Debate: Meld into the ground? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Debate: Meld into the ground? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Caterane
03-13-04, 06:43 PM Hi all.

In my last fight Harvester vs Crimson Sunrise I wanted to use the ground to meld into stone. Jindl told me that we ruled it not possible; apparently I missed this discussion back then.

What I want to say is that it is inconsequent to leave the ground out. We ruled that it is everything you just need: mud, sand, forest ground, etc. The light conditions are exactly as your gladiator needs it, vines and bushes for entangle, trees to use a tree stride spell. Same goes for everything else. The sole exception is Meld into stone. Here, the ground is miracilously made from ...wood? Ice-cream? Why should this be any different??? Rope trick does the same and is a level lower, and Rope trick has no weight limitations like Meld into stone has.

This is a pre-discussion about the ground being a valid target for meld into stone before it will be decided in the Senate.

Cat
^Rayne^
03-13-04, 06:51 PM I made a comment about this in the last post I made in the Fights of the week 3/10: section...

As for your PC melding into the ground, I agree with Jindl on this one. The ground is made of dirt not stone. The spell is meld into stone not meld into dirt or meld into ground! That is why (if you read farther into the spell's description) you see that Change stone to Mud seriously hurts the person in the large rock. If the ground does have rocks in it they are tons of little ones and the spell isn't meld into lots of small rocks and gravel either.

Large stones have been supplied for mediums size PC to use as have columns. Conditions for the spells use have been made. I don't believe the ground is one big slab of stone. If it were then there wouldn't be any vines for entangle. I believe Jindl did the right thing and I agree with his decision regarding Meld into Stone
Caterane
03-13-04, 06:58 PM I just wrote it a second before: The ground is everything you need else entangle wouldn`t function. If there would be a spell that only works on desert sand then the arena ground would be considered desert sand.

Thus Meld into stone should work, too.

BTW: Jindl agreed with me.
^Rayne^
03-13-04, 07:05 PM ^ There has to be some guidelines for what is allowed. Otherwise I'm making a really good PC for swimming and grapple and then say the entire arena is in the water and drown everyone's PC. That sounded absurd didn't it? Not too much more than your explanation that the ground will change to best suit your tactics for using stone in regards to this spell. There are stones and columns to use and that is enough. If the environment doesn't have some restrictions placed on it then my water example is as legitimate as any other environment.
Druid Roxors
03-13-04, 07:16 PM I believe the Arena floor should be neutral ground. I would agree that the most convinient way to meld into stone is on the floor. But, this matter was already discussed way before, and agreed upon. I believe that should you leave the arena you should loose, and melding into the walls/floor/ceiling would mean that you are outside of the arena. Thats the way I would see it and think that it is the fairest decition. In any case, I believe spells like etherialness and ropetrick require similar limitations. Since you are in fact Leaving the arena. Maybe we could reduce the counter:

If you use one of those spells, (including Meld into stone) leaving the arena, the counter should be 5 rounds. Should you choose to meld into a column or rock, you are still within the arena (rocks and columns are most definately inside). That could fix the discussion.
SnarkHunter
03-13-04, 08:39 PM Part of the debate is of course; not every character has the option to leave the arena. If we really wanted to we could ban all acts of extreme removal (that is-beyond any reasonable form of attack from the other player) no matter the duration.

This would not include

a) staying airborn and buffing, since any gladiator without a single ranged attack is a curious one indeed.

b) Hiding and buffing-skill based, prone to failure.

I don't know if I'm in favour of this or not, just voicing a possibility.
Ethendril
03-14-04, 01:19 AM If I remember correctly, the reason the ground was off-limits was so fighter-types could go to work on that rock with an adamantine weapon, leaving them some way to counter the meld.

Otherwise, they just sit there waiting while the caster spends 10 rounds buffing 10 feet underground, then get slaughtered.

Anyway, that's what I remember the discussion being. The argument wasn't that the ground was not dirt, but that it needed an effective counter.

-Ethendril
Arstimis
03-14-04, 02:36 AM I like the idea of not being able to leave the arena.
Going completely underground is considered leaving the arena. going partially under because a pillar or rock cant hold all of you is ok, as long as the fighter has some type of chance to get to you
Flying up, going ethereal, then going through the roof making it impossible for your opponent to hit you, would be leaving the arena.
The spell Rope Trick would essentially be banned, as it would be considered leaving the arena because you go into an extra dimensional space

This would balance it out a little so people could buff 10 rounds then go into combat.
The reason for the 16 hours prebuff rule was so casters wouldnt have extra free time to buff while fighters couldnt buff
MotherBast
03-14-04, 07:53 AM I posted this on the comments thread too, but before it was agreed that the rocks and columns were to be used as targets for Meld with stone and not the ground because the spell has a condition about forcably ejecting the melded creature if the stone was destroyed. Allowing melding with the ground made forcable ejection impossible, so the biggest counter to the spell was nullafied. So, the rocks and pillars only condition was added so melees could attack the rocks.

Once melded, however, the rock or pillar is still assumed to meet all your needs for melding, including size needs. This rule is only to give melees a target to pummel.

I was against both rope trick and meld with stone back when they were first used. Now that the 10 round limit is instated though, I haven't really seen any abuse. They serve as a safe way to buff. Most caster stratiges involve gaining safe ground to buff. As long as the 10 round limit is imposed, I see no reason to change the way these spells work.
Caterane
03-14-04, 08:10 AM Either we define what the rocks, columns and ground is made from and stick to it, or we rule that it is everything you just need for spell purposes.

If we choose the first option then many spells will not be usable in the arena, including entangle.
Jindl
03-14-04, 11:11 AM Originally posted by MotherBast
I posted this on the comments thread too, but before it was agreed that the rocks and columns were to be used as targets for Meld with stone and not the ground because the spell has a condition about forcably ejecting the melded creature if the stone was destroyed. Allowing melding with the ground made forcable ejection impossible, so the biggest counter to the spell was nullafied. So, the rocks and pillars only condition was added so melees could attack the rocks.

Once melded, however, the rock or pillar is still assumed to meet all your needs for melding, including size needs. This rule is only to give melees a target to pummel.

I was against both rope trick and meld with stone back when they were first used. Now that the 10 round limit is instated though, I haven't really seen any abuse. They serve as a safe way to buff. Most caster stratiges involve gaining safe ground to buff. As long as the 10 round limit is imposed, I see no reason to change the way these spells work.

I agree with MotherBast - both on his interpretation of the current policy, and on his support of it.

There's no reason to ban etherealness, meld into stone, rope trick, and similar effects. That's why we have the 10 round limit. (Which did have an impact in the Harvester fight, as it prevented him from healing up completely while within the meld).

The locations on meld into stone are to allow the opponent the chance to counter the spell. Allowing a meld into the ground seems to limit the option to counter. If we are gonna allow melding into the ground, then we need to be clear on how all the possible counters would work.

-Jindl
Pitlords
03-14-04, 12:25 PM There aren´t any counters for Rope trick
Druid Roxors
03-14-04, 02:53 PM Actually, Rope trick creates a window that does not close
The window is present on the Material Plane, but it's invisible, and even creatures that can see the window can't see through it.
It can be dispelled, but I have no idea what would happen in that situation.
Battousai2005
03-14-04, 03:09 PM what changed this from meld into stone to rope trick?
The way i see it, the arena should have some sort of terrain that cannot be stone melded. A problem with dirt or sand (character imbalance) is that a druid shapeshifts to a badger and burrows inot the ground
Magagumo
03-15-04, 02:58 PM 10 rounds has worked v. well, as I believe one loses if you spend more than 10 rounds total out of the arena. At least, that''s how I've been running it :P. Meld into Stone has weight limitations because no one can follow you/join you (as in Rope Trick).

I have to say its worked well so far, and I agree with Cat in that we have permitted whatever natural settings are necessary to make the spells work. Zorander introduced the notion of shadows in the arena w/ Hide in Plain Sight, our druids and rangers (and pixie ;)) remind us that small plants are present for entangle. I hope to see that large trees will be available for Jindl if he wishes to make psuedo-treants, etc.
xeno_eleusis
03-15-04, 05:20 PM Originally posted by Druid Roxors
Actually, Rope trick creates a window that does not closeIs Rope trick affected by Dimensional Anchor? I thought there was an anchor on the entire coliseum and those escape tactics were nullified.
Druid Roxors
03-15-04, 06:11 PM It would seem like it, but completely banning certain spells is not exactly our objective. Making them less effective would be perfect, in my opinion.
Smergel
03-16-04, 08:52 AM For the reasons already mentioned, I'm also against making the arena ground meld-able.

-Magnus

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caterane 03-13-04, 06:43 PM	Hi all. In my last fight Harvester vs Crimson Sunrise I wanted to use the ground to meld into stone. Jindl told me that we ruled it not possible; apparently I missed this discussion back then. What I want to say is that it is inconsequent to leave the ground out. We ruled that it is everything you just need: mud, sand, forest ground, etc. The light conditions are exactly as your gladiator needs it, vines and bushes for entangle, trees to use a tree stride spell. Same goes for everything else. The sole exception is Meld into stone. Here, the ground is miracilously made from ...wood? Ice-cream? Why should this be any different??? Rope trick does the same and is a level lower, and Rope trick has no weight limitations like Meld into stone has. This is a pre-discussion about the ground being a valid target for meld into stone before it will be decided in the Senate. Cat
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 06:51 PM	I made a comment about this in the last post I made in the Fights of the week 3/10: section... As for your PC melding into the ground, I agree with Jindl on this one. The ground is made of dirt not stone. The spell is meld into stone not meld into dirt or meld into ground! That is why (if you read farther into the spell's description) you see that Change stone to Mud seriously hurts the person in the large rock. If the ground does have rocks in it they are tons of little ones and the spell isn't meld into lots of small rocks and gravel either. Large stones have been supplied for mediums size PC to use as have columns. Conditions for the spells use have been made. I don't believe the ground is one big slab of stone. If it were then there wouldn't be any vines for entangle. I believe Jindl did the right thing and I agree with his decision regarding Meld into Stone
Caterane 03-13-04, 06:58 PM	I just wrote it a second before: The ground is everything you need else entangle wouldn`t function. If there would be a spell that only works on desert sand then the arena ground would be considered desert sand. Thus Meld into stone should work, too. BTW: Jindl agreed with me.
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 07:05 PM	^ There has to be some guidelines for what is allowed. Otherwise I'm making a really good PC for swimming and grapple and then say the entire arena is in the water and drown everyone's PC. That sounded absurd didn't it? Not too much more than your explanation that the ground will change to best suit your tactics for using stone in regards to this spell. There are stones and columns to use and that is enough. If the environment doesn't have some restrictions placed on it then my water example is as legitimate as any other environment.
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 07:16 PM	I believe the Arena floor should be neutral ground. I would agree that the most convinient way to meld into stone is on the floor. But, this matter was already discussed way before, and agreed upon. I believe that should you leave the arena you should loose, and melding into the walls/floor/ceiling would mean that you are outside of the arena. Thats the way I would see it and think that it is the fairest decition. In any case, I believe spells like etherialness and ropetrick require similar limitations. Since you are in fact Leaving the arena. Maybe we could reduce the counter: If you use one of those spells, (including Meld into stone) leaving the arena, the counter should be 5 rounds. Should you choose to meld into a column or rock, you are still within the arena (rocks and columns are most definately inside). That could fix the discussion.
SnarkHunter 03-13-04, 08:39 PM	Part of the debate is of course; not every character has the option to leave the arena. If we really wanted to we could ban all acts of extreme removal (that is-beyond any reasonable form of attack from the other player) no matter the duration. This would not include a) staying airborn and buffing, since any gladiator without a single ranged attack is a curious one indeed. b) Hiding and buffing-skill based, prone to failure. I don't know if I'm in favour of this or not, just voicing a possibility.
Ethendril 03-14-04, 01:19 AM	If I remember correctly, the reason the ground was off-limits was so fighter-types could go to work on that rock with an adamantine weapon, leaving them some way to counter the meld. Otherwise, they just sit there waiting while the caster spends 10 rounds buffing 10 feet underground, then get slaughtered. Anyway, that's what I remember the discussion being. The argument wasn't that the ground was not dirt, but that it needed an effective counter. -Ethendril
Arstimis 03-14-04, 02:36 AM	I like the idea of not being able to leave the arena. Going completely underground is considered leaving the arena. going partially under because a pillar or rock cant hold all of you is ok, as long as the fighter has some type of chance to get to you Flying up, going ethereal, then going through the roof making it impossible for your opponent to hit you, would be leaving the arena. The spell Rope Trick would essentially be banned, as it would be considered leaving the arena because you go into an extra dimensional space This would balance it out a little so people could buff 10 rounds then go into combat. The reason for the 16 hours prebuff rule was so casters wouldnt have extra free time to buff while fighters couldnt buff
MotherBast 03-14-04, 07:53 AM	I posted this on the comments thread too, but before it was agreed that the rocks and columns were to be used as targets for Meld with stone and not the ground because the spell has a condition about forcably ejecting the melded creature if the stone was destroyed. Allowing melding with the ground made forcable ejection impossible, so the biggest counter to the spell was nullafied. So, the rocks and pillars only condition was added so melees could attack the rocks. Once melded, however, the rock or pillar is still assumed to meet all your needs for melding, including size needs. This rule is only to give melees a target to pummel. I was against both rope trick and meld with stone back when they were first used. Now that the 10 round limit is instated though, I haven't really seen any abuse. They serve as a safe way to buff. Most caster stratiges involve gaining safe ground to buff. As long as the 10 round limit is imposed, I see no reason to change the way these spells work.
Caterane 03-14-04, 08:10 AM	Either we define what the rocks, columns and ground is made from and stick to it, or we rule that it is everything you just need for spell purposes. If we choose the first option then many spells will not be usable in the arena, including entangle.
Jindl 03-14-04, 11:11 AM	Originally posted by MotherBast I posted this on the comments thread too, but before it was agreed that the rocks and columns were to be used as targets for Meld with stone and not the ground because the spell has a condition about forcably ejecting the melded creature if the stone was destroyed. Allowing melding with the ground made forcable ejection impossible, so the biggest counter to the spell was nullafied. So, the rocks and pillars only condition was added so melees could attack the rocks. Once melded, however, the rock or pillar is still assumed to meet all your needs for melding, including size needs. This rule is only to give melees a target to pummel. I was against both rope trick and meld with stone back when they were first used. Now that the 10 round limit is instated though, I haven't really seen any abuse. They serve as a safe way to buff. Most caster stratiges involve gaining safe ground to buff. As long as the 10 round limit is imposed, I see no reason to change the way these spells work. I agree with MotherBast - both on his interpretation of the current policy, and on his support of it. There's no reason to ban etherealness, meld into stone, rope trick, and similar effects. That's why we have the 10 round limit. (Which did have an impact in the Harvester fight, as it prevented him from healing up completely while within the meld). The locations on meld into stone are to allow the opponent the chance to counter the spell. Allowing a meld into the ground seems to limit the option to counter. If we are gonna allow melding into the ground, then we need to be clear on how all the possible counters would work. -Jindl
Pitlords 03-14-04, 12:25 PM	There aren´t any counters for Rope trick
Druid Roxors 03-14-04, 02:53 PM	Actually, Rope trick creates a window that does not close The window is present on the Material Plane, but it's invisible, and even creatures that can see the window can't see through it. It can be dispelled, but I have no idea what would happen in that situation.
Battousai2005 03-14-04, 03:09 PM	what changed this from meld into stone to rope trick? The way i see it, the arena should have some sort of terrain that cannot be stone melded. A problem with dirt or sand (character imbalance) is that a druid shapeshifts to a badger and burrows inot the ground
Magagumo 03-15-04, 02:58 PM	10 rounds has worked v. well, as I believe one loses if you spend more than 10 rounds total out of the arena. At least, that''s how I've been running it :P. Meld into Stone has weight limitations because no one can follow you/join you (as in Rope Trick). I have to say its worked well so far, and I agree with Cat in that we have permitted whatever natural settings are necessary to make the spells work. Zorander introduced the notion of shadows in the arena w/ Hide in Plain Sight, our druids and rangers (and pixie ;)) remind us that small plants are present for entangle. I hope to see that large trees will be available for Jindl if he wishes to make psuedo-treants, etc.
xeno_eleusis 03-15-04, 05:20 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors Actually, Rope trick creates a window that does not closeIs Rope trick affected by Dimensional Anchor? I thought there was an anchor on the entire coliseum and those escape tactics were nullified.
Druid Roxors 03-15-04, 06:11 PM	It would seem like it, but completely banning certain spells is not exactly our objective. Making them less effective would be perfect, in my opinion.
Smergel 03-16-04, 08:52 AM	For the reasons already mentioned, I'm also against making the arena ground meld-able. -Magnus