi-correct. An attack does not mean someone walks up to
you and simply says, "I hit thee". It means a successful to-hit melee.
Under your logic, which I might add SHOULD apply to all characters, PC or
NPC, all touch spells would automatically succeed.
>> TNB> 3) If a mage casting with stoneskin gets hit, shouldn't his spell
>> TNB> be disrupted? The spell only provides a layer over the skin,
>> TNB> not a force wall of any source. Therefore, he should get
>> TNB> distracted and lose his spell if he does get hit.
>
>What are you talking about? This is a really weird and major alteration of
>the spell. You don't even roll the to-hit roll, you just count attacks.
>It can even protect against a vorpal blade!
I disagree, your logic is a major alteration of the entire game system.
Simply counting attacks as successful to allow you, the DM, the ease of
engagement is not fair. If you don't want to be fair then I can't
change that. But, your analysis of an attack scheme automatically
hitting is not fair to the PC. I doubt that you would allow similar
actions if your fighters simply walked up to your monsters and said,
"I hit you". Just because the spell relates, "regardless of attack
rolls", one does not have to interpret it to mean any attack should
automatically count. I interpret it to mean no matter how well you
are successfully struck (natural 20's) the attack does not succeed.
>> We do cause the mage to loose his spell if he gets hit in the process
>> of casting the spell.
>
>This goes for any spell being cast.
Depends on the situation. If the mage simply had components out
then he can go ahead and cast. If he was in the middle of casting
then concentration is broken, IMO.
>> Even so, the spell is pretty powerful, but has enough limitations.
>> If all else fails, send a creature with three attacks/round against
>> the mage and see how long the spell lasts. 8-)
>
>There is a point of abuse on this spell. There is no time limit on the
>spell. Therefore, a mage might cast the spell three times a day for
>a month before going on an adventure.
Then again, there are DM's who have NPC's who never take damage before
they meet PC's. Never have to use their NPC spells for anything other
than PC meetings, and always have the perfect spell to counter what-
ever the PC deals out. Not pointing towards authors noted, mate.
I'm just saying that munchkin DM's are real, more so than players.
>What to do about this:
>
>1: Nothing, let this stand as it is.
>
>2: Give it a time limit if not used, see 2nd ed invisibility(24 hours).
>
>3: The spell allows a mage to protect against 1d4+ 1 attacks/ 2 levels.
> therefore you could say this a maximum number you can have on you at
> one time. No matter how many times you cast the spell on you.
I'd run number 3 if I were the DM. The multiple applications I do not
agree with.
>4: Set a price on the matterial component and make the player keep track
> of the number of uses has.
You mean that you don't do this? All mages should have to purchase or
find material components. Period.
>5: If you the DM really hate this spell, don't let the players have it.
> In my game I plan out long ahead for the spells the group has. It
> seems as though some DMs just give the mages whatever spells they want
> the bitch about how powerful they are. It is the DMs fault for being
> to easy on the mage.
>
>Wayne J. Rasmussen
AGREED! I really TIRE of reading about DM's who allow their PC's to have
something and then bitch because it doesn't fit into their scope of
adventure. You (general) can't tell me that you as a player, or NPC's
that you as a DM would run won't take advantage of a situation.
Recently, I was in a group that was ambushed by elves within a forest.
Of course, they all had +1 to +3 bows and the standard elven magic
items. They even had four wands of conjuration. When we overcame them
and took their items everything was fine and dandy. Yet, when we
started to sell bows for a LOT of gold, and use the wands for the
same attack sequences they used on us the DM got pissed. All of the
sudden we started getting pilfered of the items left (automatically
I might add) and they disappeared. Tell me who was the munchkin.
Todd...
--
--
tso...@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!tsouth
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Brian Brunner
|>
|> (I just _hate_ seeing one misunderstanding stuff up a whole
|> thread)
Yeah... wasn't it pointed out in the 'distupting a spell by inflicting
damage' rule that you had to inflict damage? so hitting a
stoneskinned mage should not disrupt a spell... No? Reference
please? Further, we use HIT not ATTACK (for counting the
countering of a stoneskin) without flinching... TSR is not
GOD and the rulebooks are not GOSPEL... the 1st edition PHB
was called the joke book for good reason.
|>
--
XRN lies about me.
bru...@kazoo.ssd.loral.com
Black Holes... the /dev/null of the Universe; the opinion of 65534.
Mike Civita
>In article <11...@spam.ua.oz>, dc...@spam.ua.oz (David Cook) writes:
>|>
>|> (I just _hate_ seeing one misunderstanding stuff up a whole
>|> thread)
>
>Yeah... wasn't it pointed out in the 'distupting a spell by inflicting
>damage' rule that you had to inflict damage? so hitting a
>stoneskinned mage should not disrupt a spell... No? Reference
>please? Further, we use HIT not ATTACK (for counting the
>countering of a stoneskin) without flinching... TSR is not
>GOD and the rulebooks are not GOSPEL... the 1st edition PHB
>was called the joke book for good reason.
>|>
This is my view on the dread Stoneskin contoversy:
1) The book says lvl/2+1d4 ATTACKS ,not hits. It explicitly says
attacks and references a griffon's 3 attacks. If you make it hits,
what AC do you intend to use, the spell enhances the players AC to
effectively infinity ie, impossible to hit for x attacks? Filling
in grey areas in the interpretation of rules is one thing, but to
take an explicitly stated ruling on a spell's usage and change it
because YOU like it better is the ultimate rules rape. You aren't
even twisting the rules in this one, you are straight out saying
"it says not to, and I'm doing it anyway." and FYI, if the TSR
books are not the bible of the game, please let me know what is.
2) An attack should NOT disrupt a spell being cast. The mage is
impervious to attack.
3) The effect of consecutively cast Stoneskins on a single magic
user should NOT be cumulative. 2 resist fire spells do not
double fire resistance, and 2 invis. spells do not grant double
duration for the invis. Stoneskin is a 5th level spell, it should
have some clout, but not too much.
Single spell usage at a time, and using the attacks not hits idea
gives a magic user a short duration invulnerability to fighters,
the bane of spell casters, and allows the MU to use his greatest
weapon (spells) in a hand to hand situation against a fighters
greatest weapon (cold steel).
Mike
______________________________________________________________________
Iron Man, Iron Man - Does whatever an iron can
Presses shirts, squashes ants - Puts the crease, in your pants
Look out, here comes the Iron Man.
-- TV Themes That Never Were, #46
Mike Civita - Pet Repulsion Labradory, Pasadena (818)354-1405
Email to: mi...@puente.jpl.nasa.gov - Home phone (805)251-2538
BUMBLE
mi...@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Civita) says:
>
>1) The book says lvl/2+1d4 ATTACKS ,not hits. It explicitly says
>attacks and references a griffon's 3 attacks. If you make it hits,
>what AC do you intend to use, the spell enhances the players AC to
>effectively infinity ie, impossible to hit for x attacks? Filling
>in grey areas in the interpretation of rules is one thing, but to
>take an explicitly stated ruling on a spell's usage and change it
>because YOU like it better is the ultimate rules rape. You aren't
>even twisting the rules in this one, you are straight out saying
>"it says not to, and I'm doing it anyway." and FYI, if the TSR
>books are not the bible of the game, please let me know what is.
Wrong, Jack. I didn't dish out ridiculous amounts of cash for the AD&D2 system
to be told that I have to follow it to the letter. Changing something is not
'rules rape,' it's simply logical and badly needed sometimes. If I don't
like a rule, I, as a DM, can change it freely without care to what you or the
book says. You, by claiming that the rules are graven in stone, are going
against the whole spirit of such a general game. The game was made general,
with lots of optional things to let you customize it to your desires. No where
do the books say 'Follow these rules or you shall forever burn in Hell.'
Please turn to page 7 in the DM guide and read the introduction. The end
of the first section reads '...In short, follow the rules as they are written
if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if
doing so improves your game.'
So, if you wish to follow the rules to the letter, you can easily see
that they give you permission to break the rules if it works for you. I hope
that doesn't confuse you.
----------------------------------- 'I'm not afraid, I am not afraid
Larry Rossi ("Bumble") | Nothing touches me I'm a walking
----------------------------------| Razor Blade
Internet : LPR100.psuvm.psu.edu | Face the face of fear
Bitnet : LPR100.psuvm | Face the face of death
IfAllElseFails : | Laugh when others tear
ro...@endor.cs.psu.edu | Hate when others laugh'
----------------------------------- -Anthrax
Save the Free Range Chickens
Russ Gilman
(stuff deleted)
>
>This is my view on the dread Stoneskin contoversy:
>
>1) The book says lvl/2+1d4 ATTACKS ,not hits. It explicitly says
>attacks and references a griffon's 3 attacks. If you make it hits,
>what AC do you intend to use, the spell enhances the players AC to
>effectively infinity ie, impossible to hit for x attacks? Filling
>in grey areas in the interpretation of rules is one thing, but to
>take an explicitly stated ruling on a spell's usage and change it
>because YOU like it better is the ultimate rules rape. You aren't
>even twisting the rules in this one, you are straight out saying
>"it says not to, and I'm doing it anyway." and FYI, if the TSR
>books are not the bible of the game, please let me know what is.
>
>
>Mike
>
(more3 stuff deletd)
my ruling? are we taking a vote 3or what?
In the monster manual, and in some descriptions of monsters, it says
that "the creature's low AC is not necessarily an indicator of how hard
it is to hit the creature, but an indicator of how hard it is to Damage it."
eg, plate mail is no harder *to hit* but harder *to damage*. I would use
*hits against AC 10* (modified by dexterity bonuses and maybe 3magic), not
attacks (does this count feints? how does the 3spell know which ios which?)
and not "damage". I would also consider it a variation of the 3Armour spell
which lasts for a total of damage.
rugi
--
_____ _____ ][ rugi @ cie.uoregon.edu
______O______ ][ Oregon, where even the conservatives are Liberals.
o/ \o ][ Insert witty quote here.
John-Marc Chandonia, , ,
If you get hit by something that hits AC 10, it will take
down one skin. Dex, armor, etc. don't help (we interpret
the Dex AC bonus as rolling with the blow to avoid damage,
not avoiding it altogether). Hits don't disrupt a mage casting,
except on a 20... the exceptional hit made the mage flinch.
You can't have multiple ones cast on you, and they wear
off at 1/day.
Now, some real controversies:
1) If you fall, does SS protect you? We said yes, it
takes away 1 skin. Same as if a really big mace hit you.
2) What about getting slammed into by a rolling boulder?
Again, yes since the skin absorbs the impact and the
boulder is now out of energy (not rolling).
3) What about getting crushed under a boulder? (or
for example, a shove) No, since the energy behind
the boulder (gravity) or the shove (muscle) is continuously
being replentished. On the other hand, this could be
interpreted as a number of long, continuous attacks.
JMC
--
chan...@husc9.harvard.edu | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom
John-Marc Chandonia | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom
Graduate Biophysics Program | I will not yell fire in a crowded classroom
Harvard University | I will not yell fire ...
w...@phoenix.sch.symbolics.com
> In article <1991Oct21.2...@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> mi...@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Civita) says:
> >
> >1) The book says lvl/2+1d4 ATTACKS ,not hits. It explicitly says
> >attacks and references a griffon's 3 attacks. If you make it hits,
> >what AC do you intend to use, the spell enhances the players AC to
> >effectively infinity ie, impossible to hit for x attacks? Filling
> >in grey areas in the interpretation of rules is one thing, but to
> >take an explicitly stated ruling on a spell's usage and change it
> >because YOU like it better is the ultimate rules rape. You aren't
> >even twisting the rules in this one, you are straight out saying
> >"it says not to, and I'm doing it anyway." and FYI, if the TSR
> >books are not the bible of the game, please let me know what is.
>
> Wrong, Jack. I didn't dish out ridiculous amounts of cash for the AD&D2 system
> to be told that I have to follow it to the letter.
What I think Jack wants is consistancy. True, most DMs change the game in
some way. EveryDM I know has a printed document with the changes made as
well as his additions to the game. Especially, regarding spell changes!
This is considerate to the players in the game, saves time, and arguments.
Last time I looked, mine additions were 60+ pages long. This includes
new classes and spells, as well as an introduction to my game. There is also
a section on how to roll up a character for my game, this greatly speeds up
the time to introduce a player to my game.
>Changing something is not
> 'rules rape,' it's simply logical and badly needed sometimes. If I don't
> like a rule, I, as a DM, can change it freely without care to what you or the
> book says.
What pisses me off is a DM who 'changes the rules' and insists that this is
the way is was written in the book. When you say logical, do you mean you have
a mathmatical proof showing your way is better? How do you logically prove magic
spells? Just kidding, but I hope you get the point.
>You, by claiming that the rules are graven in stone, are going
> against the whole spirit of such a general game. The game was made general,
> with lots of optional things to let you customize it to your desires. No where
> do the books say 'Follow these rules or you shall forever burn in Hell.'
> Please turn to page 7 in the DM guide and read the introduction. The end
> of the first section reads '...In short, follow the rules as they are written
> if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if
> doing so improves your game.'
> So, if you wish to follow the rules to the letter, you can easily see
> that they give you permission to break the rules if it works for you. I hope
> that doesn't confuse you.
Breaking the rules is fine, but, your new rule is not gospel either. Call them
house rules.
Wayne J. Rasmussen
BUMBLE
>
>What I think Jack wants is consistancy. True, most DMs change the game in
>some way. EveryDM I know has a printed document with the changes made as
>well as his additions to the game. Especially, regarding spell changes!
>This is considerate to the players in the game, saves time, and arguments.
>Last time I looked, mine additions were 60+ pages long. This includes
>new classes and spells, as well as an introduction to my game. There is also
>a section on how to roll up a character for my game, this greatly speeds up
>the time to introduce a player to my game.
>What pisses me off is a DM who 'changes the rules' and insists that this is
>the way is was written in the book. When you say logical, do you mean you
>have
>a mathmatical proof showing your way is better? How do you logically prove
>magic
>spells? Just kidding, but I hope you get the point.
I certainly agree that any rule changes should be presented to the players
before gaming begins. I also listen to their arguments concerning any
alterations and use their good suggestions. You are correct that any changes
should be kept under surveillance and not be viewed as official.
What I meant by the word 'logical' are that some changes are logical to
make with regard to game balance, not necessarily physics or math. One good
example is limiting the number of stoneskin spell that can be cast on a person
at a time.
>>You, by claiming that the rules are graven in stone, are going
>> against the whole spirit of such a general game. The game was made general,
>> with lots of optional things to let you customize it to your desires. No e
>wher
>> do the books say 'Follow these rules or you shall forever burn in Hell.'
>> Please turn to page 7 in the DM guide and read the introduction. The end
>>of the first section reads '...In short, follow the rules as they are written
>> if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only f
>> if doing so improves your game.'
>> So, if you wish to follow the rules to the letter, you can easily see
>> that they give you permission to break the rules if it works for you. I hope
>> that doesn't confuse you.
>
>Breaking the rules is fine, but, your new rule is not gospel either. Call
>them
>house rules.
I agree.
>Wayne J. Rasmussen
ipkonto 108
>
> I really do not think that the spell is as powerful as people believe
>for about two reasons or so:
> 1) All attacks wipe out a stoneskin for each hit. Granted. But the
>best part is that the attacker does not even need to roll a to hit. At least
>it does not say so in the game. It just seems that the person would not defend
>themselves knowing the stoneskin was protecting them.
> 2) Magical spells still affect the person as normal. So, if a mage has
>stoneskin on himself, have your mage bombard him with magic missiles. :)
> 3) If a mage casting with stoneskin gets hit, shouldn't his spell be
>disrupted? The spell only provides a layer over the skin, not a force wall of
>any source. Therefore, he should get distracted and lose his spell if he does
>get hit.
Absolutely correct, a mage who is hit while wearing stoneskin should get his spell
disrupted. Also you should remember that ALL attacks except body(natural) remove a stoneskin.
I recently DM'ed a group who used stoneskin so much that it got to a point where it was a pain in the ass. The problem was solved by pitting 10-15 archers against the group in each encounter. Even though the archers were 1st lvl they had the potential of removing 20-30 stoneskins EACH round.
ANoybody else got problems with stoneskin?
**********************************************************************************
Archmage.
E-Mail to ip...@brems.ii.uib.no
**********************************************************************************