| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| chrispedersen02-02-06, 10:33 AM | Are you guys nuts? :eek: Silence is a 2nd level spell. However, the spell caster may at least move away from the spell. In binding winds, if a caster fails the save - not only is he pinned to the spot, he must make conc checks to cast any spell, and can't cast any spell with a verbal component - which is *all* spells essentially. Any 3rd level druid now has real effective chances to take out almost any level of wizard. If you can't errata this to a different level.. (4th?) then I think it needs to be either restricted or use the original source. The spell is that good. Chris |
| CSHunt6802-02-06, 10:43 AM | Spells with verbal components may be cast with a Concentration check, as outlined in the spell description. I think you may have misinterpreted "sonic and language-dependent spells" as all spells with verbal components. If so, that is an incorrect interpretation, and there is nothing else in the spell description to support that statement. Regards, Sean Hunt |
| chrispedersen02-02-06, 11:27 AM | You're right.. I did misread. But its still death to bards, marshalls and harpies, negating their songs and exhortations. And still generally useful against other casters. Many hybrid casters will not have good concentrations checks. And it still would limit all the sonic spells, things like command, dominate, suggestion - while still applying a penalty of -2 on ranged. And there may be arguments on bard spells as well - based on the entry that all bard spells are sonic as they may not apply the silent feat. I think its way too disproportionate to be a 2nd level spell still.. but I agree it wont affect most players. I would wonder what effect it would have on grimlocks, ygrlaks, and things with echo location as well - things like dire bats. chris |
| solbergb02-02-06, 01:24 PM | I've seen some very vehement arguments against this spell. It isn't Illusory Pit, but it does shut down a certain class of melee monster (really large, strong monsters with minimal dex) more efficiently than the nearest competitor (Grease) does. A sculpted grease can hose nonflying clumsy monsters pretty thoroughly, but this spell, at same level and higher save DC can also hose fliers. I think the biggest problem is that it isn't "concentration(max round/level)" but is instead just plain "concentration". If you find an enemy it neuters, you can just throw rocks at it for hours until it dies. So I'll support the idea that it should be restricted, although it isn't the nobrainer that Illusory Pit or the old Quill Blast was. |
| CSHunt6802-02-06, 01:27 PM | Yes, I think I agree with making it more limited, actually. The "Concentration" duration is pretty nasty - one round/level would have been much more reasonable. |
| Blackwood02-02-06, 01:35 PM | And there may be arguments on bard spells as well - based on the entry that all bard spells are sonic as they may not apply the silent feat. Not all bard spells are sonic or language dependant, only a few are. Sonic is a specific descriptor, like Force, Fire, or Good. As examples, Sound Burst is a sonic spell, while Sleep and Glitterdust are not (despite being bard spells and having verbal components), nor are any of those spells language dependant. I would wonder what effect it would have on grimlocks, ygrlaks, and things with echo location as well - things like dire bats. I would have to read the spell, but it would only affect such creatures if it specifically rendered them incapable of hearing or making sound, which it sounds like it does not. As a side note, one cannot always walk out of a silence effect. Silence can be centered on an object, *creature*, or point in space. When centered on a creature it *does* have a will save though. |
| Mommy was an Orc02-02-06, 01:56 PM | Yes, I think I agree with making it more limited, actually. The "Concentration" duration is pretty nasty - one round/level would have been much more reasonable. That concentration duration is what breaks it for me. You can have an APL 2 party have a reasonably good chance of taking out some CR 11-14 monsters, simply because their Reflex saves aren't that hot, they have limited ranged attacks, and once the party figures out the monster's limitations, it dies slowly. Example: Truly Horrid Umber Hulk, a CR 14 monster. No ranged attacks past 30'. Reflex Save of +6. AC of 22. Once hit with Binding Winds, the party simply stays more than 30' away and slings rocks at it. Sure they only do 1d3+str damage, but you hit on a natural 20. It has no action it can do to bypass this. It might take an hour or two, but it will fall. |
| Namarus02-02-06, 06:14 PM | I don't think it's unbalanced. Hold Person is a 2nd level spell, and that allows you to coup-de-grace people. |
| CSHunt6802-02-06, 06:26 PM | Hold Person allows a new save every round, and only lasts one round per level. Also, it only affects humanoid creatures. Mommy correctly pointed out just why Binding Winds is overpowered - one failed save means an essentially endless duration of immobility for any creature type of any size. There are just loads of critters which are going to be _severely_ vulnerable to this. Too many, IMHO. One round/level would have been perfect. No other offensive spell of this type has a duration of that sort. It's not the spellcasters you've got to fear for - it's the big melee baddies, which are going to be slaughtered by this in droves. Regards, Sean Hunt |
| The_Voice_Of_Reason02-07-06, 11:33 PM | Hold Person allows a new save every round, and only lasts one round per level. Also, it only affects humanoid creatures. Mommy correctly pointed out just why Binding Winds is overpowered - one failed save means an essentially endless duration of immobility for any creature type of any size. There are just loads of critters which are going to be _severely_ vulnerable to this. Too many, IMHO. One round/level would have been perfect. No other offensive spell of this type has a duration of that sort. 1st. Hold Person allows you to Coup... so it really only needs a duration of 1 round. :D For that matter Cause Blindness, also a second level spell, is permanent and certain types, such as archers, and arcanists, are completely turned off by it. Save or die spells have been arround for a while even at low levels. 2nd. The combat with the umber hulk that was previously theorized is pretty artificial: it assumes: (1.) That the Umber Hulk is alone... no alies to disrupt the caster's concentration. (2.) That it is not in an enclosed space... so the party has the luxury of getting as far away from it as they need. (3.) That there are external plot limits on how long the combat can take. (4.) That the target will actually fail it save... by no means a certainty. (5.) That it is a creature that has no spells, abilities, or items that will get it out. (6.) That it has no ranged attacks. The combination of these 6 elements in one combat is pretty rare. 3rd. Any reasonable GM is atleast going to make the caster roll progressively more difficult concentration checks as the duration goes from rounds to minutes to tens of minutes to hours... I mean really you can only concentrate on something for so long. ;) Most Druids don't max out their conc. skill due to a number of more class essential skills competing for a very limited number of skill points: Handel Animal, K. Nature, Survival, Spot. 4th. Even if, in the rare situation where all of the above conditions outlined in my second point come off, What of it? We've all been in combats where a single well selected spell has turned off the enemies. As long as it doesn't become too common there's no harm in that to the champain. As I pointed out above, the conditions for this to work are rare. --Michael Montague |
| CSHunt6802-08-06, 08:04 AM | 1. Hold Person only affects humanoids. Blindness provides a Fort save, which probably won't be an issue for the one big baddie. Even a blind spellcaster would be able to do some things in that situation. 2. Lots of fights are against one big baddie, with a poor Will save, with no ranged attacks or spells, with enough space to get out of reach. I don't think that's a very "rare" situation at all. 3. Well, that's a different kettle of fish. IMO, it's the best solution you've provided - I might consider using it if the situation came up. Be prepared for serious player objections. ;) 4. I don't think the components are that rare. It's the unlimited duration that's the real issue. One round/level would have been quite sufficient to put it in-line with the other combat-enders you've mentioned. Regards, Sean Hunt |
| The_Voice_Of_Reason02-08-06, 10:51 AM | 4. I don't think the components are that rare. It's the unlimited duration that's the real issue. One round/level would have been quite sufficient to put it in-line with the other combat-enders you've mentioned. Hi Sean! Any one element that I listed is pretty common... but all together they are pretty rare. Even if 2/3 of each combat meet any one of those conditions... (I think 2/3 is extreemly generous for some of them, more on that below.) the probability that all 6 will be met in the same combat is only (2/3)^6 or alittle more than 8%. The average mod has 3 combats, so the chances of a mod with at least one such combat is about 26%.... Thus, only one in 4 mods will have the conditions for this to work, and then only in one combat on average. In most combats, the duration=concentration is a disadvantage since your tieing-up one of your casters, yourself, to tie-up one of the opponents... zero-sum. You won't see it that often for the same reason that you don't see people taking the Improved Counterspell feat... who wants to dedicate all his actions in combat to making sure just one opponent can also not act? Concerning probabilities: The open-ground condition is pretty hit or miss... 2/3 is pretty accurate considering that you wouldn't prepare this spell when you know that it's not likely to happen... such as preparing for a Dungeon Crawl. Likewise, you would target it intelligently to get about a 2/3 failed save rate. However, almost all combats are running while you have buffs up with very limited durations (Stoneskin, Arcane Sight, Barkskin, Energy Resistance, etc), consequently, the chances that you won't have external presures on how long a combat can take are very low... aproaching zero at higher levels. The probabilities that the Big-Bad will have something he can do (attack or escape) also goes up dramatically with APL. Conversely, at low-levels, most combats ARE against a lot of little foes, rather than one big bad guy. (A lot of authors seem to think this is easier than on big bad, I'm not in that camp, but oh well). I suspect that this spell has an optimal APL probably: APL-6. It's a good spell, but I just don't see it as broken. --Michael Montague |
| A'Talsen02-08-06, 12:03 PM | 3rd. Any reasonable GM is atleast going to make the caster roll progressively more difficult concentration checks as the duration goes from rounds to minutes to tens of minutes to hours... I mean really you can only concentrate on something for so long. ;) Most Druids don't max out their conc. skill due to a number of more class essential skills competing for a very limited number of skill points: Handel Animal, K. Nature, Survival, Spot. 3. Well, that's a different kettle of fish. IMO, it's the best solution you've provided - I might consider using it if the situation came up. Be prepared for serious player objections. ;) You'd get objections because in LG you would be completely making a rule up. Outside of something actually disrupting the caster's concentration and forcing a check, there is no stipulated duration as to how long someone can concentration on maintaining an effect (specific spell durations list limits, and binding winds doesn't have one). Michael "Fish" Murphy |
| redgamer02-08-06, 01:18 PM | Of topic but I believe Druid need concentration more than any other class in the game. Since summoning is a full round action Druids are far more likely to be disrupted. |
| The_Voice_Of_Reason02-08-06, 02:32 PM | You'd get objections because in LG you would be completely making a rule up. Outside of something actually disrupting the caster's concentration and forcing a check, there is no stipulated duration as to how long someone can concentration on maintaining an effect (specific spell durations list limits, and binding winds doesn't have one). I'm not making up a rule, but rather applying an existing one intelligently. From the SRD entry under the concentration skill: ________________________________________ _____________________ You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity. In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted. ________________________________________ _____________________ Note that a character does not have to take damage in order to be distracted. The authors leave what constitutes a distraction open ended. That means it's a JUDGEment call... which is the rightful responsability of a JUDGE. The truth is that distraction are ALWAYS present (the wasp buzzing against a window, the sound of cricket, etc.) for short concentration durations these mostly don't matter, but distractions are relative. And that sort of distraction gets worse with time. After ten minutes that mosquito bite starts to get really distracting... Is it as distracting as "harsh weather", and thus requiring a check?.... No?... How about after 15 minutes? :D "Duration= Concentration" was never meant to be "Duration= Permanent", or even "Duration= Hours/Level". In math terms, it is the difference between "undefined" and "infinite". Infinite implies Large. Undefined does not. Everything infinite is by definition undefined, but not everything undefined is infinite or even large. "Duration= Concentration" just says that the limit of how long the effect will last is not defined by the author of the spell, it does NOT say that the limit does not exist. --Michael Montague |
| GreySector02-08-06, 02:43 PM | The truth is that distraction are ALWAYS present (the wasp buzzing against a window, the sound of cricket, etc.) for short concentration durations these mostly don't matter, but distractions are relative. And that sort of distraction gets worse with time. While IRL that might be true, I don't see any basis for that in the Concentration skill description. In fact it even states that "If more than one type of distraction is present, make a check for each one" so cumulative effects are fairly specifically treated seperately rather than as a whole. I see no problem with a spellcaster maintaining concentraction on a spell indefinitely (spending a standard action each round to do so). -Michael Eshleman |
| Mommy was an Orc02-08-06, 02:49 PM | You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. "Duration= Concentration" was never meant to be "Duration= Permanent", or even "Duration= Hours/Level". In math terms, it is the difference between "undefined" and "infinite". Infinite implies Large. Undefined does not. Everything infinite is by definition undefined, but not everything undefined is infinite or even large. "Duration= Concentration" just says that the limit of how long the effect will last is not defined by the author of the spell, it does NOT say that the limit does not exist. That's reading into intent - which is perfectly fine in a home game, but bad form in an LG game. And you should look at what the DC checks are - when it is high wind carrying blinding rain or sleet - the DC check is 5. Assuming the Druid has 2 ranks of concentration and a 14 Con, he can't miss a concentration check in those circumstances. Also, a DM arguing that sitting an hour or two in intense concentration is hard to do is going to get laughed at. How many D&D players do you know that have never played a 1st person shooter game for more than an hour? |
| RanielK02-08-06, 03:04 PM | We've all been in combats where a single well selected spell has turned off the enemies. --Michael Montague My particular favorite is the 5th level spell I like to call Wizard's Bane. I'm something like 5 for 6 in the deployment of Feeblemind. It has almost never failed the nuke the baddie. In second place is prismatic ray. I've got a hella good touch attack and usually have Greater Invis up to deny them their dex to ac. Next thing you know they are either a)saving for taking massive damage; b)save or die, succeed take con damage; c)stone (bummer no lootin' the body); or d)off on a trip of the planes (again bummer). In two levels, I will have precise shot and be able to roll twice and choose the effect most likely to tool the baddy. Miles Raniel Kavilion, Grey Elf (m/CN) Wizard 8/Wild Ma . . . er Wizard some more 2/Fighter 1 soon to be Spellsword 1/ Wizard some more 3 master of the ray spell |
| The_Voice_Of_Reason02-08-06, 03:09 PM | How many D&D players do you know that have never played a 1st person shooter game for more than an hour? Without failing the proverbial concentration roll at least once in that hour? Not that many! Are you honestly saying that these gamers play without making just one mistake, or sub-optimal game choice over the caurse of an hour? A duration=concentration spell, to use your video-game analogy, is the equivalent of playing on just one video-game-life for one hour, with the requirement that you have to turn off the machine once your die in the arcade game. --Michael Montague |
| The_Voice_Of_Reason02-08-06, 03:14 PM | While IRL that might be true, I don't see any basis for that in the Concentration skill description. In fact it even states that "If more than one type of distraction is present, make a check for each one" so cumulative effects are fairly specifically treated seperately rather than as a whole. This does not adress my main point which was one of TIME. I'm not saying that two small distractions are harder to concentrate against, but rather one distraction over a longer time is. It's easier to tollerate a mosquito bite for one minute than ten. No need to invoke the "More than one type of distraction". It doesn't apply, because over a long enough time-line just one will do. |
| RanielK02-08-06, 03:15 PM | The truth is that distraction are ALWAYS present (the wasp buzzing against a window, the sound of cricket, etc.) for short concentration durations these mostly don't matter, but distractions are relative. And that sort of distraction gets worse with time. After ten minutes that mosquito bite starts to get really distracting... Is it as distracting as "harsh weather", and thus requiring a check?.... No?... How about after 15 minutes? :D --Michael Montague One has obviously never meditated or seen a trained martial artist do the same. Tai Chi Chuan is meditation . . . while moving. None of this sitting around contemplating your navel stuff. Kung Fu was created for the Shoalin monks becasue they were so out of shape they fell asleep while meditating. Proof that one needs to be in shape to do it (high Con anyone). It is generally viewed that meditating for 1 hour is the equivalent of 30 minutes sleep and yet you are aware of your surroundings. Concentration is meditating. It is focusing on one thing to the exclusion of all others. Meditation is used to still the mind for some reason. In this case it is to keep up a spell to tool some poor S.O.B. Miles |
| GreySector02-08-06, 03:24 PM | This does not adress my main point which was one of TIME. I'm not saying that two small distractions are harder to concentrate against, but rather one distraction over a longer time is. It's easier to tollerate a mosquito bite for one minute than ten. No need to invoke the "More than one type of distraction". It doesn't apply, because over a long enough time-line just one will do. I was trying to use the text of the skill to disprove you, however it seems I can't do that because you aren't using the text of the skill to make your argument. You are just stating what you believe, without any basis in the rules whatever. There are no mechanics for escalating Concentration check DCs. Concentration DCs remain static. -Michael Eshleman |
| The_Voice_Of_Reason02-08-06, 03:25 PM | One has obviously never meditated or seen a trained martial artist do the same. Tai Chi Chuan is meditation . . . while moving. None of this sitting around contemplating your navel stuff. Kung Fu was created for the Shoalin monks becasue they were so out of shape they fell asleep while meditating. Proof that one needs to be in shape to do it (high Con anyone). It is generally viewed that meditating for 1 hour is the equivalent of 30 minutes sleep and yet you are aware of your surroundings. Concentration is meditating. It is focusing on one thing to the exclusion of all others. Meditation is used to still the mind for some reason. In this case it is to keep up a spell to tool some poor S.O.B. Miles And if they have the in-game equivalents to these sorts real-world things, then I have no problem with they're being able to do powerful stuf with them! You are talking about a character who has, at a minimum, maxed-out ranks of concentration, and Skill-Focus-Concentration. He probably also has a high Constitution score and Steady Concentration, Combat Casting, and Improved Concentration. Such a character WOULD be able to sit arround and hose a firegiant for 10 hours with Binding Winds, because he has put in the skills, the feats, AND the spells to make it work. But your average Joe-Shmo-Druid is another kettle of fish. |
| CSHunt6802-08-06, 03:31 PM | See what I said about expecting argument over the concentration bit? LOL Just try it at a table. ;) Hi Sean! Any one element that I listed is pretty common... but all together they are pretty rare. Even if 2/3 of each combat meet any one of those conditions... (I think 2/3 is extreemly generous for some of them, more on that below.) the probability that all 6 will be met in the same combat is only (2/3)^6 or alittle more than 8%. The average mod has 3 combats, so the chances of a mod with at least one such combat is about 26%.... Thus, only one in 4 mods will have the conditions for this to work, and then only in one combat on average. It's not remotely reasonable to combine those percentages that way. For instance, the bigger and badder the baddie, the higher the EL, and the less likely it is that he'll have any minions. In any case, let's just assume that an encounter that can be wrecked by this spell occurs every couple of mods. An EL+3 or worse encounter, potentially. By a second level spell. In most combats, the duration=concentration is a disadvantage since your tieing-up one of your casters, yourself, to tie-up one of the opponents... zero-sum. So, when you're gaming, a 3rd level Druid is equivalent to a CR10 creature? That's zero-sum? ... Okaaaaay. ;) You won't see it that often for the same reason that you don't see people taking the Improved Counterspell feat... who wants to dedicate all his actions in combat to making sure just one opponent can also not act? You'll see it all the time. In almost every Druid's list. Memorized once, since it's easy to Pearl back and cast until the baddie fails his poor Reflex save. However, almost all combats are running while you have buffs up with very limited durations (Stoneskin, Arcane Sight, Barkskin, Energy Resistance, etc), consequently, the chances that you won't have external presures on how long a combat can take are very low... aproaching zero at higher levels. The probabilities that the Big-Bad will have something he can do (attack or escape) also goes up dramatically with APL. Conversely, at low-levels, most combats ARE against a lot of little foes, rather than one big bad guy. (A lot of authors seem to think this is easier than on big bad, I'm not in that camp, but oh well). I suspect that this spell has an optimal APL probably: APL-6. It's a good spell, but I just don't see it as broken. --Michael Montague The buffs are meaningless - bind the bad guy - concentrate - sit back and pound him into dust. I think your comments on module and encounter construction are too broad to be of much use. Lots of high APL encounters have bad guys who can be wrecked by this spell. I think it's another Glitterdust - with an essentially limitless duration. And the campaign doesn't need another Glitterdust. It's a low-level spell that comes into play very early on at full-power and doesn't change. It's not "broken". It's just overpowered, and by a fair bit. If the duration were one round/level, it would be _just fine_. Druids would still take it. Regards, Sean Hunt |
| RanielK02-08-06, 03:34 PM | And if they have the in-game equivalents to these sorts real-world things, then I have no problem with they're being able to do powerful stuf with them! You are talking about a character who has, at a minimum, maxed-out ranks of concentration, and Skill-Focus-Concentration. He probably also has a high Constitution score and Steady Concentration, Combat Casting, and Improved Concentration. Such a character WOULD be able to sit arround and hose a firegiant for 10 hours with Binding Winds, because he has put in the skills, the feats, AND the spells to make it work. But your average Joe-Shmo-Druid is another kettle of fish. Not really. The skill Concentration is meditation. By your argument, every Shaolin monk that has ever existed has been some epic level demigod. They can concentrate for hours at a time on a single sutra, without falling asleep or loosing track of the rhythm of the prayer. Now fatigue and the like do set in (hence the introduction of Kung Fu to increase their physical conditioning, i.e. raise their Con), but focusing on one thing to the exclusion of all else isn't an epic level, sole focus of a character thing. It is something inherent in the skill alone. One gets better as one a)rises in level and b)devotes feats to improve the specific uses of the skill (Combat Casting only applies to casting on the defensive to keep from provoking an AOO for casting while being threatened, no guy in melee range = no need for Combat Casting, I get away without combat casting because I can auto make the DC without needing the +4 from Combat Casting). Miles |
| The_Voice_Of_Reason02-08-06, 03:43 PM | I was trying to use the text of the skill to disprove you, however it seems I can't do that because you aren't using the text of the skill to make your argument. You are just stating what you believe, without any basis in the rules whatever. There are no mechanics for escalating Concentration check DCs. Concentration DCs remain static. -Michael Eshleman By that kind of thinking being run over by a flash flood wouldn't break your concentration because it wasn't one of the specific examples given of "harsh weather". ;) LG is not a computer game. LG players are not computers. LG judges are not computers. ....We shouldn't try to act like computers. If you must have have literal rules to mimic common sense, then think of the escalation as circumstance penalties on a static base DC. This is reasonable since circumstances are infact escalating with time. --Michael Montague |
| RanielK02-08-06, 03:45 PM | Without failing the proverbial concentration roll at least once in that hour? Not that many! Are you honestly saying that these gamers play without making just one mistake, or sub-optimal game choice over the caurse of an hour? --Michael Montague I've been thinking about it and I can honestly say I have concentrated on a single task for 3 hours straight without succumbing to distraction. I have been able to focus on a single action for over 20 minutes with some serious distractions I won't go into on a forum owned by Hasbro :embarrass Now some of this might be borderline OCD. Some of it might be some training in meditation and martial arts (I know just enough to a)claim I've studied martial arts and b)get me killed :P ). Who knows. I definitely wouldn't say I'm a 20th level monk with a Con of 20, 23 ranks in Concentration, Skill Focus (Concentration), et al. I'm just a guy who can focus on one thing for at least 20 minutes under some intensely focused distractions. And I think I'm not the only one who has lost himself in such focus. Miles |
| RanielK02-08-06, 03:51 PM | By that kind of thinking being run over by a flash flood wouldn't break your concentration because it wasn't one of the specific examples given of "harsh weather". ;) LG is not a computer game. LG players are not computers. LG judges are not computers. ....We shouldn't try to act like computers. If you must have have literal rules to mimic common sense, then think of the escalation as circumstance penalties on a static base DC. This is reasonable since circumstances are infact escalating with time. --Michael Montague No, I'd count it as taking damage (depending on how serious a wall of water we're talking about here. DC 10+damage Follow it with a reflex save to stay on your feet. If the save is failed, then concentration versus violent movement. DC 15 Followed by a swim check to keep from drowing if the water is deep enough the character is covered or character has lost footing. Auto fail concentration because of need to make another skill check. But that's just my 2cps. Miles |
| The_Voice_Of_Reason02-08-06, 03:58 PM | No, I'd count it as ... Miles Thank You! Even though the situation is not explicitly mentioned. You just pick the closest rules you could find and go with it. Even if this meens making a few modifications along the way! This is called "making a Judgement Call". It is why LG rounds have judges, and it is different from "making up a rule". --Michael Montague |
| CSHunt6802-08-06, 04:06 PM | FWIW, I agree with you, Voice. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the DM to enforce Concentration checks to maintain a Concentration spell over a long time. But, that's not really the problem with the spell. It's not going to be necessary to hold something immobile for hours, or even tens of minutes, except when the other PCs really can't do _anything_. We're mostly looking at minute-long durations, if that. And it's still too long. |
| A'Talsen02-08-06, 04:22 PM | Thank You! Even though the situation is not explicitly mentioned. You just pick the closest rules you could find and go with it Evenif this meen making a few modifications along the way! This is called "making a Judgment Call". It is why LG rounds have judges, and it is different from "making up a rule".--Michael Montague But you were making up a rule when you decided to leave the relivant charts behind and start forcing concentration checks based on time, and not event. Rushing water? An event that can be adjudicated by comparing the severity to the weather chart. Sitting there for a long time? Not anything like it on the chart, no reference to it at all. In fact the 'closest' thing would be starting on the fatigue rules. So maybe someone can't concentrate all day and all night without starting to take penalties, etc. Judgment calls, if absolutely necessary, must remain within the pre-established rules and scope of the item. Michael "Fish" Murphy |
| Mommy was an Orc02-08-06, 04:24 PM | Thank You! Even though the situation is not explicitly mentioned. You just pick the closest rules you could find and go with it Evenif this meen making a few modifications along the way! This is called "making a Judgement Call". It is why LG rounds have judges, and it is different from "making up a rule". --Michael Montague And again, in blinding rain or sleet with a high wind, there's a DC of 5 for the check. Assuming you have a 14 Con and no ranks in Concentration, you only fail on a 1 or 2. 2 ranks means you never fail a concentration check in blinding rain or sleet unless you're taking damage or big objects are falling around you. As soon as a DM makes a concentration check in normal conditions more difficult than those in blinding rain, he's going to get a well deserved fight from a lot of players. |
| theliel02-08-06, 04:51 PM | And again, in blinding rain or sleet with a high wind, there's a DC of 5 for the check. Assuming you have a 14 Con and no ranks in Concentration, you only fail on a 1 or 2. 2 ranks means you never fail a concentration check in blinding rain or sleet unless you're taking damage or big objects are falling around you. As soon as a DM makes a concentration check in normal conditions more difficult than those in blinding rain, he's going to get a well deserved fight from a lot of players. And notes to the triad, the presiding judge.....I rarely tend to 'debate' and issue at the table, but i'd be forced to call BS on this one and be willing to wait for the senior offical to come over. if that wasn't possible i'd lodge an objection and move on, but you better belive after the game there'd be words exchanged. That's almost as innane as trying to strip the lvl 2 paladin's powers because he let the lvl 5 warrior cleric go first into a room.... |
| CSHunt6802-08-06, 06:14 PM | First off, if there were "words exchanged" (and you mean what it means to most people) with a DM after a ruling had been made and a session concluded, I'd have you removed from the event. Period. Now, please answer the following question: what can a PC do, in-game, while they are Concentrating? Please do not consult any references, and you have 30 seconds to answer. Next, for how many rounds should a PC be allowed to Concentrate before Concentration checks are required: 1 round; 10 rounds; 100 rounds; 1000 rounds; 10 000 rounds; 100 000 rounds; 1 000 000 rounds; there is no limit. Again, please do not consult any references, and you have 30 seconds to answer. I think you'd get different answers - a very broad range of them - if you put those questions to people - and judges - in this forum. Just because you might get a judge on one end of the spectrum - or, perhaps, it's just that you're on the OTHER end of the spectrum - does not entitle you to question the judge's merit or judgement. Judges judge. That's why they're called "judges". They are called on to _interpret_ the rules - and that's much of what the game is, interpretation - and to supply such answers as they deem fit. |
| Mommy was an Orc02-08-06, 08:10 PM | I think you'd get different answers - a very broad range of them - if you put those questions to people - and judges - in this forum. Just because you might get a judge on one end of the spectrum - or, perhaps, it's just that you're on the OTHER end of the spectrum - does not entitle you to question the judge's merit or judgement. Judges judge. That's why they're called "judges". They are called on to _interpret_ the rules - and that's much of what the game is, interpretation - and to supply such answers as they deem fit. Most Druids of 1st level will automatically make a DC 7 Concentration check, so odds are we're talking about a DC 12+ concentration check here. You have a DM deciding to make the Concentration check at least the equivalent of wind-driven hail falling on their head while in combat, in a situation where the EL+3 monster the party is fighting would be automatically defeated... That's a bad judge - at best, he's rewriting the rules, at worst, he's refusing to let 'his' monster lose without a 'fair' fight. |
| CSHunt6802-08-06, 09:53 PM | Most Druids of 1st level will automatically make a DC 7 Concentration check, so odds are we're talking about a DC 12+ concentration check here. Okay. So, at what point would you institute Concentration checks, if ever? You have a DM deciding to make the Concentration check at least the equivalent of wind-driven hail falling on their head while in combat, in a situation where the EL+3 monster the party is fighting would be automatically defeated... So, I interpret your answer as "never". A PC can Concentrate as long as they want. 1 000 000 Rounds, no problem. If not, please tell me what your answer would be. At what point would you start to institute Concentration checks, and at what DC? That's a bad judge - at best, he's rewriting the rules, at worst, he's refusing to let 'his' monster lose without a 'fair' fight. You're probably ENTIRELY wrong on BOTH counts. Concentration is a Skill that's meant to be applied in LOTS of situations that aren't specifically laid out in the rules. LOTS of things aren't specifically laid out in the rules. Is it "rewriting the rules" to insist that PCs sleep lying down? Any player that thinks so is a bad player. Is that you? Please. Your second possibility is the worst kind of attack - a strictly subjective accusation. It's a total generalization and has nothing to do with the rules, or this forum. |
| Mommy was an Orc02-09-06, 01:35 AM | Sure, I think a PC can effectively concentrate as long as they want - If you can cast a 2nd level spell(or concentrate) in an entire combat while blinding rain is pouring down on you with a DC of 7, concentrating for a few hours shouldn't be a big deal or at least the DC certainly can't be above DC 5+spell level. If it were, they would have written a duration other than concentration into the spell itself. They didn't. I don't understand why they didn't do that, but as LG can't control that other than by restricting it, that seems to be the option. I'd use the fatigue rules as written to deal with it. It is not a subjective accusation. DMs shouldn't be making up rules that are harsher than real world effects - which do you think is more difficult? Trying to maintain concentratation in a hail storm with chunks of ice falling on your head for say 5 minutes or trying to concentrate for a few hours in relative peace? Most DMs would say the 2nd until confronted with this particular spell. Okay. So, at what point would you institute Concentration checks, if ever? So, I interpret your answer as "never". A PC can Concentrate as long as they want. 1 000 000 Rounds, no problem. If not, please tell me what your answer would be. At what point would you start to institute Concentration checks, and at what DC? You're probably ENTIRELY wrong on BOTH counts. Concentration is a Skill that's meant to be applied in LOTS of situations that aren't specifically laid out in the rules. LOTS of things aren't specifically laid out in the rules. Is it "rewriting the rules" to insist that PCs sleep lying down? Any player that thinks so is a bad player. Is that you? Please. Your second possibility is the worst kind of attack - a strictly subjective accusation. It's a total generalization and has nothing to do with the rules, or this forum. |
| CSHunt6802-09-06, 08:13 AM | So, you think a few hours is the limit? Let's see - an hour has 60 minutes, that's 600 rounds ... So, that would be, say on the order of 1000 or 10 000 rounds? Anything past that would require Concentration checks? If so, at what DC? Frankly, _I_ never said how long I'd let them Concentrate before instituting checks. And I'm still not really sure of your answer. _Is there a point at which you'd start instituting Concentration checks_? Is your answer a few hours, or never? (BTW, what you mean to say is that "DMs shouldn't be making up rules which are _subjectively_ harsher than real world effects". Because, ALL DMs make up rules - it's ALL "subjective" - the making up of rules isn't what's subjective, because ALL GOOD DMs need to do it. You mean that you SUBJECTIVELY THINK that forcing Concentration checks before a certain time period has passed would be worse than the rules which are already in there.) |
| Mommy was an Orc02-09-06, 09:01 AM | Never. Or more specifically, the DC check for concentrating is at worst DC 2. Objectively, if you cast this spell in a hailstorm during combat, the DC each round for continuing to concentrate is DC 12. If you did that for 3 minutes, that would require 30 DC 12 checks - I assume, given this is an example in PHB, there is no argument here? The DM really has two choices: Make normal concentration somehow as difficult as maintaining concentration in a hailstorm. Have PCs autosucceed at this because 4 ranks + 14 Con means they will never get less than 7 on the roll. Most 6th level Druids can easily have the autosuccess at DC 12 in any case. The 1st is ridiculous, the 2nd means the PCs can maintain the spell as long as they like. The writeup of Concentration assumes there is no spell like this one, because it makes concentrating deliberately easy. There are grey areas of the rules where a DM has to make judgement calls, but a DM who thinks there is enough grey here to equate normal concentration with a hailstorm is color blind... So, you think a few hours is the limit? Let's see - an hour has 60 minutes, that's 600 rounds ... So, that would be, say on the order of 1000 or 10 000 rounds? Anything past that would require Concentration checks? If so, at what DC? (BTW, what you mean to say is that "DMs shouldn't be making up rules which are _subjectively_ harsher than real world effects". Because, ALL DMs make up rules - it's ALL "subjective" - the making up of rules isn't what's subjective, because ALL GOOD DMs need to do it. You mean that you SUBJECTIVELY THINK that forcing Concentration checks before a certain time period has passed would be worse than the rules which are already in there.) |
| Simpi02-09-06, 10:06 AM | I think this thread is turning into a rule argument about concentration and it's original subject is being lost. Having recently acquired spell compendium, I must say that Binding Winds is a horribly broken spell and should be restricted. In fact it is one of those spells that I as author would probably include in quite a few of my modules as counter against PCs who are going to use it without any shadow of a doubt. S.H, the guy from Naerie |
| A'Talsen02-09-06, 11:56 AM | Having recently acquired spell compendium, I must say that Binding Winds is a horribly broken spell and should be restricted. In fact it is one of those spells that I as author would probably include in quite a few of my modules as counter against PCs who are going to use it without any shadow of a doubt. S.H, the guy from Naerie Only an encounter where you have an 'extra' low level caster to cast Binding Winds on a (single) PC in addition to the main threat will cause any sort of difficulty. And that seems fine to me. The only issue might be if you had a bunch of low level support NPCs throwing out Binding Winds... but then a bunch of support NPCs with WEB and say the main guy with a few fireball spells would hose a party prety well too. (mage 1 fireballs party, mage 2 webs them, mage 3 waits for any PCs to escape to web them...). Ther's all sorts of nasty stuff a writer can build into mods to cordinate NPCs to dramatically effect the PCs. What is your 'scenario' where Binding Winds used by NPCs against PCs is worse than some of the other possible spells the NPCs could use? Micahel "Fish" Murphy |
| Simpi02-09-06, 12:49 PM | What is your 'scenario' where Binding Winds used by NPCs against PCs is worse than some of the other possible spells the NPCs could use? Your example was a pretty good one. But why should I tell mine to anyone? S.H, the guy from Naerie |
| The_Voice_Of_Reason02-09-06, 01:15 PM | I have given this alot of thought. I have come to agree that Binding winds probably should be restricted. Not because it is broken... with a reasonable judge and reasonable players, it isn't... What is broken is the lack of tolerance for judges to be aloud to use Reason and Common-Sense. That's the Core Problem. :gah: Binding Wind is just the symptom. The rest of this post isn't so much about Binding Wind, as about this Core Problem. Other than real world analogies (which I addressed individually in previous posts), most of the arguments I've heard against requiring concentration checks to maintain concentration for long periods, so far, add up to: 1. "There's no rule that says I can't concentrate for forever, so I must be aloud to." 2. "This is just making up rules, not interpreting them." Together or individually, these arguments only make sense for a PURELY LITERAL philosophy of rule interpretation (More on that Later). A reasonable judge if faced with player who wants to concentrate for somewhere between hours and years is going to have to draw a line.... somewhere.... even if doing so means a "Creating A Rule" whole cloth. WHERE and exactly HOW he draws that line is admitedly a judgment call. WHETHER he's aloud to draw it shouldn't even be a debate! There's a section in the DMG that bears this out: (P. 33) "The game has no rules for trying to stay awake through the night, writing down every word that someone says without a mistake, or opening the stuck lid of a container without spilling a single drop of its contents. However, in the course of an adventure any of these situations could make or break an encounter. You have be ready to make up checks for non-standard activities." ....It then goes on, at some length, to enumerate a number of skill and ability checks that could be devised for those examples, (including an example with progressively harder DC's I might add). the section ends with:.... "Decisions on how to handle non-standard actions are left to your best judgment." I submit that on-going-concentration past some as-yet-to-be-defined point is a "non-standard action" just as staying awake, to use the DMG example, is a non-standard-action after some poorly-defined-but-very-real point! Before you say it... yes I do understand that an LG Judge does not have the same powers as a Home-Game GM, but the alternative to allowing the Judge to make common sense Judgment Calls, is to take a PURELY LITERAL rules stance, and if you want to see the sort of silliness that can lead to just read the following thought experiment. --Michael Montague ***DISCLAMER*** I have the utmost respect for those who have argued against my points. I believe that their arguments are born out of a desire to prevent out-of-control tyrant-judges from ruining the game with unfair, or un-balanced table variations to the rules. There is, however, the potential for the scale to tip too far in the other direction as well. The "Thought Experiment" that follows is intended to illustrate this in a humorous and satirical way. It is intended to be amusing, even if it is a bit acidic in places. It is NOT intended as a slap against anyone. Please take it in the spirit it is offered. "A Though Experiment", alternatively titled: "My Mental Trip to Crazy Town:88E:." How long could a character concentrate on Binding Winds, using PURELY LITERAL rules interpretations without any room for "common sense" or Judgment-Calls from the Judge? Hours? Days? I thought to myself: "Surely he would have to sleep eventually, and then he'd lose his concentration.... Right???" However, after carefully searching the PHB I could find no rule that actually SAYS a character can't concentrate on a spell while asleep! :tongue: The rules do say that sleepers are helpless creatures which in turn are paralyzed and can be couped.... but that doesn't affect mental-only activities such as concentration. (Some might point out that in the real-world sleeping precludes this sort of mental activity... but don't let that fool you, everyone knows we can't mix game mechanics with reality! :smirk: ) Likewise, there are rules about "unconscious" "staggered", "disabled" and "dieing". In some of these, the rules specify that a charcter cannot act. However, these categories are very clearly and narrowly defined in the PHB as being only caused by lethal and/or non-lethal damage. Thus, from a PURELY LITERAL point of view "asleep" (which does not require damage of any variety) is not the same as any of them. To say that they are the same, or act the same, would be "making up a rule", and we just can't have that! If the concentrating character had a Ring of Sustenance, he wouldn't need to gather food or water, activities that might otherwise distract him, and thus he could continue concentrating for centuries, or at least until he died of old age. But, why stop there? Death by old age does not involve taking damage, and thus you do not enter the state of "dieing" (very narrowly defined in the PHB as HP=-1 to -9). If you die without going through the specifically defined state of "dieing", such as via the Circle of Death spell, or Old Age, there is no rule that actually says a "dead" a character can't continue to concentrate on a spell or take other actions! :mymy: (You might consider this to be unreasonable, but you have to leave Reason behind when you go PURELY LITERAL. If the authors had meant for dead characters to be unable to take actions they would surely have said so somewhere! :uh-huh: ). The PHB does say that the soul of a "dead" character departs, but there is no rule that actually SAYS, as such, that you need a soul for any reason other than animating a body (Even that's only inferred from the magic jar spell). :crazy: Fortunately, concentration is a purely mental activity so we don't need an animated body! :P Likewise dead characters decompose over time, but that's a lot less violent than "blinding rain" (DC 5 + SL), so any concentration check DC that decomposition imposes should be pretty low..... :rolleyes: I could go on, but if PURELY LITERAL interpretations without at least some room for Judgment-Calls, Common-Sense, Real-World Experience, or Reason don't seem ridiculous to you by now, then your cure is beyond my power! :schemes: |
| A'Talsen02-09-06, 01:47 PM | Your example was a pretty good one. But why should I tell mine to anyone? S.H, the guy from Naerie I suppose you would only have to disclose your scenario if you wanted to use it as support for your position. My point was mainly that this spell which removes both a PC and an NPC from combat at the same time isn't 'broken'. It can be compared reasonably to other spells - in my example another 2nd level, reflex based spell with similar effects (holding the opponent in place). Web has its own restrictions, of course with ways to get out of it, but then it also doesn't tie up the caster. --- On the Infinate Concentration front, you really wouldn't need to concentrate for that long to get a large number of combat rounds. Even taking a single hour of concentration, you have 600 rounds of actions. That *should be* more than enough to take out any creature that has no way to fight back. Even a minute is often enough with most combats being under 5 rounds*, so even if the spell did have a limit of 1 rnd/lvl a 10 level caster could hold a target for a full minute, or twice as long as an average combat. *5 round combats are hte average in MY experience, with some taking much less and some taking much more, but the average (and mode) seem to be about 5. Mciahel "Fish" Murphy |
| Simpi02-09-06, 02:06 PM | I suppose you would only have to disclose your scenario if you wanted to use it as support for your position. Not really, but the way I see it is this. 1) I give an example situation. 2) Somebody makes a counter argument which says that is not a killer encounter (or something else), which is possible because i've not ran the example encounter past the Character Optimization boards. 3) I put few more examples into the fight. 4) Step 2. 5) The whole 'discussion' crashes down to 'My dad is stronger than yours' level. Do we really want that? :D S.H, the guy from Naerie |
| CSHunt6802-09-06, 03:22 PM | That nobody ventured to answer ANY of my questions in a straight manner speaks volumes. ;) Anyway, the spell is overpowered even without forcing any Concentration checks - as I've stated before, you really don't need all that long before you could pound a held opponent into the ground. |
| A'Talsen02-09-06, 04:19 PM | Not really, but the way I see it is this. 1) I give an example situation. [snip] 5) The whole 'discussion' crashes down to 'My dad is stronger than yours' level. Do we really want that? :D S.H, the guy from Naerie I chose an example as a way to illustrate a comparison to a core spell. Of couse you do not have to support your argument percisly the same way. As you noted it does have its drawbacks. That nobody ventured to answer ANY of my questions in a straight manner speaks volumes. Anyway, the spell is overpowered even without forcing any Concentration checks - as I've stated before, you really don't need all that long before you could pound a held opponent into the ground. Perhaps I missed your non-concentration questions? You concentration questions can all be answered by saying there is nothing to prevent you from concentrating for as long as you want. --- For a 2nd level spell, it seems to be at the upper end of the power curve, but still reasonable. It can equitable be compared to other 2nd level spells like Web, Glitterdust, or Hold Person. Since it is in the same range of effects and power level, the spell seems fine to me. Michael “Fish” Murphy |
| CSHunt6802-09-06, 04:59 PM | I asked _several_ questions, but anyway ... your answer, that there is nothing to prevent you from concentrating "as long as you want", ie. for twelve consecutive days if you wanted to, is patently ludicrous. I would laugh in the face of any player who contested that at one of my tables. LAUGH, I say. LOL What's to prevent you from concentrating as long as you like? A DM who has an ounce of reason. Unfortunately, there are far too many players who would espouse that opinion of yours with regards to far too many things ... Regards, Sean Hunt |
| Mommy was an Orc02-09-06, 05:19 PM | I asked _several_ questions, but anyway ... your answer, that there is nothing to prevent you from concentrating "as long as you want", ie. for twelve consecutive days if you wanted to, is patently ludicrous. I would laugh in the face of any player who contested that at one of my tables. LAUGH, I say. There is no DC check to make, but fatigue puts an obvious halt to that. You could easily interpret that making continuous concentration checks is the equivalent of Hustling and therefore inflicts non-lethal damage and fatigue after an hour. You certainly risk passing out after 8 hours in any case. How about a simple question for you - as you're obviously thinking about doing some kind of concentration check, what DC and when are you doing it? |
| CSHunt6802-09-06, 06:44 PM | "Obvious", you say?! ROTFL There are people in this thread who would disagree with you, apparently. You could easily interpret or say _anything_, as a DM. That doesn't mean you're not going to get players accusing you of being a nasty sod, rewriting the rules, or trying to save your big poor monster from the just and valiant (and rules-abiding) players. ;) The point is, _you_ draw the line somewhere (when fatigue kicks in - whenever THAT is!), and other DMs will draw it somewhere else. When you're running a table, you don't have the benefit of being able to poll the masses ... Frankly, as I said, _I_ haven't really considered it, beyond thinking that it's a perfectly reasonable thing to require of the situation. But, I certainly would draw the line somewhere on the near side of "there's nothing to stop you from doing it forever". :rolleyes: Anyway, the point is, players can be very rash in accusing DMs of all kinds of nasty, foolish things - and very often, in an extremely UNFAIR manner and for very UNREASONABLE things. As if everything in the game is reflected in the rule books, and everything that's not explicitly laid out is only for use by the "bad" DMs. Sheesh. |
| A'Talsen02-09-06, 07:13 PM | I asked _several_ questions, Again, I am not seeing any that don't related to Concentration. If you have any others and you still want them answered, If you restate them I'll try. but anyway ... your answer, that there is nothing to prevent you from concentrating "as long as you want", ie. for twelve consecutive days if you wanted to, is patently ludicrous. I would laugh in the face of any player who contested that at one of my tables. LAUGH, I say. LOL What's to prevent you from concentrating as long as you like? A DM who has an ounce of reason. Unfortunately, there are far too many players who would espouse that opinion of yours with regards to far too many things ... Regards, Sean Hunt I'm answering by the RAW. There is no inbuilt limit. In a *home game* would I impose something I felt was reasonable? Yes I would. But that isn't relavant to LG. And chiefly, the question of the maximum duration of concentration isn't of any importance to the determination of if this spell is approprate for LG. Even if you went strait by the rules and did not try to enforce any limites to concentration's duration, you have real world physical limits: At a convention or game day, slots tend to be 4 hours, but lets say you have 8 hours. What is the maximum amount of time a PC in the Living Greyhawk campaign can concentrate? Well, 8 real-world hours. At that time you pack up and go home and hand out ARs. And if they didn't beat the bad guy in that time, then they don't get the rewards for doing so. The point I am trying to make is that the *potential* for this spell to be *broken* by it's *unlimited* concentration limit is nil. Michael "Fish" Murphy |
| CSHunt6802-09-06, 09:16 PM | LG doesn't rely solely upon the RAW. LG relies upon its judges, even if not to the degree that a home game does. If we relied solely upon the RAW, this game would be unplayable. I agree that the Concentration discussion has become a sidetrack as to whether or not this spell is appropriate for LG. I still think it's overpowered, even if I wouldn't require Concentration checks forty rounds in. (I might _400_ Rounds in, but seeing as how nobody else has weighed in with any reasonable number, including yourself - to give the "by the RAW" answer is evasive - I'll keep my thinking to myself. ;) ) Finally, game time does not track with real time very often, so to equate the two is not reasonable. DM: the combat being over, "How long do you hold the spell for?" Druid: "Ten thousand rounds." DM: "Okay, then what?" ... Game time: 17 hours. Real time: Eight seconds. I think this spell is overpowered, not broken - and I've said so several times. I also think that any player who thinks they could hold their Concentration _indefinitely_ is in for a rude awakening from any number of reasonable DMs, and that there is no basis for criticising those DMs for imposing some semblance of reality (that reality not being expressed in the RAW) in a fantasy game. Regards, Sean Hunt |