Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jay_Ibero_911 05-10-07, 06:53 PM	Ok, so there's the basic heat protection 3 and Fire Resistance 5. Nothing spectacular on the surface of things...but in another thread, lava came under discussion, and as it turns out, ANY fire resistance grants immunity to fire damage from lava, so much as fire resistance 1. So that's good to know... Lava Effects Lava or magma deals 2d6 points of damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as when a character falls into the crater of an active volcano), which deals 20d6 points of damage per round. Damage from magma continues for 1d3 rounds after exposure ceases, but this additional damage is only half of that dealt during actual contact (that is, 1d6 or 10d6 points per round). An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma. However, a creature immune to fire might still drown if completely immersed in lava (see Drowning, below). So a side effect of Improved Heat Endurance is not worrying about lava...
JJeff 05-10-07, 09:06 PM	Wow... that is just...so wrong. Now, although I can only protect again 1 point of fire damage from that flaming oil you tossed at me, I can swim in lava that would deal me 20d6 for immersion if not for this 1 point of protection.... Wow....
_metz_ 05-10-07, 09:15 PM	Well thats just stupid...
Mommy was an Orc 05-10-07, 09:24 PM	I think that's just badly worded. Resistance to Energy specifically does not give immunity to energy effects and just reduces damage. I think what they're trying to say there is that Resistance to Fire will reduce Lava damage.
Jay_Ibero_911 05-10-07, 09:29 PM	I think that's just badly worded. Resistance to Energy specifically does not give immunity to energy effects and just reduces damage. I think what they're trying to say there is that Resistance to Fire will reduce Lava damage. Yeah, it's stupid, but they must have been really lazy to not just type out two extra words like so: An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity or resistance to lava or magma. But as is, both fire immunity AND resistance provide immunity to lava. Pretty ironclad without errata.
copper_wyrmling 05-10-07, 09:29 PM	I think that's just badly worded. Resistance to Energy specifically does not give immunity to energy effects and just reduces damage. I think what they're trying to say there is that Resistance to Fire will reduce Lava damage. I agree with MwaO about the intent. Certainly, at every table I've played on where lava was involved, resistance to energy only reduced the damage, not negated it (it might even have been stated explicitly in the tactical notes for Here There Be Dragons mid-level, although it's been a long time since I've read that one).
Jay_Ibero_911 05-10-07, 09:37 PM	I agree with MwaO about the intent. Certainly, at every table I've played on where lava was involved, resistance to energy only reduced the damage, not negated it (it might even have been stated explicitly in the tactical notes for Here There Be Dragons mid-level, although it's been a long time since I've read that one). It's certainly possible that what you believe to be the intent is true, but without errata it's little more than speculation. That said, it doesn't really matter at all how it went down at any table you've played, because the core rules are the core rules. This clause likely hasn't come up at many tables due to it's obscurity, but it doesn't change the fact that as written, fire resistance=lava immunity.
solbergb 05-10-07, 09:44 PM	Well..what matters is the opinion of the GM at your table, not your opinion. At my table, you take 20d6-3 if you have heat resistance 3 and get immersed in lava. What it would help with, is being NEAR the lava, or, say, water walking over it. I wouldn't bother trying to decide if you took any damage from proximity.
Jay_Ibero_911 05-10-07, 09:46 PM	Well..what matters is the opinion of the GM at your table, not your opinion. At my table, you take 20d6-3 if you have heat resistance 3 and get immersed in lava. What it would help with, is being NEAR the lava, or, say, water walking over it. I wouldn't bother trying to decide if you took any damage from proximity. The GM at the table has no room for opinion on the matter. You can't rule differently because you don't like it. It says what it says, and that's all that it says.
solbergb 05-10-07, 09:48 PM	Well..what matters is the opinion of the GM at your table, not your opinion. Any situation that is "poorly modeled by the rules" the GM can rule in a way that makes sense. Especially if the rule is not explicit, as such things normally are not. This one is not. this sentence can be read two ways for intent. An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma. 1. The slightest bit of restance to fire confers utter immunity to lava or magma. 2. fire resistance/immunity counts against the damage inflicted by lava or magma. Any defense against fire confers the same defense against magma or lava. I think you will find most GM's interpret it the latter way. I also think you don't have to look very far to guess the intent of the rule. At my table, you take 20d6-3 if you have heat resistance 3 and get immersed in lava. What it would help with, is being NEAR the lava, or, say, water walking over it. I wouldn't bother trying to decide if you took any damage from proximity, vs maybe 1d6 of heat damage. 3 points is close enough to the 3.5 average damage that it isn't worth fussing, especially as that feat provides a lot more protection against long term heat effects than just the 3 points of resistance.
Mommy was an Orc 05-10-07, 09:48 PM	This clause likely hasn't come up at many tables due to it's obscurity, but it doesn't change the fact that as written, fire resistance=lava immunity. And RAW, it doesn't because Resistance to Energy says it doesn't and DMG gets a lot of things involving Monster Manual wrong(such as thinking that Endure Elements still gives Resistance to Energy in the Resistance to Energy description)
King Kashue 05-11-07, 01:43 AM	Well..what matters is the opinion of the GM at your table, not your opinion. Any situation that is "poorly modeled by the rules" the GM can rule in a way that makes sense. Especially if the rule is not explicit, as such things normally are not. Except this is explicit. This isn't opinion, it's what the sentence unequivocally says. There is no gray area anywhere in the language. You can say "I don't think they intended that", and I might agree with you. You can say "that seems stupid", and I'd definitely agree. But there isn't room for interpretation, the language is explicit and black and white.
King Kashue 05-11-07, 01:50 AM	And RAW, it doesn't because Resistance to Energy says it doesn't and DMG gets a lot of things involving Monster Manual wrong It doesn't involve the monster manual in any way, and Resistance to Energy makes no mention of lava what so ever, so it most certainly doesn't say "it doesn't" (since it doesn't say anything on the matter at all). Lava damage is not fire damage, it's a heat danger (and listed as such in that section along with such things as scalding water)...
lostpike 05-11-07, 02:01 AM	I dont think I would ever sit with a DM again if he decided to rule one way if there was the ruling sitting in his face in black and white pointing the other way.
copper_wyrmling 05-11-07, 02:28 AM	I dont think I would ever sit with a DM again if he decided to rule one way if there was the ruling sitting in his face in black and white pointing the other way. Whereas I'll always be happy to have solbergb as a GM even if he does kill my sorcerer by dunking her in lava ;) (she has semi-permanent fire resistance 5, lasts until around the end of the year) There are lots of reasons I might avoid playing with a judge: having them decide that they're going to interpret a poorly written sentence based on a reasonable guess at the author's intent and the spirit of the rules is not on the list. (Now, the judge who had the traitorous barbarian "guides" stand up, draw weapons and double move in the surprise round so they could coup-de-grace the sleeping party in the main round, THAT judge I won't play with again if I can avoid it.)
paigeoliver 05-11-07, 03:11 AM	DMs who don't use the rules are pretty common. Hands up all of you who notice that half the judges you play with make the PCs use the initiative rules for their characters but who are apparently using the old 1981 D&D Basic Set initiative rules for the monsters, where they all go on the same roll. Yes I know the initiative section in the player's handbook says that gms can make a single roll for the bad guys, but I can't see any way to use that option if there are combatants with differing initiative modifiers.
Madfox11 05-11-07, 04:06 AM	After an intial kneejerk reaction, I would like to point out that while a DM has to run a game by the rules as written, players should not forget that these books are NOT law books. There are mistakes in there, and even more situations that are unclear. When you as a player twist the rules into something they are obvious not based on the lack of one word in one sentence in one product* you should expect to be overruled. Of course, DMs should not decide on a whim what is a hard rule and what is an error. It is why there is a senior DM. I have a feeling though that very few people would overrule any DM ruling that fire resistance 5 does NOT over immunity to magma. * Why would fire resistance 1 protect you fully against magma, but not against even ordinary heat damage you get by walking through the desert on the hottest time of the day (and if you have read Desertsand and the rules on heat damage you would know that even Improved Heat Endurance does NOT offer full protection against the highest of temperatures - the elemental plane of fire is still going to hurt like hell)?
Madfox11 05-11-07, 04:10 AM	Yes I know the initiative section in the player's handbook says that gms can make a single roll for the bad guys, but I can't see any way to use that option if there are combatants with differing initiative modifiers. Depends on the amount of opponents. Note though that if the PHB says the GM can do so, the DM is technically not breaking any rules if they roll one iniative. Personally I rarely roll 1 initiative for all opponents, because chances are just as high that it bites me as DM more than the players. If you roll crap, your monsters are dead before they can act. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand though...
Mommy was an Orc 05-11-07, 08:54 AM	Lava damage is not fire damage, it's a heat danger (and listed as such in that section along with such things as scalding water)... And if you notice, Fire Resistance doesn't offer immunity to Scalding Water. It isn't even clear if it protects against it. "No, no, not the boiling water! Not the boiling water! Throw me into a live volcano if you have to, but don't boil me alive!!!"
Mommy was an Orc 05-11-07, 08:56 AM	Depends on the amount of opponents. Note though that if the PHB says the GM can do so, the DM is technically not breaking any rules if they roll one iniative. Personally I rarely roll 1 initiative for all opponents, because chances are just as high that it bites me as DM more than the players. If you roll crap, your monsters are dead before they can act. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand though... That also affects the power level of certain classes - Rogues are more powerful when you roll multiple initiatives for the monsters - simply because it greatly increases the chances that some opponent is still flatfooted.
solbergb 05-11-07, 09:29 AM	Actually rolling one init for convenience in large battles isn't violating the rules. In reality a GM can rarely handle more inits than there are party members, and most can't do more than about 4 without it getting really clumsy. Actually having them move simultaneously within the init is. PC's with delayed actions get to go "inbetween" those guys. I've had to stop the game and be obnoxious a few times with judges who really, really didn't want their init cards to be messed up by my sorcerer walling bad guys with readied actions and dividing them up. The rule is the same as if multiple folks happened to roll the same init. They still move one at a time, in a specific order, and yes, it sometimes matters.
MatteBlack 05-11-07, 09:42 AM	Well..what matters is the opinion of the GM at your table, not your opinion. At my table, you take 20d6-3 if you have heat resistance 3 and get immersed in lava. What it would help with, is being NEAR the lava, or, say, water walking over it. I wouldn't bother trying to decide if you took any damage from proximity. Do you just enjoy arguments at the game table? I suppose if you have a regular home LG group who know what to expect from you as a DM blowing off clear rules you don't like for your own opinion might be OK. I think the way the rule reads makes no sense compared to realistic view of the game's physics but, the rule reads pretty clearly. Dismissing it rules out of hand only creates a situation where the game gets disrupted. I have had an ability pulled out from underneath me I'd be annoyed and if I had to watch a hard-headed DM and player argue over a clear rule that got ignored i'd be annoyed for having to waste my time while they resolve it. The fact is that the game rules often depart from a realistic view of a fantasy world. The rules badly model the effects very often and likely always will. Save your energies for getting a good errata made but, let's not hash it out at the tables. I have seen this DM position before and it upsets me. Defending a picture of how things should really work that may not be universally held by the LG community shouldn't come at the expense of debating clearly written rules. If there is a grey area, DM discretion yourself to your heart's content. Being the final authority on rules works well on a home campaign but, in something like LG where there can be huge table variation and tight time constraints, this "not in my game" mentality fails your players and game as much letting something unrealistic happen in a FANTASY GAME!!!! I won't suppose this is going to change the opinions of, dare I say, "Activist DMs" :D but, try to be sensitive to the time that can be wasted and unneeded arguments/debates it can cause. If at all possible try to bring up the departures from the rules you will likely make in the upcoming mod beforehand so as to avoid these surprises from muddying an ongoing combat or what have you.
clik_ml 05-11-07, 09:50 AM	This thread is reminding me of one LG game where a player insisted that unconsciousness didn't make his character fall prone since neither the condition summary nor anywhere else explicitly states that one must go prone when knocked out. It was hilarious and then he died. The DM insisted that he fell over when he died, but I think he might have had a good case for remaining standing while dead if not for being chopped in half.
Mommy was an Orc 05-11-07, 09:51 AM	I think the way the rule reads makes no sense compared to realistic view of the game's physics but, the rule reads pretty clearly. Dismissing it rules out of hand only creates a situation where the game gets disrupted. I have had an ability pulled out from underneath me I'd be annoyed and if I had to watch a hard-headed DM and player argue over a clear rule that got ignored i'd be annoyed for having to waste my time while they resolve it. As King so helpfully pointed out, Lava is in the same section as Scalding Water. Fire Resistance offers no defense as written against scalding water damage. Zip. None. You can be boiled alive in water, but not by molten rock? That's not a clear rule and I'd happily take that to a senior DM.
MatteBlack 05-11-07, 09:58 AM	This thread is reminding me of one LG game where a player insisted that unconsciousness didn't make his character fall prone since neither the condition summary nor anywhere else explicitly states that one must go prone when knocked out. It was hilarious and then he died. The DM insisted that he fell over when he died, but I think he might have had a good case for remaining standing while dead if not for being chopped in half. That's an easy fix. Ask the player if his character always remains standing when he goes unconscious even though enemies may continue to attack him as a threat.
solbergb 05-11-07, 10:01 AM	Do you just enjoy arguments at the game table? I suppose if you have a regular home LG group who know what to expect from you as a DM blowing off clear rules you don't like for your own opinion might be OK. . No I don't. If some other judge ruled in this way I consider asinine, I wouldn't challenge it because it is a way to interpret the text. GM's don't get overruled when they pick either of two rulings. The senior DM won't second-guess the GM when he rules either of these ways: 1. the letter of the rules, ignoring spirit and common sense, could be read a certain way. 2. The letter and spirit of rules imply a different interpretation. Looking at the rules as a WHOLE, it is pretty clear what is intended by the magma statement. Looking at it narrowly, without cross-referencing the other resist energy rules in the various books, you can however come to a different, if totally illogical conclusion. You can not straightjacket a GM in LG, by the letter of the rules and LGCS doesn't do that. GM's are not automatons, and they are expected to rule by intent as well as letter when rules are grey. You will not win this argument as a player. I run a transparent game. I also keep up on all the common variants of grey rules. I haven't had a rules discussion last more than 15-20 seconds at one of my tables in years, because I can usually express where I got my ruling in about one sentence, on almost anything. That and "there are multiple interpretations, I'm aware of them, this is my ruling, respect it at my table, as I would respect your opinion at your table" tends to be all that's needed. Of course if I am unaware of the rule and don't have an opinion, I will go with the player's interpretation as a default, which also shuts down discussion quickly. That doesn't happen that often though. I spend way too much time thinking and talking about D&D :)
clik_ml 05-11-07, 11:24 AM	That's an easy fix. Ask the player if his character always remains standing when he goes unconscious even though enemies may continue to attack him as a threat. That is in fact what caused his death the next round. A good laugh was had by all.
bitznarf 05-11-07, 11:35 AM	That's an easy fix. Ask the player if his character always remains standing when he goes unconscious even though enemies may continue to attack him as a threat. There's an even easier solution. Ask him if basic common sense says that he falls down. If he says no, Take away the air around him. Because nothing in the rules (that I recall) says that there is air on the Flaness. Or wack him with the PHB if he is in range.
MatteBlack 05-11-07, 01:09 PM	2. The letter and spirit of rules imply a different interpretation. Sounds like you are most likely successfully dealing with the sorts of issues I hate seeing crop up. What you think the spirit of the rule to be and why do you think the designers meant the rule to be other than it is written? I didn't find their Spirit that clear to my admittedly literal mind.
solbergb 05-11-07, 02:27 PM	I believe the intent of that sentence was to say: "whatever fire protections you have also apply to lava or magma damage" They just said it badly. The evidence for this is how the abilities fire immunity and fire resistance work against every other damage source, as spelled out both in the Monster Manual for special qualities and in the spell descriptions. I also have a rule of thumb that I use when trying to discover intent. If there is more than one possible interpretation and one doesn't pass the "that's just stupid" test, I tend to go with any other interpretation. If the mechanic causes people to roll their eyes, ruin their immersion, immediately remind them that they're in an artificial game, I choose the interpretation that instead reinforces that they're in a consistent world with consistent world-laws. 1 point of fire resistance granting immunity to being immersed in lava but not granting immunity to being hit with a vial of alchemists fire breaks the world laws. In D&D, fire immunity means hot things don't hurt you. Fire resistance means that hot things that don't do enough damage don't hurt you. Lava is a hot thing. Lava can do a lot of damage (20d6 immersion) or a small amount if just a little gets on you (as little as 1d6). It's clearly heat that is causing the damage, as if you took the heat out, lava would just be mud of varying consistency. Lava is however not precisely fire, so the authors wanted to make that connection, for the picky rules lawyers out there. Unfortuantely, they describe both special qualities in the first part of the sentence, and only one in the second part of the sentence. My junior high school english teacher would have given them a C- for that sentence construction, especially as they didn't do something similar with the "steam" entry, which is also clearly a "heat" sort of thing.
MatteBlack 05-11-07, 02:53 PM	I believe the intent of that sentence was to say: "whatever fire protections you have also apply to lava or magma damage" They just said it badly. Thanks for the response, I wasn't trying to pick at it just better understand the oposite position. My preference is to stick to the concrete rather than the subjective so, I doubt we'll ever agree. It's obvious you put more thought into your rulings than the off the hip position I read into your intial post.
solbergb 05-11-07, 03:32 PM	No worries. I'm secure enough in my ability to handle rules disputes that it doesn't really bug me when people poke at how I do it. My approach works for me. Others take different approaches.
Grantor 05-11-07, 04:08 PM	A lot of discussion over an issue that is probably moot: I've never seen lava in any RPGA mod. No need to make controversial rulings when anything that does 20d6 damage is relegated to EL 16 and higher encounters.
bitznarf 05-11-07, 04:14 PM	20d6 is only 70 damage. And if a PC is foolish enough to jump into the lava...
copper_wyrmling 05-11-07, 04:16 PM	A lot of discussion over an issue that is probably moot: I've never seen lava in any RPGA mod. No need to make controversial rulings when anything that does 20d6 damage is relegated to EL 16 and higher encounters. It's not moot. I've seen it at least three times in LG (not counting mods where it was just flavor). The first time was at APL 6 (can't remember the APL range of the mod), in a dungeon-crawl through a supposedly abandoned temple of Joramy inside a volcano: the final encounter was over a lava pit and the bad guy liked bullrushing. The second time was in another underground-exploration adventure, where there was a steam-filled room with a chasm containing a river of lava, and you had to get across the chasm in order to fight the lich who was directing the vampires hiding in the mist in gaseous form (it was an APL 4-12 mod iirc, I played it at 12). The third time was the core special Here There Be Dragons: the final encounter at the middle tier (APL 8-12) was a battle with a red dragon in her volcanic lair, which had a lava pool. The dragon's tactics block suggested snatching PCs and then throwing them into the lava, and she also had fire elemental buddies with improved bull rush.
solbergb 05-11-07, 05:57 PM	I don't think it is a big spoiler that there is lava in Hellspike Prison. And in some other recent mod I did. It's not frequent, but it does happen.
jstorrie 05-11-07, 09:51 PM	A little off topic, but–if you want all your NPCs to go on the same turn during combat, the fair way to handle it is actually to roll initiative for all of them and then take the lowest one. This is exactly how PCs would have to 'synch up' theirs (everyone delaying until everyone is able to go.)
ShinAkuma2 05-12-07, 02:38 AM	All I know is, if I ever get access to Blazing Berzerker with the grappler I plan on making soon, I will PRAY for lava floes in every module. "Yeah, I'm pinning the guy, and dragging him in..."
KarmaInferno 05-12-07, 07:36 PM	Is it an error in the rules? Most probably. Is it really really stupid? Yes. However, until errata or a FAQ entry alters it, under RPGA and LG rules it must be played as written. GMs in LG have no authority to alter rules when they are clear and specific. GMs have leeway when a rule is unclear or ambiguous, but this is neither. It's simply wrong, and the LGCS does not allow for GMs to correct what they perceive to be a wrongly-worded rule. Does this sound awfully lawful in attitude? Yes. However, the LG rules about GM authority are there to try and minimize table variation. There will always be exceptions and corner cases - They need to be adjudicated the same as all the other rules, even if it does get a little silly in isolated occurances. You might think it's not a big deal to allow this or that minor exception, but the more it gets done, the more people start getting lax and expecting it. There is a danger that the whole authority of the system gets undermined as players and judges alike can start assuming they can bend rules how they like. -karma
Mommy was an Orc 05-13-07, 12:33 AM	However, until errata or a FAQ entry alters it, under RPGA and LG rules it must be played as written. GMs in LG have no authority to alter rules when they are clear and specific. If you're literal-minded, you might see that as being clear. Except it isn't. As I noted, scalding damage, which is in the heat section, is not listed as being modified by fire resistance at all. Resistance to energy also expressly states that it does not give immunity to energy damage. It is a grey area of the rule - the only way it is black and white is if you ignore similar clear rules, all of which contradict each other. At which point, common sense has to come into play here...
King Kashue 05-13-07, 04:19 AM	If you're literal-minded, you might see that as being clear. Except it isn't. As I noted, scalding damage, which is in the heat section, is not listed as being modified by fire resistance at all. Of course, that's only significant if lava = scalding water... Since it isn't, it's evidence the rule is internally inconsistent, not internally contradictory...There is a difference... Indeed, it is inconsistent in its application. However, the rule is utterly unambiguous in its language.
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 08:56 AM	Lava is however not precisely fire, so the authors wanted to make that connection, for the picky rules lawyers out there. Unfortuantely, they describe both special qualities in the first part of the sentence, and only one in the second part of the sentence. My junior high school english teacher would have given them a C- for that sentence construction, especially as they didn't do something similar with the "steam" entry, which is also clearly a "heat" sort of thing. I use Oven Mitts of Fire Resistance +3 when I cook. They're no good against boiling water. :D :D
MatteBlack 05-13-07, 10:54 AM	It is a grey area of the rule - the only way it is black and white is if you ignore similar clear rules, all of which contradict each other. At which point, common sense has to come into play here... I think that drawing potentially unintended connections between clear rules and trying to draw too heavily on real world physics is where the grey area gets created. My position on any clearly defined rule is to follow it and campaign to get it changed officially so everyone can follow a standard set of rules when they set down to play LG. No arguments or surpises.
The_Jester 05-13-07, 11:30 AM	The GM at the table has no room for opinion on the matter. You can't rule differently because you don't like it. It says what it says, and that's all that it says. A GM can interpret the rules based on common sense and personal judgment when the rules seem to be in error. In this case it's glaringly obvious that the intent of the rules has been missed due to the omission of two words. Of course, if this did happen you would be free to appeal to the Triad or Circle and argue your case that the GM bent the rules and I am sure their response would be entertaining. It's very, very clear that the spirit and intent of the rule was to say "hey, fire resistance and immunity also work against lava as well!" so hard DMs wouldn't rule that since lava isn't technically fire it still hurts. But trying to twist that to claim immunity when its only resisted is the worst example of bending the rules and hurts the game!
The_Jester 05-13-07, 11:36 AM	All I know is, if I ever get access to Blazing Berzerker with the grappler I plan on making soon, I will PRAY for lava floes in every module. "Yeah, I'm pinning the guy, and dragging him in..." And right now there's a guy writing an APL2 mod with a 3rd level Wizard whose lair is under a volcano...
Mithrus 05-13-07, 11:56 AM	All I know is, if I ever get access to Blazing Berzerker with the grappler I plan on making soon, I will PRAY for lava floes in every module. "Yeah, I'm pinning the guy, and dragging him in..." Sure you don't take any fire damage from the lava while you are raging, but here is the interesting part: how well can you SWIM in lava? To compare, fill up a large pool with pudding (heck, i'd use honey but I'd never want to leave), and see if you can swim to the edge after jumping in the middle...just be sure you don't try this alone...
The_Jester 05-13-07, 01:53 PM	Sure you don't take any fire damage from the lava while you are raging, but here is the interesting part: how well can you SWIM in lava? To compare, fill up a large pool with pudding (heck, i'd use honey but I'd never want to leave), and see if you can swim to the edge after jumping in the middle...just be sure you don't try this alone... I would but the last time I brought a case of Jell-O to the local Y they banned me for life.
ShinAkuma2 05-13-07, 11:05 PM	Sure you don't take any fire damage from the lava while you are raging, but here is the interesting part: how well can you SWIM in lava? Good point. I'll have to invest in Swim, then. If you can drown in lava, I'm sure you can swim through it.
Madfox11 05-14-07, 04:27 AM	My position on any clearly defined rule is to follow it and campaign to get it changed officially so everyone can follow a standard set of rules when they set down to play LG. No arguments or surpises. :rofl: I have never played a game of D&D without rules questions (let alone surprises) even when the rules are clear. If only because some people some to remember a rule to be like x, while it happens to be y. I just make sure it doesn't take up more time than a couple of seconds. It has been a long time ago since I got complaints from my players at rules issues, most of the time I get compliments for my rules knowledge and the way I deal with discussions when they do crop up.
MatteBlack 05-14-07, 10:51 AM	I suppose an intelligent caster with knowledge of spellcraft could cast create water around an enemy using that immunity to lava in order to expose them to scalding water.:)
solbergb 05-14-07, 01:50 PM	Good point. I'll have to invest in Swim, then. If you can drown in lava, I'm sure you can swim through it. Just hope nobody casts calm emotions on you halfway across :)
ShinAkuma2 05-14-07, 05:18 PM	Just hope nobody casts calm emotions on you halfway across :) You know, in the years I've been playing this game, I've never actually seen Calm Emotions cast. Now I guess every Wizard will have, not only a lake of lava under the castle, but Calm Emotions to get rid of Blazing Bear-zerker grappling cheese monsters.
solbergb 05-14-07, 09:51 PM	It's a pretty common spell in the APL4-6 games where I play. It takes several folks out of the combat, if their allies aren't smart enough to disrupt the effect (and if the party is smart enough to not target those calmed), it turns raging barbarians into fatigued barbarians and it even mitigates confusion and fear somewhat. It also is one of those L2 spells common in that APL range that let a spellcaster contribute for multiple rounds with only one slot burned. I know we aren't the only people using the spell, as I've seen it used a fair amount when I travel and by natives of other regions visiting my conventions. After APL6, the low save DC tends to make it drop out of spell selections, usually replaced by something like silence, align weapon, lesser restoration or status, which all work fine out of a L2 slot and are either worth a std action or are normally cast out of combat.
bitznarf 05-14-07, 10:16 PM	Of course, if this did happen you would be free to appeal to the Triad or Circle and argue your case that the GM bent the rules and I am sure their response would be entertaining. The Triad has no ability to overturn a GM's calls at the table. Only the Appeals GM and the Circle can do that.
_metz_ 05-15-07, 04:58 AM	I would like to point out that a PCs gear isn't immune to lava... So anyone at my table who tries to be a smart ass and swim in Lava is going to come out Naked... I don't care how magical you item is, it has to make a save... ITS FREAKING LAVA. Take that rules lawyers who deliberately subvert the intent of rules and common sense to benefit your characters. I wish I could find you and write a mod with creatures with a swim speed, give them some minor resistance to fire trinket, and have them come out of Lava and kill your characters. I think that would be fun.
Timlagor 05-15-07, 07:59 AM	Attended items don't take damage unless you roll a natural 1 on a save or they are specifically targetted -you have to kill the player first. I have seen Calm Emotions cast a fair amount (and used it myself). It is very useful but it's very important to cast it only on the enemy so that they have to attack each other to break it (if they can even work out how to do so). You want to include as many as possible so that at least some will fail the save. Calm Emotions suppresses Rage: it does not actually end it. This is a useful effect (especially if the Barbarian goes down from the Con loss) but does not make the Barbarian Fatigued (which happens when Rage ends).
Mithreinmaethor 05-15-07, 08:32 AM	Attended items don't take damage unless you roll a natural 1 on a save or they are specifically targetted -you have to kill the player first. I have seen Calm Emotions cast a fair amount (and used it myself). It is very useful but it's very important to cast it only on the enemy so that they have to attack each other to break it (if they can even work out how to do so). You want to include as many as possible so that at least some will fail the save. Calm Emotions suppresses Rage: it does not actually end it. This is a useful effect (especially if the Barbarian goes down from the Con loss) but does not make the Barbarian Fatigued (which happens when Rage ends). Being immersed in lava is exposing and targeting all items to attack. Since it would be an area affect and continual effect that targets everything in its space.
Madfox11 05-15-07, 08:41 AM	After APL6, the low save DC tends to make it drop out of spell selections, usually replaced by something like silence, align weapon, lesser restoration or status, which all work fine out of a L2 slot and are either worth a std action or are normally cast out of combat. You might want to reread the spell. SRD: "This spell automatically *suppresses* (but does not dispel) any morale bonuses granted by *spells* such as bless, good hope, and rage, as well as *negating* a bard’s ability to inspire courage or a *barbarian’s rage* ability. It also *suppresses* any fear effects and *removes* the confused condition from all targets." It than explains what suppress does, but it actually negates barbarian rage and removes the confused condition - which in my book is permanently ends it. You could argue about the rage ability, but definitely not about the confusion. Removing the confused condition all in itself is worth remembering it at APL 6+. Confusion effects are about the single most irritating and incredibly deadly effect you can get at higher APLs.
KarmaInferno 05-15-07, 12:19 PM	Being immersed in lava is exposing and targeting all items to attack. Since it would be an area affect and continual effect that targets everything in its space. So you are claiming that if I cast Wall of Fire in your area, every item you have must save every round you are in the wall? That isn't supported by the rules. AoE effects are not targeted. Targeted means you single out a thing and hit only that thing. -karma
_metz_ 05-15-07, 12:43 PM	OK now you are really taking it a bit too far, you are arguing that if you have equipment, and jump into lava - as long as you are immune it is fine? Thats an absolute joke, it really is. If you have DMs that allow that without fireproof equipment then you are either bending the rules to a ridiculous level or trying to make the game as soulless and rules based (not 'realistic' or 'logical)' as possible. I have some limited experience with geology, (Father is a Professor of it and made it an amateur interest of mine) and I would like to toss you in some lava and you tell me if it doesn't attack you and your equipment every 6 seconds. Regardless if you grew up in the desert. I as _GM_ would rule that it is effectively targeting your equipment, just like items in an ooze. If you had issue with that you could take it up with Triad. Explain how you wanted to show off by swimming in lava, and that the GM melted your equipment. See their response.
KarmaInferno 05-15-07, 01:26 PM	That's the thing. In LG, you are NOT the GM. You are a Judge. You have no authority to create new rules or alter existing rules. You can correct for ambiguous rules or grey areas, but not if something is simply in your opinion wrong. If you want it changed, try and get it changed via the FAQ or something. To arbitrarily alter the rules on your own is a violation of the judging guidelines. -karma
bitznarf 05-15-07, 01:30 PM	That's the thing. In LG, you are NOT the GM. You are a Judge. This is entirely incorrect. The LGCS language changed this time around, you are indeed the GM. Britt has even acknowledged this change as entirely intentional and beneficial overall.
KarmaInferno 05-15-07, 01:33 PM	So if I simply think a rule is wrong, any rule, I can now change it to my heart's content? We have a system of guidelines to try and ensure consistant application of the rules and to minimize table variation. Telling me that a judge can disregard a rule that's in black and white, even if it's a silly rule, just doesn't sound right. -karma
King Kashue 05-15-07, 01:41 PM	OK now you are really taking it a bit too far, you are arguing that if you have equipment, and jump into lava - as long as you are immune it is fine? Thats an absolute joke, it really is. If you have DMs that allow that without fireproof equipment then you are either bending the rules to a ridiculous level or trying to make the game as soulless and rules based (not 'realistic' or 'logical)' as possible. I have some limited experience with geology, (Father is a Professor of it and made it an amateur interest of mine) and I would like to toss you in some lava and you tell me if it doesn't attack you and your equipment every 6 seconds. Regardless if you grew up in the desert. I as _GM_ would rule that it is effectively targeting your equipment, just like items in an ooze. If you had issue with that you could take it up with Triad. Explain how you wanted to show off by swimming in lava, and that the GM melted your equipment. See their response. Except as Karma pointed out, that's explicitly not how the rules work. Just as fire immunity protects all your items from a maximized empowered fireball, it would protect it from lava. Again, what someone feels is "realistic" as the DM cannot override the explicit rules.
KarmaInferno 05-15-07, 02:01 PM	All of this said, however... I would not build a character with the expectation of being able to use this rules oddity indefinitely. Chances are, it will be errata'd or FAQed in the future, bringing this rules exception back in line. -karma
copper_wyrmling 05-15-07, 11:38 PM	OK now you are really taking it a bit too far, you are arguing that if you have equipment, and jump into lava - as long as you are immune it is fine? Thats an absolute joke, it really is. If you have DMs that allow that without fireproof equipment then you are either bending the rules to a ridiculous level or trying to make the game as soulless and rules based (not 'realistic' or 'logical)' as possible. I have some limited experience with geology, (Father is a Professor of it and made it an amateur interest of mine) and I would like to toss you in some lava and you tell me if it doesn't attack you and your equipment every 6 seconds. Regardless if you grew up in the desert. I as _GM_ would rule that it is effectively targeting your equipment, just like items in an ooze. If you had issue with that you could take it up with Triad. Explain how you wanted to show off by swimming in lava, and that the GM melted your equipment. See their response. Note that most (all?) spells that give resistance or immunity to energy also explicitly protect your equipment. Incidentally, if someone had fire immunity as a personal trait (i.e. not something that explicitly protected their equipment as well) then if I remembered, I would ask them to roll a save versus fire-damage effects just to see if they got a nat 1, in which case their equipment could indeed take damage from that maximized empowered fireball. I don't remember reading anywhere that fire immunity generically also protects your equipment from fire damage.
_metz_ 05-15-07, 11:44 PM	Note that most (all?) spells that give resistance or immunity to energy also explicitly protect your equipment. That's fine by me. Its jumping in with stuff that isn't immune and claiming that because the lava isn't sentient and attacking it that you don't take any damage to said items that I take offense to. You can have your rule fudge on immunity to Lava, it says clearly -typo- that you get it, but I will think less of you as a person if you do claim that. Its just simple. I am not judging you for being optimal, not judging you for trying to protect your character, I am judging you for clearly using a Typo to your advantage to create an unrealistic and stupid advantage over something that is supposed to be clearly dangerous. And if anyone argues that all that matters are the rules then stop playing a role play game. It was never supposed to be about that, it was supposed to be characters working within the campaign and adventuring, not finding loopholes to exploit and give other players/GMs trouble. I vote all Mod writers make their lava awakened (or something similar that can be applied to lava) so that said rules lawyer people get clobbered when they try to wrought the system.
copper_wyrmling 05-15-07, 11:45 PM	You might want to reread the spell. SRD: "This spell automatically *suppresses* (but does not dispel) any morale bonuses granted by *spells* such as bless, good hope, and rage, as well as *negating* a bard’s ability to inspire courage or a *barbarian’s rage* ability. It also *suppresses* any fear effects and *removes* the confused condition from all targets." It than explains what suppress does, but it actually negates barbarian rage and removes the confused condition - which in my book is permanently ends it. You could argue about the rage ability, but definitely not about the confusion. Removing the confused condition all in itself is worth remembering it at APL 6+. Confusion effects are about the single most irritating and incredibly deadly effect you can get at higher APLs. I keep it on a scroll for that, with both my cleric and my UMD-sorcerer (my cleric has a monstrous Will save and the sorc is immune to confusion, so it's a pretty good bet that they'll still be capable of using the scroll). It's rarely useful, but when it is, you NEED it, and the save DC and CL don't matter in that case. It seems like almost a perfect scroll spell if you're primarily using it to remove confusion (my cleric tends to rack stuff like brambles, healing lorecall, silence, resist energy, close wounds in her L2 slots).
King Kashue 05-15-07, 11:55 PM	I don't remember reading anywhere that fire immunity generically also protects your equipment from fire damage. So if you fireball a Balor, and he rolls a 1, you can damage his items? :confused:
copper_wyrmling 05-16-07, 12:25 AM	So if you fireball a Balor, and he rolls a 1, you can damage his items? :confused: I guess so (unless someone can find me a rule stating, or even implying, that being immune to an element means your items are also immune). It doesn't seem that absurd that a balor can use items that aren't immune to fire despite being "wreathed in flame": a balor's flaming body damage only applies to creatures that they're grappling, it doesn't do damage when you hit a balor with an unarmed attack, and it doesn't damage a weapon used to strike a balor (unlike, for example, the remorhaz's heat ability - I would have issues with a remorhaz wearing ordinary cloaks or amulets). In practice, though, I am very unlikely to remember this in-game, and it's a pretty unlikely situation in the first place. Thus, for most purposes you can assume personal immunity = immunity for attended items. I don't think it's a big deal. EDIT: On a quick scan through the MM... Azers are described as radiating flame, and use weapons, but it's only 1 point of fire damage on a successful hit, so would be ignored by any hardness. Babaus have protective slime: I can imagine that causing problems for them when using weapons or other equipment. Maybe I'm wrong as to the designers' intent though: the efreeti picture in the MM has a sword, although the statblock doesn't include one, and it seems weird that the efreet wouldn't be able to walk around their home plane with weapons. (Otoh, you could also just assume that any weapon forged on the plane of fire has special protections against heat built in: the efreet have to put them down sometimes, after all.)
clannagh 05-16-07, 12:35 AM	I guess so (unless someone can find me a rule stating, or even implying, that being immune to an element means your items are also immune). It doesn't seem that absurd that a balor can use items that aren't immune to fire despite being "wreathed in flame": a balor's flaming body damage only applies to creatures that they're grappling, it doesn't do damage when you hit a balor with an unarmed attack, and it doesn't damage a weapon used to strike a balor (unlike, for example, the remorhaz's heat ability - I would have issues with a remorhaz wearing ordinary cloaks or amulets). In practice, though, I am very unlikely to remember this in-game, and it's a pretty unlikely situation in the first place. I don't think it's a big deal. Naturally the vorpal sword will get its own save which will be a minimum of +11 for being vorpal (18th level caster).
Timlagor 05-17-07, 02:39 AM	You might want to reread the spell. SRD: "This spell automatically *suppresses* (but does not dispel) any morale bonuses granted by *spells* such as bless, good hope, and rage, as well as *negating* a bard’s ability to inspire courage or a *barbarian’s rage* ability. It also *suppresses* any fear effects and *removes* the confused condition from all targets." It than explains what suppress does, but it actually negates barbarian rage and removes the confused condition - which in my book is permanently ends it. You could argue about the rage ability, but definitely not about the confusion. Removing the confused condition all in itself is worth remembering it at APL 6+. Confusion effects are about the single most irritating and incredibly deadly effect you can get at higher APLs. Ok I should have checked more carefully. Negating Rage would imo also cancel the Fatigue effect of it running out.
Timlagor 05-17-07, 02:40 AM	OK now you are really taking it a bit too far, you are arguing that if you have equipment, and jump into lava - as long as you are immune it is fine? Thats an absolute joke, it really is. If you have DMs that allow that without fireproof equipment then you are either bending the rules to a ridiculous level or trying to make the game as soulless and rules based (not 'realistic' or 'logical)' as possible. I'm sorry you don't like it but the rules are very clear that your items don't take damage from area effects unless you roll a natural 1 on your save. ..but I'm pretty sure Lava doesn't have a save so you might have a point there...
clannagh 05-17-07, 03:15 AM	I'm sorry you don't like it but the rules are very clear that your items don't take damage from area effects unless you roll a natural 1 on your save. ..but I'm pretty sure Lava doesn't have a save so you might have a point there... By the same token if you are immune you never take a save so can never fail a save so your equipment is also immune. I am not sure if anyone in this thread is going as far as saying a fire immune creature has to strip off and drop its weapons before entering lava but things like immunity to fire in game terms become quite pointless if they only effect you and not your gear. " Ok then Mr Huge Fire Elemental .... I have this neat feat that makes me immune to fire so just hang on while I strip down stark naked and drop my great axe and then we can start fighting" if thats the case who on earth would bother with feats like blazing berserker?
_metz_ 05-17-07, 03:54 AM	OK but by that token - I take Heat endurance and from now on my equipment is immune to fire and I can swim in Lava. Its a bit ridiculous, Downright unrealistic, and exploitative of the rules set. Axes are fine against Fire elementals - they Don't do 20d6 fire damage on contact a round. AND ACTUALLY: Saves happen BEFORE immunities and resistance are taken into affect. (e.g: cloak of elemental protection) So you would have to make a reflex save - take 20 fire damage and then say - oh, I am immune. You don't get to avoid having to take the save at all. Where are you sourcing that from?
Timlagor 05-17-07, 05:03 AM	Immunity to Lava from any amount of Fire Resistance is a specific case because they made what was probably a typo. That seems to be the sole basis of the repeated use of terms like "ridiculous". I can see how you might not want to allow someone with Fire Immunity to wade through lava without their equipment being damaged but I have no problem with it. (I also haven't double checked on the equipment not being subject to damage from things that don't require a save)
Haro 05-17-07, 07:31 AM	Metz, just relax man... Why is it that every time I read one of your posts, I get a visual of you waving your arms around like a madman? Chill out, take an anti-hyperbole pill. It's going to be ok... :)
_metz_ 05-17-07, 09:20 AM	Its what I do lol. When people single me out and criticize what I said - they just need to have good arguments is all. It doesn't help that I am always posting on these boards when writing up articles/papers/doing some annoying report lol. I would like to say that I am not saying that fire immunity means that you have to have all your items immune for it to mean anything, but what I am saying is I don't like the idea of immersing yourself voluntarily in Lava and expecting that your bag of holding and your potions on your belt will be all fine. I know several players with fire resistance who have noticed this ruling and have all sat down and agreed at our local gaming area that it means they will only ask for a reduction in damage if ever immersed in Lava, and I respect that decision. I don't like it when players deliberately exploit a typo, and then claim that said exploited typo makes their equipment immune as well. (Not accusing anyone specifically of this, just saying that if it came up in a game I was GMing I would have their equipment make saves if I felt the player was just using the rule set to their advantage via a typo, and I don't see how I would not be at liberty to do so -we are now GMs- . I got annoyed as I was attacked for this viewpoint :)) By the same token I often cut players a lot of slack, especially if they are dying just because I have rolled well or because of circumstances beyond their control - but exploitation goes against the spirit of the game imho. *Waves arms dramatically*
King Kashue 05-18-07, 02:42 AM	I know several players with fire immunity who have noticed this ruling and have all sat down and agreed at our local gaming area that it means they will only ask for a reduction in damage if ever immersed in Lava, and I respect that decision. I don't like it when players deliberately exploit a typo, and then claim that said exploited typo makes their equipment immune as well. Is that a typo? People who are immune to fire, but don't think they should be immune to Lava? :confused: Did you mean "several players with fire resistance"?
JamesMaissen 05-18-07, 03:58 AM	* Why would fire resistance 1 protect you fully against magma, but not against even ordinary heat damage you get by walking through the desert on the hottest time of the day? The problem with requiring reasonings for everything is that sometimes your reasoning will be colored or even absent. It's a game that's simply best not to play. For example, in 3.5 energy resistance applies to each attack. Perhaps immersion damage from lava is representing multiple applications of this resistance? After all, what's normal lava damage? It's not all that much.. it's immersion that's the real large value. Energy resistance is a strange thing, especially in 3.5 as it is highly dependent on the number of attacks involved. A person getting hit by an 8HD fireball rather than a pair of scorching rays doesn't tell the difference, but give them resistance to fire and one of the attacks is far far less effective. Is that, then, an error in the rules? It's a slippery slope, and one that's best not to fall for unless you are forced into it. There's enough in this game that is ambiguous, don't add clearly written text into the mix unless the world ends otherwise. That the clear text isn't what we'd like it to be isn't that good of a reason for disregarding it. -James
_metz_ 05-18-07, 06:30 AM	Is that a typo? People who are immune to fire, but don't think they should be immune to Lava? :confused: Did you mean "several players with fire resistance"? Yeah thats what I meant
MatteBlack 05-18-07, 11:37 AM	The problem with requiring reasonings for everything is that sometimes your reasoning will be colored or even absent. It's a game that's simply best not to play. For example, in 3.5 energy resistance applies to each attack. Perhaps immersion damage from lava is representing multiple applications of this resistance? After all, what's normal lava damage? It's not all that much.. it's immersion that's the real large value. Energy resistance is a strange thing, especially in 3.5 as it is highly dependent on the number of attacks involved. A person getting hit by an 8HD fireball rather than a pair of scorching rays doesn't tell the difference, but give them resistance to fire and one of the attacks is far far less effective. Is that, then, an error in the rules? It's a slippery slope, and one that's best not to fall for unless you are forced into it. There's enough in this game that is ambiguous, don't add clearly written text into the mix unless the world ends otherwise. That the clear text isn't what we'd like it to be isn't that good of a reason for disregarding it. -James My issue with interjecting DM rulings on potentially bad yet, clear rules is the very same slippery slope. Alot of the time whether the rule makes sense can be very subjective and up to a lot of debate. If the rule works well enough, why bother entering into that debate and bogging things down and opening up potentially bad feelings (especially, if after an action is declared). Immersion gets broken much easier by rules debates than by world mechanic irregularities that basically can be chalked up to some sort of special magical effect. I have alot more respect for a DM who mentions his likely rulings against what the rules state ahead of time and who counters a player who thinks he is being smart by abusing a "bad" rule with a smarter play. I want to know ahead of time when the game world changes and I'd be much happier with a crafty Wizard who was using lava as an obstacle creating scalding water on top of the lava than I would discussing physics, current rulings from arcane sources and the spirit of the rules amongst people who may not have a full and true grasp of either.
Rerednaw 05-18-07, 12:01 PM	A lot of discussion over an issue that is probably moot: I've never seen lava in any RPGA mod. No need to make controversial rulings when anything that does 20d6 damage is relegated to EL 16 and higher encounters. Um...seen it in EL7. Active.
King Kashue 05-18-07, 07:07 PM	No need to make controversial rulings when anything that does 20d6 damage is relegated to EL 16 and higher encounters. Um...seen it in EL7. Active. And you can regularly see it in EL 11 encounters. 11th Level Wizard. Disintegrate does 22d6. Transmuter specialist and he can do it two consecutive rounds.
Japangirl 05-18-07, 10:21 PM	Falling down the Rift Canyon is 20d6 per bounce, and I'm pretty sure there are three or four bounces on the way down. You can go adventure there at APL 2 . . .
ShinAkuma2 05-18-07, 10:25 PM	Falling down the Rift Canyon is 20d6 per bounce, and I'm pretty sure there are three or four bounces on the way down. You can go adventure there at APL 2 . . . Roll Tumble checks to avoid damage to the individual chunks as they fall!
Japangirl 05-18-07, 10:29 PM	Roll Tumble checks to avoid damage to the individual chunks as they fall! So 19d6 instead of 20d6 per bounce? That sounds . . . just as deadly, to be quite honest lol.
ShinAkuma2 05-19-07, 08:41 AM	So 19d6 instead of 20d6 per bounce? That sounds . . . just as deadly, to be quite honest lol. They could be epic chunks of a 1st lvl PC.... -1d6 per 15 on the roll.
King Kashue 05-19-07, 01:41 PM	They could be epic chunks of a 1st lvl PC.... -1d6 per 15 on the roll. 1d6 is indeed a decent portion of a 1st level PC's hit points, but that's kind of the point... ;) 20d6 per bounce, minimum of three bounces, so 60d6. Reducing that to 57d6 with three successful tumble checks? Not likely to save the PC with 10 hit points :D
Timlagor 05-20-07, 06:48 AM	Why 3 20d6 bounces instead of 60 1d6 bounces or one straight fall? Looks like a very artificial canyon to me ...is there some complicated mechanic for determining how many times you hit?
copper_wyrmling 05-20-07, 02:23 PM	Looks like a very artificial canyon to me ...is there some complicated mechanic for determining how many times you hit? There wasn't in the Rift Canyon mod that I played - it was just three bounces. The GM was looking rather alarmed when my sorcerer wanted to jump off and featherfall down, and everyone but the last PC failed their DC 5 Wisdom checks to realize what a very bad idea that would be - finally someone pointed out the gusting winds and jagged edges of the canyon, and Azrien sighed and agreed that maybe we should fly out away from the edges before going down.
King Kashue 05-20-07, 02:41 PM	Looks like a very artificial canyon to me... The mechanic in a game used to describe a natural phenomenon appears "artificial"... I am shocked...
Madfox11 05-21-07, 09:23 AM	If I remember correctly there are some other good reasons not to go jumping into the Rift Canyon besides hitting the bottom hard. Isn't that the canyon with Kyuss as the bottom (if it has a bottom for that matter)? Of course, discussing the falling rules is bound to cause a lot of aggrevation. Falling and hit points do not mix very well... as if: the amount of damage you get from falling does not keep up with the amount of hp a character has.
MatteBlack 05-21-07, 11:22 AM	If I remember correctly there are some other good reasons not to go jumping into the Rift Canyon besides hitting the bottom hard. Isn't that the canyon with Kyuss as the bottom (if it has a bottom for that matter)? Of course, discussing the falling rules is bound to cause a lot of aggrevation. Falling and hit points do not mix very well... as if: the amount of damage you get from falling does not keep up with the amount of hp a character has. It does if you are a wizard :)
ShinAkuma2 05-21-07, 12:41 PM	Reducing that to 57d6 with three successful tumble checks? Not likely to save the PC with 10 hit points :D You're completely missing the point of my post. They're chunks of a PC. I figure that if a person falls 200+ ft, his body will splatter. Anything falling after that will be chunks of a person, viscera, bones, etc.
MatteBlack 05-21-07, 01:00 PM	I figure that if a person falls 200+ ft, his body will splatter. Anything falling after that will be chunks of a person, viscera, bones, etc. This is a good example of where the rules depart from real world physics but, we follow the written rule.
King Kashue 05-21-07, 02:29 PM	You're completely missing the point of my post. They're chunks of a PC. I figure that if a person falls 200+ ft, his body will splatter. Anything falling after that will be chunks of a person, viscera, bones, etc. Ah... Your humor must have been...too subtle...for me to grasp...
The_Jester 05-22-07, 11:45 AM	Chances are, it will be errata'd or FAQed in the future, bringing this rules exception back in line. Except that the last issued errata was for Monster Manual 3 back in June of '06. It's been 11 months and likely 20-odd new products in addition to any clarifications of old that have never seen an errata. I wouldn't count on any official ruling. The best might be Sage Advice which is debatable in its legality in LG.
Timlagor 05-22-07, 01:01 PM	Apparently they are working on producing new Errata documents again.
ShinAkuma2 05-22-07, 08:25 PM	Ah... Your humor must have been...too subtle...for me to grasp... Sorry, but my every post was concerning "chunks" of someone after falling a great distance. I thought that should be self-explanatory.
The_Jester 05-23-07, 09:11 PM	Apparently they are working on producing new Errata documents again. Probably for a Revised 3.5 set of books. ;)