Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wraith235 06-10-07, 08:21 AM	ok so I have a player that argues with me about fist of stone ... unfortunatly I dont have the book on hand so if someone could add the spell Text for Reference I would appreciate it best Recolection of the spell description is that it changes 1 hand into stone Providing a +6 enhancment bonus to strength for a miriad of different checks and rolls as well as giving a Natural slam attack of 1d6 damage + the newly enhanced strength score and if you do nothing else that round you add strength and 1/2 the argument comes in in the instance of TWF or Sword and board Shield bashing My argument is that the +6 enhancment bonus is to 1 hand only .... his is that it adds the strength to both (or the body if you will) like Bulls strength does I doubt he is going to email the PoC Triad member for a ruling like he should (if he is accurate I will gladly eat my words) so I figured I'd start here and get the Communities thoughts on it and if necessary I'll send something top the Triad for a ruling ... Unfortunatly this has been a sort of hot topic between us and our personalities are incredibly too much alike so butting heads is easy I await your responses to this in hopes of a swift conclusion
_metz_ 06-10-07, 11:27 AM	FROM SPELL COMPENDIUM: FIST OF STONE Transmutation [Earth] Level: Sorcerer/wizard 1 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 minute You transform one of your hands into a mighty fist of living stone, gaining a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength for the purposes of attack rolls, grapple checks, or breaking and crushing items. In addition, you gain the ability to make one natural slam attack, dealing 1d6 points of damage + your new Strength bonus (or 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus if you make no other attacks in that round). You can make the slam attack as a natural secondary attack with the normal –5 penalty, or a –2 penalty if you have the Multiattack feat (MM 304), as part of a full attack action. However, you cannot gain more than one slam attack per round with this spell due to a high base attack bonus (+6 or higher). Your fist undergoes no change in size or form, remaining as flexible and responsive as it would normally be while under the spell’s effect. Material Component: A pebble inscribed with a stylized fist design. Ok on the TWF front, it doesn't apply as the fist is NOT a weapon. The multiattack feat helps, but that is all. Secondly, it says you don't get an extra attack, and is pretty clear its only one attack. Thirdly, It would seem that the enhancement to strength (being an enhancement bonus with no other clause) would apply to other stuff for the duration, as I can't see anything saying it wouldn't - but it would only apply to: attack rolls, grapple checks, or breaking and crushing items. This is clear that it does not refer to damage here either - UNLESS it is with the slam attack. SO I would say, if you are swinging a sword, you get the +3 to hit, but not +3/or whatever dmaage by the RAW of the spell. The sword would have to be in that hand or have that hand involved imo (in the case of two handed), but there could be table variation on that. It is very clear that it is only one of the hands, so I would say that I as GM would only allow it to apply with effects involving that hand, and by RAW damage only if used as the slam attack. (1-1/2 new str if used as the only attack) I would like to point out by RAW a flurry or some other way (haste?) to get more than one attack other than a high BAB could allow this attack to be made more than once by my interpretation. But NOT TWF (its not a weapon) or a high BAB result.
Mommy was an Orc 06-10-07, 01:21 PM	First off, if you're the DM, your ruling stands. That's a core ruling you're asking your triad or Circle to make and they shouldn't be making them. That's your job. This spell has multiple forms of table variation as it is a badly worded spell. I play a grappling monk caster who uses this every single combat if she can(probably until 8th level when she'll craft a Belt of Str +4). I've played her at Bissel, Keoland, GenCon, and Verbobonc minicon and she's 6th level. She's also wields a Guisarme, so I've experienced other variation on this. I don't really care about the outcome of the variation as the major reason I cast this spell is to boost my grapple checks. Here's the various table variations and what I usually see as the result of it: +6 Str Enhancement to hit with attack rolls? Yes - that's what the spell says. I understand there's variation that exists on this - I haven't seen it. +6 Str Enhancement to damage with all attacks? No(almost always) - an occasional DM will rule that it is a +6 Str Enhancement to Strength for the attack roll and the outcome of the attack roll. +6 Str Enhancement to damage with successful Grapple checks? Yes(majority of the time 80% or so) - this is the most common variation - some DMs say the unarmed damage is part of the grapple check, some don't - in essence, my hand is good at grabbing you and if you were an object, I'd crush you more easily, but because you're squirming, I don't. The RAW is slightly on the side of not doing damage, but the RAI seems to more strongly favor the other side. Unfortunately for me, the person who DMs me the most feels the other way. Not a big deal, because the primary purpose of grappling is not to inflict damage. +6 Str Enhancement only affects a single hand? No(never seen it - this is not to say I've not seen Metz's point of view on boards) - it might seem like this ruling is easy to make to some, but it ends up creating a weird problem: If you're wielding a weapon two-handed, do you get the strength bonus? If the DM rules no, they'll get a lot of strange looks. If the DM rules yes, he ends up dinging the really inefficient builds - there are very few builds that use Strength to hit and TWF as that's pretty expensive in 28 point buy. ------------ I'd point out that this TWF build seems like just one of those really inefficient builds. Fist of Stone is a somatic component spell - that means he can't have a weapon in each hand. Or a weapon in one hand, shield capable of bashing in the other. It also means he likely has spell failure as a possibility.
_metz_ 06-10-07, 01:46 PM	+6 Str Enhancement only affects a single hand? No(never seen it - this is not to say I've not seen Metz's point of view on boards) - it might seem like this ruling is easy to make to some, but it ends up creating a weird problem: If you're wielding a weapon two-handed, do you get the strength bonus? If the DM rules no, they'll get a lot of strange looks. If the DM rules yes, he ends up dinging the really inefficient builds - there are very few builds that use Strength to hit and TWF as that's pretty expensive in 28 point buy. I don't see a problem with Two handed fighting, I see the hand being involved. What I don't see is say - applying the str bonus on an off hand attack as well as the primary. (e.g: Attack with the primary hand with a sword with the bonus, then offhand slam attack) But I did mention there would be table variation on that. I personally would give the bonus on pretty much anything (on the attack roll, etc as specified) that involved that hand (including two handed fighting, or one hand in a TWF build). - On stuff that did not: (offhand TWF, shield bashing when sword hand was the one 'stone fisted', flurries with legs etc (seen monks do this often when their hands have been full of other stuff) I would have difficulty justifying it the bonus applying from the intent of the spell as its clear "one hand" statement of intent in application rather than a bonus to the 'body' per say - as in all attacks, flurries, skill checks, etc. (I would like to note it doesn't mention skill checks - whereas something like bull strength would help in that regard)
Wraith235 06-10-07, 03:51 PM	ok .... how does the wording differ from the Spell Compendium to the Complete Arcane Since as a Group we dont Own the Spell compendium
Mommy was an Orc 06-10-07, 03:58 PM	ok .... how does the wording differ from the Spell Compendium to the Complete Arcane Since as a Group we dont Own the Spell compendium That simplifies it right there. If he wants to cast that spell in LG, he's got to own the book. He can show you a photocopy of it, if he likes, but at the moment, he can't even cast it. :)
Wraith235 06-10-07, 04:09 PM	mmmmmmm thats the LAST thing I want to pull in this Group because its a rotating DM Group and I'm not the one that put it together .... I know the Group is planning to get SpC soon so hopefully this will clear its self up on the book but just how much Wording difference is there between SpC and Complete Arcane
pedr 06-10-07, 04:23 PM	The point is, you can't make an accurate assessment of how it works unless you can see the text of the spell. If the player can't show you the text of the spell, you can't make an accurate assessment of how it works. So he should accept that it works precisely as you think it does; he has no way of arguing with you as he has no text to appeal to to support his argument. So, between the fact that you are the DM and it works precisely as you think it does at your tables, and the fact that you really, technically, shouldn't be allowing him to cast it at all (note this: the CAr version of the spell does not exist in Living Greyhawk; he's casting the SpC version if he's casting anything at all), he really shouldn't be arguing at all. In case he does, I strongly recommend that you read the RPGA General Rules and Penalty Guidelines. Having long-running disputes between people who butt heads isn't good for anyone's fun, which is why RPGA GMs have the authority they do. Make a decision and move on, though be open to listening to politely worded reasons why you might want to change your decision, but the place for those is after the game, not during it.
Mommy was an Orc 06-10-07, 04:25 PM	I would have difficulty justifying it the bonus applying from the intent of the spell as its clear "one hand" statement of intent in application rather than a bonus to the 'body' per say - as in all attacks, flurries, skill checks, etc. (I would like to note it doesn't mention skill checks - whereas something like bull strength would help in that regard) I think the problem isn't whether or not you can justify it, the problems are as follows: The ruling ends up creating more variation. Yes, it might make sense that because the hand is touching the THF weapon, it gets the bonus, but that's not especially clear. If I were going to rule that it only involved that one hand, I'd rule that THF wasn't helped either as that makes it more consistent in play. Isn't what the RAW says - even if they intended otherwise. Yes, in a home game, that's not a big issue, but in LG, there are issues with that. They had multiple opportunities to say you only get the bonus to hit with that specific arm. They didn't take them. Goes against the general rule of thumb - stat bonuses act like bonuses to the stat except where it specifically says they don't. Makes the spell much harder to run - if you're attacking in melee and some of your attacks have a +3 to hit and some don't, that can be quite confusing - a reason they might not have intended it. This is especially relevant as the likely reason this is coming up is someone that shouldn't be casting this spell in the 1st place is casting it.
Wraith235 06-10-07, 04:44 PM	unfortunatly we are approaching a point in this Conversation where I see The issue Causing Real problems between the lasting friendship we have ... as we are starting to Discuss RPGA Penalty Guidelines and I know how He will react to it ... and as such I would much rather Bow from DM'ing rather than destroy the friendship ..... since I know that when I say "CA Version of fist of stone does not exist in LG" its going to start a fight when my Group Aquires SpC I may pick it back up
pedr 06-10-07, 05:05 PM	Well the question is this: Does the group want you to act as a Living Greyhawk GM? If they do, they need to understand exactly what that requires. If they don't want you to do that, it looks like they don't want to actually play LG according to the rules. Now, I'm not suggesting being a complete stickler: if you're comfortable with it, allow the player to use the spell - but you get to decide how it works, or he gets to decide not to use it. Those are his choices. As GM, you are in charge, which helps - it means that you have the authority to make the decisions, even to make a wrong decision, and no-one ought to argue with it after that point.
Wraith235 06-10-07, 05:28 PM	as I said this is a rotating DM setup .... Currently there are 4 DM's that Rotate ... I am the first one to bring up anything to do with this spell due to my interpretation of it from the Complete Arcane (My interpretation was for TWF purposes only 1 hand got the +6 str) and he Chose to Debate that with me out of game ... which is Fine ... but last night as it was my turn to Step up for DM'ing I had to make the Call based on my interpretation .... I did however add that if he wanted to Send something in to the Triad asking for a Ruling and I turned out to be Wrong I would eat my Words Happily I didnt expect there to be a reprint in SpC ... and I didnt expect it to go the Route that its going... but thats WotC for ya but I just talked to the Host of the game and they are going to get the SpC soon (this weekish) and its not the Group ... its this one person now I am Definatly not a perfect DM .... dont Claim to be and dont aspire to be ... I screw up too ... I just try to do my best
pedr 06-10-07, 06:32 PM	Sounds like things are getting resolved to a degree, which is good. No-one's expecting you to be a perfect GM. However, all GMs ought to be aware of the campaign rules and standards. It's worth looking in the LGCS to check any non-PH rules item a player wants to use, just to check that it's Open, and which source is the relevant one. Quick ways of doing that are to encourage people to use Heroforge (and Spellforge) as they list the page reference for spells (http://www.nzcomputers.net/heroforge/ - note that there've been a few LGCS changes since the last version was released) and Ken Jenks' spell-list which makes clear which book spells are from (http://members.aol.com/kenjenks/lg/)
Timlagor 06-10-07, 07:21 PM	The full text from SpC is in this thread. I don't think the wording changed very much. 1) There is heavy variation on rulings amongst people who have looked hard at this spell. If you don't mind very much you could just go with his ruling: it's not wrong.. it's just not the only right ruling either. My recommendation would be to sit down with the other 3 GMs and agree a common ruling on this. 2) The LGCS says very clearly that you can't use the spell if you don't have a copy of the book or a copy of the page *from a book that you own*. [I don't know how many page copies are floating around with people who don't own the books and I doubt anyone cares] 3) Why are you GMing and what happens if you stop?
Wraith235 06-10-07, 08:01 PM	I exit rotation and just play
MatteBlack 06-10-07, 09:12 PM	I don't like the ruling that limits the attack bonus to one hand. The language of the spell doesn't support it and I find it just as easy to imagine that the additional STR helps open shots up for whatever you attack with via a shove, grab or the like. I would agree that the language in the spell doesn't grant damage bonus to weapon attacks. This question came up in our group and I believe it may even be addresed in a FAQ or something somewhere. Lee
_metz_ 06-11-07, 12:51 AM	I think the problem isn't whether or not you can justify it, the problems are as follows: The ruling ends up creating more variation. Yes, it might make sense that because the hand is touching the THF weapon, it gets the bonus, but that's not especially clear. If I were going to rule that it only involved that one hand, I'd rule that THF wasn't helped either as that makes it more consistent in play. Isn't what the RAW says - even if they intended otherwise. Yes, in a home game, that's not a big issue, but in LG, there are issues with that. They had multiple opportunities to say you only get the bonus to hit with that specific arm. They didn't take them. Goes against the general rule of thumb - stat bonuses act like bonuses to the stat except where it specifically says they don't. Makes the spell much harder to run - if you're attacking in melee and some of your attacks have a +3 to hit and some don't, that can be quite confusing - a reason they might not have intended it. This is especially relevant as the likely reason this is coming up is someone that shouldn't be casting this spell in the 1st place is casting it. Mommy I hate it when writers don't think things through huh... grumble grumble... and Wraith - in the LGCS it says the Spell compendium version. The complete arcane one is NOT available, its nothing to do with your DMing and thats what he can use. What I wrote up above is the verbatim spell from spell compendium if that helps. I would suggest informing him that is what he can use, inform him of the difficulties in the spell, and let him know how you rule it. If he still argues get him to ask Triad or come on these forums himself. I don't see how you are being unreasonable in that regard.
JamesMaissen 06-11-07, 02:24 AM	ok so I have a player that argues with me about fist of stone ... unfortunatly I dont have the book on hand so if someone could add the spell Text for Reference I would appreciate it I await your responses to this in hopes of a swift conclusion First, it is a game where people come to have fun. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Whatever you do, make sure people are still having fun. That things are heating up between people that are otherwise friends is a bad sign. Take a step back here and make sure you don't loose by 'winning'. Second, as you've described your situation, you have a group of 4 DMs that are fairly static. I would suggest that the 4 of you try to come to a meeting of the minds as to how things should run where it comes to areas of the rules where people otherwise differ. This will give all of your players a consistency that LG as a whole cannot. They might not agree on some calls that the four of you make, but they atleast will know what to expect. Third, whatever you decide you should attempt to be consistent with not only the ruling at hand, but with things that in would entail. This helps to build trust with your players. It softens the feeling of 'you vs them' and it helps give a versimilatude to the game's 'laws of physics'. Well so much for the advice. Now, being the opinionated person that I am, I would say that I believe that Fist of Stone is somewhat loosely worded and that it should be simply doing two things: giving a +6 enhancement bonus to STR and granting a natural, primary Slam attack with one of the caster's fists. There are problems with curtailing what it grants from there, especially for reasons of 'balance'. It's a personal spell that lasts a flat 10 minutes and only looks 'strong' when compared to an overweakened 3.5 Bull's Strength spell. The first problem that I have is that suddenly a character has more than one STR score. If the spell were granting a bonus to checks, attacks or the like it would be one thing but as an enhancement bonus to STR it should simply be that. Next is that the spell does expressly give a bonus to damage when it references the damage the slam attack does, which if you read the line of 'for purposes' as a limiting factor gets you to a contradiction. A complete blind literal reading would also have problems where it comes to how it details how one can make the natural slam attack granted, rather than accepting it as an aid to those readers that might not be used to mixing natural attacks with manufactured ones. -James
_metz_ 06-11-07, 02:37 AM	First, it is a game where people come to have fun. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Whatever you do, make sure people are still having fun. That things are heating up between people that are otherwise friends is a bad sign. Take a step back here and make sure you don't loose by 'winning'. I used to have this problem a lot, eventually stopped being friends with someone over this sort of thing. Essentially I am very interested in the rules and their intent, and also am pretty **** about doing things 'right'. Some people have their own perceptions, its unfortunate, as for lots of people LG and gaming is their main hobby etc out of work, and as such are VERY protective, controlling and concerned with it going how they are used to and with their power base remaining unchanged. Many GMs who have been the primary GM in their area get somewhat annoyed if other GMs come in and rule things differently or have different opinions, its one of the fallacies of the LG campaign, and one we have to live with.
KarmaInferno 06-11-07, 06:54 PM	Is this LG? Aren't you required to have the book source in question AT THE TABLE to be able to use the rules option? Or at the very least a photocopy of the relevant page in your book? -karma
Dr.Cornelius 06-12-07, 03:16 AM	Is this LG? Aren't you required to have the book source in question AT THE TABLE to be able to use the rules option? Or at the very least a photocopy of the relevant page in your book? -karmaSounds like this gaming group does not have the resources to purchase every splatbook, and they are not going the piracy (photocopy) route. Cut them a break.
Wraith235 06-12-07, 04:07 AM	I actually have a char personally that I wont play till we have the SpC since 2 spells the char has are from there (slide and ray of fire) I know the basics of what they do ... but not the specifics
Dr.Cornelius 06-12-07, 04:27 AM	By the way, SpC is probably the first supplemental book that anyone should pick up. Lots of good content and a fair amount is open.
Wraith235 06-12-07, 05:04 AM	think it is the Very LAST one for LG they dont have yet
pedr 06-12-07, 06:34 AM	Note that most of us aren't saying "You MUST tell them to stop using all spells until they have the SpC". Although that would be the most 'lawful' thing to say, it's a game, at the end of the day, and not worth getting too het up about. However what I am saying is that there is a clear determination of who gets to make the final decision in an RPGA game: the GM, subject to appeal to the Senior or Appeals GM if one exists. Letting them know that, and that arguments aren't helpful, is a useful step which would set them in good stead should they ever play at a convention and face a GM who interprets a rule differently (and while you're probably more correct on this rule than he is, there are GMs out there who have rules wrong and yet will not budge - they have the authority to make those decisions too). Letting them know that the rules say they need the book, and to be using the latest version (important, in some cases!) will avoid them being blind-sided by GMs who enforce that rule at conventions as well.
Timlagor 06-12-07, 06:55 AM	And just to note again that the Triad has no remit or authority to make these rulings.
KarmaInferno 06-13-07, 07:18 AM	Sounds like this gaming group does not have the resources to purchase every splatbook, and they are not going the piracy (photocopy) route. Cut them a break. I generally don't allow a player to use a rules option that comes into question if they can't produce the sourcebook. As a player, if I don't own the book, I don't consider stuff from that book to be available to me. To be taking options from it when I don't have it smacks of deliberate skirting of the established rules to me. On photocopying, I was referring to a book one already owns, but doesn't want to lug around at a convention. Just carrying the relevant pages you are going to need is a lot lighter. -karma
MatteBlack 06-13-07, 08:21 AM	I don't think we as DMs need to be policing whether a player owns the book or not. If the player says he doesn't own the book and is pirating the copies then act on it. I would be sure that the material is there for reference or the spell or whatever is not available.