FEAT: still spell [Archive] - Wizards Community

FEAT: still spell [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
shearin69
09-25-06, 08:25 AM The Feat Still Spell eliminates the use of somatic from the spell...

What if a Warmage was bounded and had the Still Spell feat - could he still cast an ORB spell, a range touch spell requiring a To Hit roll?

Without getting TOO much into the game mechanics and more on to the flavor of the game, I would allow it. However some could argue that ORB spell in particular would be created in the hand, however since the Mage is bounded he would be unable to throw it.

Comments and Suggestions?
RedKnightofKet
09-25-06, 08:34 AM Well, to get into the mechanics a little bit, a "bounded" character, presumably, would be considered to have an effective Dexterity of 0 (either helpless or paralyzed, as per the DMG). I would argue that they are incapable of acting, so the ORB spells would not be a good idea. Magic Missile might work in a pinch.
JJeff
09-25-06, 08:47 PM Personally, when you are bound, you effectively lose your dex, bringing it to an effectove 0 (as pointed out above). I would say that you can do your Orb using that Dex to do the ranged touch (Dex 'bonus' of -5?) through some twisting of your body so that your hand can be free.

I know some GMs interprete Somatic as the usage of hands in general and Still spells meaning you don't need to use hands to project or dirrect spells. so I guess it's up to the GM.... Though since the spell description referrences the palm, I ruled as above.
Japangirl
09-26-06, 12:59 PM Think about when most people are bound. Somatic components are generally waving your arms around in a wide range of motion, so Still Spell takes care of that part. But how difficult is it to twist a hand and flick a spell at someone? I'd say if a warmage has Still Spell, they can cast an orb with no penalties on the attack roll.
Timlagor
09-28-06, 10:54 AM The spell says the Orb 'shoots from your palm' but not that you need to do any sort of throwing nor that the Orb travels in a direct straight line. I'd have no problem letting someone cast a Still Orb while bound or otherwise incapacitated.

You are denied your Dex-to-AC while helpless but you don't lose the Attribute itself and there ineedn't be anythingphysical about the targetting of a spell.
celexter
09-29-06, 02:42 AM Logically, since it's a ranged touch attack, it means the spell requires you to aim and fire. And I would say you are considered 0 Dex since you are bound. Therefore, I agree with JJeff that you should take a -5 penalty for the shot.

About "nor that the Orb travels in a direct straight line"? I think the orb flies a straight path (like rays, which are also ranged touch) before hitting.

About "how difficult is it to twist a hand and flick a spell at someone?", I would say that unless you want the DM to get evil after allowing you to cast spell at all, he could ask you to do an Escape Artist check against the binder's Use Rope to see if you manage to free a hand to fire the spell at all.
Japangirl
09-29-06, 03:11 AM Timlagor is right though. You don't lose your Dex, you lose your Dex bonus to AC. There is a very significant difference, and I'd argue that therefore, Still Spell negates the difficulties of being bound.

And who said anything about freeing a hand? You just have to twist in your bindings to get a palm free. Or you could assume that the people tying you up left a palm open, unless the DM specifically tied hands together such that the palms were stuck together, which is a very insecure way of trying to tie someone up. Most of the time, people are bound at the wrist, which means their palms will be free to twist sideways towards someone. I realize real-life mechanics and D&D are not often conjoined, but I am trying to make the case that it does make sense for Still Spell to allow full Dex bonus to be had on ranged attack spells.
RedKnightofKet
09-29-06, 08:33 AM According to the conditions summary in the back of the DMG:

Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound.....A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier).

Nowhere does it say your Dex bonus to AC - it says Dex. And I would argue that your Dex modifier of -5 applies to the ranged attack. Make no mistake, this is a ranged attack - otherwise, why would you normally receive a positive modifier? I still say go for the MM.

Timlagor is right though. You don't lose your Dex, you lose your Dex bonus to AC. There is a very significant difference, and I'd argue that therefore, Still Spell negates the difficulties of being bound.

And who said anything about freeing a hand? You just have to twist in your bindings to get a palm free. Or you could assume that the people tying you up left a palm open, unless the DM specifically tied hands together such that the palms were stuck together, which is a very insecure way of trying to tie someone up. Most of the time, people are bound at the wrist, which means their palms will be free to twist sideways towards someone. I realize real-life mechanics and D&D are not often conjoined, but I am trying to make the case that it does make sense for Still Spell to allow full Dex bonus to be had on ranged attack spells.
Japangirl
09-29-06, 01:25 PM Would you apply this negative to all ranged touch spells or just Orbs? Because still spell negates all somatic requirements for spell, making certain spells but not other ones unusable because of fluff text seems terribly unfair. I was wrong about the Dex thing, I should have looked it up instead of relying on memory and what I thought I knew, and that was my bad. But things like that have to be consistent. I think it negates much of the use of Still Spell to say that the attack roll while bound assumes you have an effective Dex of 0.
RedKnightofKet
09-29-06, 08:17 PM Yes, I would. However, there are lots of spells that don't require your dex. Area effects, Save vs, Magic Missiles, etc. So, not entirely useless, but there are other side effects to losing your Dex. Otherwise, that's hardly balanced that a shuriken-flurrying monk would be practically useless while bound, yet some wizardly guy could still target somebody with a ranged attack.

Would you apply this negative to all ranged touch spells or just Orbs? Because still spell negates all somatic requirements for spell, making certain spells but not other ones unusable because of fluff text seems terribly unfair. I was wrong about the Dex thing, I should have looked it up instead of relying on memory and what I thought I knew, and that was my bad. But things like that have to be consistent. I think it negates much of the use of Still Spell to say that the attack roll while bound assumes you have an effective Dex of 0.
DuctShuiTengu
09-29-06, 10:45 PM I'd apply it to all ranged touch spells. The attack roll is wholely seperate from the somatic components. If their current condition reduces their effective dexterity to 0, then they're going to have a nasty penalty to any rolls (including ranged attacks, touch or otherwise) based on Dexterity. However, they can still use Still Spell to prevent being bound from affecting their ability to use any spells that don't require an attack roll. Or they can go with the ray anyway and hope for a nat-20.

Still spell has plenty of uses. It lets you get spells off while grappled. It let's you get around armor-check penalties. It lets you cast spells while bound. Even if this were a home campaign where I was allowed to make house-rules, I'd see no need to make a metamagic feat that only raises the spell level by 1 more powerful.

Would you apply this negative to all ranged touch spells or just Orbs? Because still spell negates all somatic requirements for spell, making certain spells but not other ones unusable because of fluff text seems terribly unfair. I was wrong about the Dex thing, I should have looked it up instead of relying on memory and what I thought I knew, and that was my bad. But things like that have to be consistent. I think it negates much of the use of Still Spell to say that the attack roll while bound assumes you have an effective Dex of 0.
Arvagor
09-29-06, 11:06 PM Nowhere does it say your Dex bonus to AC - it says Dex. And I would argue that your Dex modifier of -5 applies to the ranged attack. Make no mistake, this is a ranged attack - otherwise, why would you normally receive a positive modifier? I still say go for the MM.If we're quoting things, then I would argue that if your Dex is 0, you cannot move, period. Yes, it's buried in the text for the Ability Damaged or Ability Drained conditions, but A character with Dexterity 0 is paralyzed. A character with Constitution 0 is dead. A character with Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma 0 is unconscious.
Despite its includion in the text for Helpless, "Bound" is not a defined condition, so it would likely be up to the DM to determine whether the character is truly Helpless or simply bound (if we're talking such as with rope or chains). Heck, even if you are pinned in a grapple, you are not considered helpless, simply immobile.
clik_ml
09-30-06, 09:46 AM Otherwise, that's hardly balanced that a shuriken-flurrying monk would be practically useless while bound, yet some wizardly guy could still target somebody with a ranged attack.

A shuriken-flurring monk can be practically useless unbound as well. Is that balanced either?

That comparison isn't reasonable at all. The wizard or caster (since this orignally started as a warmage) has to have a particular feat suited to just such a situation.

If the monk had a feat called still attack that let him attack without moving, then I'd not mind at all him being able to fling shurikens without being able to move either.

And since when have monks been balanced against wizards anyway? Oy. Shall we remove all spells and feats that are not up to the monk standard of balance then?

That said, since bound is not a specific term, it is up to the DM to decide whether the character is actually helpless or not.

If the character is helpless due to their immobility, then they should get the 0 dex and still be able to fire their orb with a -5 penalty, even if their hands are stuck in their mouth (though I suppose that would require silent spell also).

If not helpless, then their dex is not lowered to an effective total of zero, and they may proceed as they wish, unpenalized.

Flavor text of where the orb appears from is irrelevant, since it is just fluff after all. If one wants to rely upon fluff as a crutch then it will be a jolly good time explaining stuff like arcane heirophants using orbs in snake form, or nagas using just about any spell.
celexter
09-30-06, 11:00 AM Would you apply this negative to all ranged touch spells or just Orbs? Because still spell negates all somatic requirements for spell, making certain spells but not other ones unusable because of fluff text seems terribly unfair. I was wrong about the Dex thing, I should have looked it up instead of relying on memory and what I thought I knew, and that was my bad. But things like that have to be consistent. I think it negates much of the use of Still Spell to say that the attack roll while bound assumes you have an effective Dex of 0.

I would say ALL ranged touch spells.

For me, I would take it that ALL ranged touch spells are fired from the hand. Not only orbs, ray-spells and similars too. And when someone is bound, I would take it too that they are bound with their hands behind them (that is the most common way to bind someone). Try flinging something from behind you.

And yes, DuctShuiTengu is right. Still Spell already has plently of uses. You could have an Arcane-user wearing Heavy Armour while still casting spells with Still Spell feat. And even if you are bound, spells like Magic Missile or Dimension Door aren't affected at all.
RedKnightofKet
10-01-06, 01:56 PM I think we are arguing from the same side here... My reference to the monk was just to say that there is NO WAY for a range-specialist to get around the Dex 0 issue, and there shouldn't be one for casters. I wasn't talking about balance in the gaming sense. I suppose I should have said "logical". But yes, a Dex 0 should be the case, regardless of class.

A shuriken-flurring monk can be practically useless unbound as well. Is that balanced either?

That comparison isn't reasonable at all. The wizard or caster (since this orignally started as a warmage) has to have a particular feat suited to just such a situation.

If the monk had a feat called still attack that let him attack without moving, then I'd not mind at all him being able to fling shurikens without being able to move either.

And since when have monks been balanced against wizards anyway? Oy. Shall we remove all spells and feats that are not up to the monk standard of balance then?

That said, since bound is not a specific term, it is up to the DM to decide whether the character is actually helpless or not.

If the character is helpless due to their immobility, then they should get the 0 dex and still be able to fire their orb with a -5 penalty, even if their hands are stuck in their mouth (though I suppose that would require silent spell also).

If not helpless, then their dex is not lowered to an effective total of zero, and they may proceed as they wish, unpenalized.

Flavor text of where the orb appears from is irrelevant, since it is just fluff after all. If one wants to rely upon fluff as a crutch then it will be a jolly good time explaining stuff like arcane heirophants using orbs in snake form, or nagas using just about any spell.
Prochytes
10-08-06, 11:37 AM Flavor text of where the orb appears from is irrelevant, since it is just fluff after all. If one wants to rely upon fluff as a crutch then it will be a jolly good time explaining stuff like arcane heirophants using orbs in snake form, or nagas using just about any spell.

Indeed. Assuming that what is mentioned in the flavour text has to happen when the spell is cast can lead you into weird and contradictory situations, especially where the Spell Compendium is concerned.

For example, if I remember correctly, neither aiming at the target nor stalking brand has a verbal component. The flavour text, however, specifies that you "speak words of arcane power" (vel sim.) in the case of the first one, and tell the mark that you will recognise him anywhere in the case of the second.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
shearin69 09-25-06, 08:25 AM	The Feat Still Spell eliminates the use of somatic from the spell... What if a Warmage was bounded and had the Still Spell feat - could he still cast an ORB spell, a range touch spell requiring a To Hit roll? Without getting TOO much into the game mechanics and more on to the flavor of the game, I would allow it. However some could argue that ORB spell in particular would be created in the hand, however since the Mage is bounded he would be unable to throw it. Comments and Suggestions?
RedKnightofKet 09-25-06, 08:34 AM	Well, to get into the mechanics a little bit, a "bounded" character, presumably, would be considered to have an effective Dexterity of 0 (either helpless or paralyzed, as per the DMG). I would argue that they are incapable of acting, so the ORB spells would not be a good idea. Magic Missile might work in a pinch.
JJeff 09-25-06, 08:47 PM	Personally, when you are bound, you effectively lose your dex, bringing it to an effectove 0 (as pointed out above). I would say that you can do your Orb using that Dex to do the ranged touch (Dex 'bonus' of -5?) through some twisting of your body so that your hand can be free. I know some GMs interprete Somatic as the usage of hands in general and Still spells meaning you don't need to use hands to project or dirrect spells. so I guess it's up to the GM.... Though since the spell description referrences the palm, I ruled as above.
Japangirl 09-26-06, 12:59 PM	Think about when most people are bound. Somatic components are generally waving your arms around in a wide range of motion, so Still Spell takes care of that part. But how difficult is it to twist a hand and flick a spell at someone? I'd say if a warmage has Still Spell, they can cast an orb with no penalties on the attack roll.
Timlagor 09-28-06, 10:54 AM	The spell says the Orb 'shoots from your palm' but not that you need to do any sort of throwing nor that the Orb travels in a direct straight line. I'd have no problem letting someone cast a Still Orb while bound or otherwise incapacitated. You are denied your Dex-to-AC while helpless but you don't lose the Attribute itself and there ineedn't be anythingphysical about the targetting of a spell.
celexter 09-29-06, 02:42 AM	Logically, since it's a ranged touch attack, it means the spell requires you to aim and fire. And I would say you are considered 0 Dex since you are bound. Therefore, I agree with JJeff that you should take a -5 penalty for the shot. About "nor that the Orb travels in a direct straight line"? I think the orb flies a straight path (like rays, which are also ranged touch) before hitting. About "how difficult is it to twist a hand and flick a spell at someone?", I would say that unless you want the DM to get evil after allowing you to cast spell at all, he could ask you to do an Escape Artist check against the binder's Use Rope to see if you manage to free a hand to fire the spell at all.
Japangirl 09-29-06, 03:11 AM	Timlagor is right though. You don't lose your Dex, you lose your Dex bonus to AC. There is a very significant difference, and I'd argue that therefore, Still Spell negates the difficulties of being bound. And who said anything about freeing a hand? You just have to twist in your bindings to get a palm free. Or you could assume that the people tying you up left a palm open, unless the DM specifically tied hands together such that the palms were stuck together, which is a very insecure way of trying to tie someone up. Most of the time, people are bound at the wrist, which means their palms will be free to twist sideways towards someone. I realize real-life mechanics and D&D are not often conjoined, but I am trying to make the case that it does make sense for Still Spell to allow full Dex bonus to be had on ranged attack spells.
RedKnightofKet 09-29-06, 08:33 AM	According to the conditions summary in the back of the DMG: Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound.....A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Nowhere does it say your Dex bonus to AC - it says Dex. And I would argue that your Dex modifier of -5 applies to the ranged attack. Make no mistake, this is a ranged attack - otherwise, why would you normally receive a positive modifier? I still say go for the MM. Timlagor is right though. You don't lose your Dex, you lose your Dex bonus to AC. There is a very significant difference, and I'd argue that therefore, Still Spell negates the difficulties of being bound. And who said anything about freeing a hand? You just have to twist in your bindings to get a palm free. Or you could assume that the people tying you up left a palm open, unless the DM specifically tied hands together such that the palms were stuck together, which is a very insecure way of trying to tie someone up. Most of the time, people are bound at the wrist, which means their palms will be free to twist sideways towards someone. I realize real-life mechanics and D&D are not often conjoined, but I am trying to make the case that it does make sense for Still Spell to allow full Dex bonus to be had on ranged attack spells.
Japangirl 09-29-06, 01:25 PM	Would you apply this negative to all ranged touch spells or just Orbs? Because still spell negates all somatic requirements for spell, making certain spells but not other ones unusable because of fluff text seems terribly unfair. I was wrong about the Dex thing, I should have looked it up instead of relying on memory and what I thought I knew, and that was my bad. But things like that have to be consistent. I think it negates much of the use of Still Spell to say that the attack roll while bound assumes you have an effective Dex of 0.
RedKnightofKet 09-29-06, 08:17 PM	Yes, I would. However, there are lots of spells that don't require your dex. Area effects, Save vs, Magic Missiles, etc. So, not entirely useless, but there are other side effects to losing your Dex. Otherwise, that's hardly balanced that a shuriken-flurrying monk would be practically useless while bound, yet some wizardly guy could still target somebody with a ranged attack. Would you apply this negative to all ranged touch spells or just Orbs? Because still spell negates all somatic requirements for spell, making certain spells but not other ones unusable because of fluff text seems terribly unfair. I was wrong about the Dex thing, I should have looked it up instead of relying on memory and what I thought I knew, and that was my bad. But things like that have to be consistent. I think it negates much of the use of Still Spell to say that the attack roll while bound assumes you have an effective Dex of 0.
DuctShuiTengu 09-29-06, 10:45 PM	I'd apply it to all ranged touch spells. The attack roll is wholely seperate from the somatic components. If their current condition reduces their effective dexterity to 0, then they're going to have a nasty penalty to any rolls (including ranged attacks, touch or otherwise) based on Dexterity. However, they can still use Still Spell to prevent being bound from affecting their ability to use any spells that don't require an attack roll. Or they can go with the ray anyway and hope for a nat-20. Still spell has plenty of uses. It lets you get spells off while grappled. It let's you get around armor-check penalties. It lets you cast spells while bound. Even if this were a home campaign where I was allowed to make house-rules, I'd see no need to make a metamagic feat that only raises the spell level by 1 more powerful. Would you apply this negative to all ranged touch spells or just Orbs? Because still spell negates all somatic requirements for spell, making certain spells but not other ones unusable because of fluff text seems terribly unfair. I was wrong about the Dex thing, I should have looked it up instead of relying on memory and what I thought I knew, and that was my bad. But things like that have to be consistent. I think it negates much of the use of Still Spell to say that the attack roll while bound assumes you have an effective Dex of 0.
Arvagor 09-29-06, 11:06 PM	Nowhere does it say your Dex bonus to AC - it says Dex. And I would argue that your Dex modifier of -5 applies to the ranged attack. Make no mistake, this is a ranged attack - otherwise, why would you normally receive a positive modifier? I still say go for the MM.If we're quoting things, then I would argue that if your Dex is 0, you cannot move, period. Yes, it's buried in the text for the Ability Damaged or Ability Drained conditions, but A character with Dexterity 0 is paralyzed. A character with Constitution 0 is dead. A character with Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma 0 is unconscious. Despite its includion in the text for Helpless, "Bound" is not a defined condition, so it would likely be up to the DM to determine whether the character is truly Helpless or simply bound (if we're talking such as with rope or chains). Heck, even if you are pinned in a grapple, you are not considered helpless, simply immobile.
clik_ml 09-30-06, 09:46 AM	Otherwise, that's hardly balanced that a shuriken-flurrying monk would be practically useless while bound, yet some wizardly guy could still target somebody with a ranged attack. A shuriken-flurring monk can be practically useless unbound as well. Is that balanced either? That comparison isn't reasonable at all. The wizard or caster (since this orignally started as a warmage) has to have a particular feat suited to just such a situation. If the monk had a feat called still attack that let him attack without moving, then I'd not mind at all him being able to fling shurikens without being able to move either. And since when have monks been balanced against wizards anyway? Oy. Shall we remove all spells and feats that are not up to the monk standard of balance then? That said, since bound is not a specific term, it is up to the DM to decide whether the character is actually helpless or not. If the character is helpless due to their immobility, then they should get the 0 dex and still be able to fire their orb with a -5 penalty, even if their hands are stuck in their mouth (though I suppose that would require silent spell also). If not helpless, then their dex is not lowered to an effective total of zero, and they may proceed as they wish, unpenalized. Flavor text of where the orb appears from is irrelevant, since it is just fluff after all. If one wants to rely upon fluff as a crutch then it will be a jolly good time explaining stuff like arcane heirophants using orbs in snake form, or nagas using just about any spell.
celexter 09-30-06, 11:00 AM	Would you apply this negative to all ranged touch spells or just Orbs? Because still spell negates all somatic requirements for spell, making certain spells but not other ones unusable because of fluff text seems terribly unfair. I was wrong about the Dex thing, I should have looked it up instead of relying on memory and what I thought I knew, and that was my bad. But things like that have to be consistent. I think it negates much of the use of Still Spell to say that the attack roll while bound assumes you have an effective Dex of 0. I would say ALL ranged touch spells. For me, I would take it that ALL ranged touch spells are fired from the hand. Not only orbs, ray-spells and similars too. And when someone is bound, I would take it too that they are bound with their hands behind them (that is the most common way to bind someone). Try flinging something from behind you. And yes, DuctShuiTengu is right. Still Spell already has plently of uses. You could have an Arcane-user wearing Heavy Armour while still casting spells with Still Spell feat. And even if you are bound, spells like Magic Missile or Dimension Door aren't affected at all.
RedKnightofKet 10-01-06, 01:56 PM	I think we are arguing from the same side here... My reference to the monk was just to say that there is NO WAY for a range-specialist to get around the Dex 0 issue, and there shouldn't be one for casters. I wasn't talking about balance in the gaming sense. I suppose I should have said "logical". But yes, a Dex 0 should be the case, regardless of class. A shuriken-flurring monk can be practically useless unbound as well. Is that balanced either? That comparison isn't reasonable at all. The wizard or caster (since this orignally started as a warmage) has to have a particular feat suited to just such a situation. If the monk had a feat called still attack that let him attack without moving, then I'd not mind at all him being able to fling shurikens without being able to move either. And since when have monks been balanced against wizards anyway? Oy. Shall we remove all spells and feats that are not up to the monk standard of balance then? That said, since bound is not a specific term, it is up to the DM to decide whether the character is actually helpless or not. If the character is helpless due to their immobility, then they should get the 0 dex and still be able to fire their orb with a -5 penalty, even if their hands are stuck in their mouth (though I suppose that would require silent spell also). If not helpless, then their dex is not lowered to an effective total of zero, and they may proceed as they wish, unpenalized. Flavor text of where the orb appears from is irrelevant, since it is just fluff after all. If one wants to rely upon fluff as a crutch then it will be a jolly good time explaining stuff like arcane heirophants using orbs in snake form, or nagas using just about any spell.
Prochytes 10-08-06, 11:37 AM	Flavor text of where the orb appears from is irrelevant, since it is just fluff after all. If one wants to rely upon fluff as a crutch then it will be a jolly good time explaining stuff like arcane heirophants using orbs in snake form, or nagas using just about any spell. Indeed. Assuming that what is mentioned in the flavour text has to happen when the spell is cast can lead you into weird and contradictory situations, especially where the Spell Compendium is concerned. For example, if I remember correctly, neither aiming at the target nor stalking brand has a verbal component. The flavour text, however, specifies that you "speak words of arcane power" (vel sim.) in the case of the first one, and tell the mark that you will recognise him anywhere in the case of the second.