Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gold Medal Jedi 05-04-06, 11:19 PM	Ok so the following is a transcript VIA IM with a friend of mine... Click the link first to the comic and then read on and tell me that im wrong for thinking it was wrong for the player to try the tactic he did? spawnofloki2000: Hey, found a comic that you might find a bit amusing, being a long time DM and all spawnofloki2000: http://www.sundayat10.com/index.php?num=118 coranthulle: awesome coranthulle: would work perfectly coranthulle: except for all the munching damage a dragon does when it chews spawnofloki2000: Well, remember the teleport in part spawnofloki2000: And a greater teleport (formerly teleport without error) would let you teleport into it coranthulle: yeah... and the intense heat inside a stomach ? spawnofloki2000: Well, whether there was immense heat would no doubt depend on what kind of dragon, no? coranthulle: sure and the other types of damage wouldnt be nearly as lethal? spawnofloki2000: White or Silver? Nyet. Red or Gold? I agree. Not that heat damage is listed at all coranthulle: gotta make assumptions spawnofloki2000: Or any other damage appropriate to the dragon's breath weapon spawnofloki2000: And considering it does list the damage for being crushed and burned by the stomach acid? spawnofloki2000: I'd think it would make mention coranthulle: i in my infinite wisdom and sagasious powers of deduction would surmise that no one, absolutley no one could survive a trip into the belly of such a beast spawnofloki2000: Eh, he did say buffing himself, which when you consider how fiendish he'd have to be to come up with the plan in the first place, undoubtedly included stoneskin and a protection from elements spell of an appropriate type spawnofloki2000: Which I would say is also a fair assumption coranthulle: hmm ok then as an addendum to the powers of a dragon, i would list that the very stomach of a dragon would include a null magic zone spawnofloki2000: Okay then, that'd be a house rule (obviously) which would lead to the death of a character who came up with a briliant plan spawnofloki2000: Meaning all that the players have learned is anyone who acts like they've got two brain cells to rub together will get killed of by the DM coranthulle: OR... they would learn that anyone that wishes to munchinize the rules as written will pay the price with an untimely death spawnofloki2000: Well, depends on how you define munchinize. spawnofloki2000: No rules were broken, or even circumvented. coranthulle: anyone that exploits less than obvious oversights of rules and circumnavigates the story and plot with a more than ludicrous application of those very oversights. spawnofloki2000: On the other hand, your ruling would not only defy common sense (dragons do kinda require magic to exist in the D&D interpretation), but be fairly hostile to the players spawnofloki2000: It's not an oversight of the rules, more a new way to use an existing item, and shoring up it's weaknesses so it works spawnofloki2000: Granted, the dm had poor planning if he knew the player was like this, he should have made it impossible to custom design magic items. Problem removed. coranthulle: not really. think about it like this... in such a vortex of acid, pressure and what ever it is that makes dragons breathe what ever they breath their very nature of magicness could infact create a vaccuum of magic at their core spawnofloki2000: It could, provided that was the entire assumption. spawnofloki2000: But that reiterates something I feel would be hostile to the players coranthulle: Hostile or conviently left out spawnofloki2000: Given that the only way to escape, normally, after a dragon swallows you, is to either teleport or cut your way out with a small piercing weapon coranthulle: sometimes when a person bends the rules into their favor a DM must bend back spawnofloki2000: Which, if it's nonmagical, is not going to nearly do enough damage. spawnofloki2000: Bravo, you've given the dragon an almost garaunteed death ability coranthulle: Tell me magic or no, do you honestly think a person should be able to survive being eaten by a dragon? (snip) coranthulle: I find it much more interesting watching the players track the dragon for its droppings in order to have him resurrected spawnofloki2000: But are the players going to be interested in that? coranthulle: Hmmm... i guess thats where we must differ then... My feeling is that if you get close enough to a dragon without being EXTREMELY WELL PREPARED, let me repeat that EXTREMELY WELL PREPARED, then you get what you ask for. spawnofloki2000: If they're not, you're just being an *******, which I define as any time (snip) coranthulle: all im saying is with something like this its obvious that the intent of the immovable rod and teleport functions were never intended to be used in such a manner. spawnofloki2000: Now, killing the player, I would consider being a very poor loser. Because you're saying that because the player was smart, and figured out a way to gain a very strong advantage purely by the rules as presented, he's cheating. So you change the pre-agreed upon rules, and kill the players character because you were tired of him being uppity. spawnofloki2000: Instead, use the game to force consequences onto the player. The dragon dies and comes back as a ghost, one who happens to be able to cast Mordenkainen's Disjunction to remove all the fancy magic items. Or any number of other plotlines. If the player can derail the entire adventure in six minutes, then it was a very shallow adventure indeed. coranthulle: Ok now consider this... IF and thats a big IF, you allow that said player could survive one round in the stomach that round would have to be spent teleporting back out. And not the round necessary to activate the item. So you have accomplished little unless you somehow survive at least 2 rounds in the belly of the beast coranthulle: And i absolutley would not consider anything more than one round survivable inside spawnofloki2000: Activating magic item: Move action. Casting Greater teleport: Standard action. spawnofloki2000: Equals a full round. coranthulle: some items require a full round and this certainly would be one spawnofloki2000: And this is not counting the possibility of the spell being quickened spawnofloki2000: And why should it be so suddenly difficult to survive in the belly of a dragon, a departure from the written rules? coranthulle: look you know and i know this is absolute abuse of the rules... there is no need to argue about it and if a player feels he has to abuse the rules then i feel as DM it my responsibility to punish that abuse spawnofloki2000: It's a USE of the rules coranthulle: abuse spawnofloki2000: he's merely making the dragon immobile, not killing it coranthulle: no one is meant to survive being eaten by a dragon spawnofloki2000: For the purposes of the adventure, he succeeded admirably spawnofloki2000: And if no one was meant to survive being eaten, the rules would say so coranthulle: he succeeded only at showing how incredibly easy it is to stop and more than likely kill a dragon with little to no effort. spawnofloki2000: But with an incredible amount of thought and preparation coranthulle: If you insist that im wrong then i counter with, you would receive the amount of experience dictated by the amount of effort coranthulle: dont get me wrong i applaude the ingenuity... but all this player has succeeded in doing is nerfing dragons to nothing spawnofloki2000: And he'd get the full xp for solving the plot, helping the villagers coranthulle: yes... but only mere fraction of the XP for the dragon spawnofloki2000: And in the DMG it even says players should get FULL exp for running away from a monster successfully coranthulle: if the monster was meant to be ran from spawnofloki2000: And he basically immobilized the dragon, saving his party from dying spawnofloki2000: And the monster would still kill the party if they tangled with it coranthulle: i mean a 10th level fighter shouldnt get full XP for running from a goblin spawnofloki2000: Well, sure, but it's going to be no experience anyway spawnofloki2000: Because he wouldn''t get a single point for killing it spawnofloki2000: No risk coranthulle: Also there is one thing that it seems is missing as well... you would most definitely have to win initiative spawnofloki2000: No. Surprise round. coranthulle: you know what i meant by the comparison coranthulle: suprise how? coranthulle: your facing off with the dragon spawnofloki2000: Unless you have a way for the dragon to prepare for this exact possibility, it's gonna be pretty surprised this sort of thing happened spawnofloki2000: And he never faced the dragon coranthulle: more than likely he can smell you coming from a mile off spawnofloki2000: And the last place any dragon would expect someone to teleport would be into it's belly, no? spawnofloki2000: And for the record, I agree. But he wouldn't need to be a mile off. He could be fifty. coranthulle: yes but you still have to have line of sight unless its greater teleport and then thats such a high level spell to have more than one would mean he is of sufficient level to abolish the dragon with much more mundane mean spawnofloki2000: Not really, it's a level seven spell coranthulle: Oh and im not so sure a dragon couldnt smell you at fifty either ..LOL spawnofloki2000: And you're still saying he should be penalized for being smart. coranthulle: smart or just plain vindictive coranthulle: OH im not saying the DM was completely flawless here... im just saying the player was blatanly abusing the rules coranthulle: in a very imaginitive and intuitive way coranthulle: Not to mention if a dragon is rendered immobile then it wouldnt take a whole lot of effort to bomb the **** out of him with ballistas and catapults until the dragon is a crispy grease stain coranthulle: CR's are based the inherent danger and effort needed to render ineffectual a creature represents... and since all XP is calculated on a creatures CR then ergo... when a creature is deemed harmless then the CR is indicative spawnofloki2000: Well, provided the players couldn't access greater teleport and immovable rods with acid damage immunity, it still would be a fair encounter spawnofloki2000: Just like a bunch of orcs are a fair encounter even if the pc's kill the entire tribe by dropping a bunch of rocks off a cliff and starting a landslide coranthulle: true, but since rods seem to be available and greater teleport is a common spell, the manuever now becomes a commonality to those of high enough level and wealth... meaning that the CR 20 of a red dragon is not indicative of the true threat it poses spawnofloki2000: And for the record, in my own humble opinion, what you consider to be 'breaking the game' doesn't seem to make it any less fun for the players coranthulle: thats using the environment... spells and aritfacts arent part of the environment.. they are man made. spawnofloki2000: But they aren't going to be common tactics, because how many people are going to think up that tactic? And do you honestly think they're going to share it? coranthulle: absolutley once they see how easy it is to gain massive amounts of wealth by being the ultimate dragon slayers. spawnofloki2000: And this would only be of real benefit if they used it, as was the case, on a dragon that was currently trying to move from place to place spawnofloki2000: If the dragon is in it's lair, it can still cast spells, breathe it's breath weapon, and slaughter anything that comes close coranthulle: they will use the same tactic over and over and eventually someone will spy upon how they did it and then use that very same tactic and viola, dragons just became easy targets with little to fear, and instantly on the endangered list spawnofloki2000: And any dragon that hears of it is going to use an anti-teleport field. Voila. No more use of the tactic coranthulle: Ah but as you stated before 50 miles off coranthulle: suprise round, activate item and port back out 50 miles away spawnofloki2000: Not with the anti-teleport field coranthulle: well if you want to go one step further teleport field can be overcame as well spawnofloki2000: Which, with a dragon's fairly mighty magical abilities, would be slightly costly to make permanent but worth it spawnofloki2000: And you're saying it'll be a magical arms race coranthulle: yes maybe permanent but still overcame by powerful magic coranthulle: pretty much spawnofloki2000: With each side trying to either allow/disallow teleporting to enable the tactic coranthulle: oneupmanship at its best coranthulle: pretty much spawnofloki2000: And do you honestly think that immovable rods arent' going to become neigh impossible to purchase? spawnofloki2000: Supply and demand and all that, and there isn't going to be much of a supply, ever coranthulle: still again with a person of sufficient level and wealth this maneuver just spelled the end of all dragons eventually coranthulle: not to mention all humans would be absolutley ecstatic to hear that they could kill all dragons and end the scourge they represent spawnofloki2000: But this is assuming the players can find the dragons spawnofloki2000: And know where their lair is and all that coranthulle: its like in the 60s with wolves and sharks... they both were brought to the brink of extiction because people thought they would be better off without them... sharks less so .. but there was a massive movement to hunt them to death coranthulle: thats what adventurers do dont they> spawnofloki2000: And I, personally, would say another dragon would use it's immense gold reserves to hire a high level assasin to kill off that guy and anyone who had heard of the idea coranthulle: Oh and dragon lairs arent impossible to find, especially to a well trained and experienced dragon hunter spawnofloki2000: The entire idea behind why the character was successful is that he accomplished the stated objective, i.e. keep the dragon from destroying the village. spawnofloki2000: Which he did spawnofloki2000: I'd award full xp. spawnofloki2000: And probably do the assasins thing spawnofloki2000: Yeah, it is. But here's the other side of the idea. spawnofloki2000: Getting away from pure game balance, to the entire point of calling the points experience, do you think that this was any less of a learning experience for that one specific mage? spawnofloki2000: I'd give him, and him only, the xp. spawnofloki2000: Everyone else gets squat because they just stood by spawnofloki2000: So now they hate that mage, and never want to let him use his ideas because they get gyped out of all the stuff. coranthulle: Hmm good question... it certainly was experience worthy but experience isnt just for thinking its for acting too coranthulle: and since he acted and put forth the least amount of effort to coranthulle: ""technically" fullfill the bargain spawnofloki2000: Least amount? He did all the effort in the party coranthulle: then i would think on it very hard and long spawnofloki2000: And took a fairly large risk spawnofloki2000: What if he failed his concentration check to cast the spell while in the dragon's stomach? spawnofloki2000: He'd probably never get out coranthulle: actually with all the prep... i would say that the risk was minimal coranthulle: and by least effort, i mean that when you face a dragon a certain amount of effort is assumed, and when you perform only a fraction of effort that is required to face a dragon then is it fair to award full bennies to that person
Watchdog_of_Hades 05-04-06, 11:47 PM	Was I supposed to read all that? I mean, I like reading, but...
dok 05-04-06, 11:57 PM	spawnofloki2000: No rules were broken, or even circumvented. Oh really? Teleport belongs to the Conjuration school of magic. A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. You cannot use teleport to teleport inside a creature. You cannot use teleport to appear in mid-air. Not good enough? You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. Teleport, Greater[/i]"] In addition, you need not have seen the destination, but in that case you must have at least a reliable description of the place to which you are teleporting. So even if we ignore the rules regarding Conjuration spells, there's another problem: you'd need to have a clear mental picture or "reliable description" of the inside of a dragon's stomach, as well as knowing the dragon's current location at the time. I'd love to hear how someone could get a "reliable description" of the inside of a dragon's stomach. spawnofloki2000: Given that the only way to escape, normally, after a dragon swallows you, is to either teleport or cut your way out with a small piercing weapon Actually, Dragon's don't Swallow Whole. They don't have that as a special ability. Still not convinced? OK, let's pretend that you can teleport inside creatures and into open air (even though the rules say you can't), and let's further pretend that somehow the PC in question can either see inside the dragon to its stomach (a ring of x-ray vision has a range of 20 ft.) or somehow has an "accurate description" of the dragon's innards. Now let's look at the immovable rod... This rod is a flat iron bar with a small button on one end. When the button is pushed (a move action), the rod does not move from where it is, even if staying in place defies gravity. Any dragon that has a stomach large enough for a Small or Medium creature to teleport into also has an extremely high intelligence, and most dragons have Knowledge: Arcana at 1 rank per HD. Which means they'll know what an immovable rod is, and how it works. And feeling the pressure of the rod on their innards, they can quickly determine it's orientation, and with two move actions (one in either direction) "push" the button with their weight. Even an incredibly dumb creature would struggle & move against the rod, meaning that eventually they would "push" against the button through trial and error. Pretty much anything that isn't Mindless and commanded would experiment with pushing & pulling in different directions and deactivate the rod. Still not done? OK. An immovable rod can support up to 8,000 pounds before falling to the ground. And after it falls to the ground, it's no longer active. (How do we know? Because the rod falls to the ground; it doesn't slowly sink, but drops from being overburdened, evidence that it's "shut off" as a result of being overloaded.) How much do you figure a dragon with a Medium-sized stomach weighs?The only real question is whether it's a move action to shift all your weight onto the Rod, or a Free Action. So in order for this hopeless fantasy to work, we have to a.) Ignore the rules for conjuration spells b.) ignore the rules for teleporation spells c.) ignore the dragon's skills & intelligence d.) ignore the basic behavior of any given animal e.) ignore the rules for the immovable rod Don't get me wrong. It's a funny comic. It's just now how the rules work.
StruckingFuggle 05-05-06, 12:03 AM	I read about the first quarter, and totally disagree with coranthulle ... I'd probably walk out of one of his games within the first session. That was a brilliant tactic, and should be applauded, or at the very least told simply "it won't work". It shouldn't EVER be PUNISHED. Especially because everything they did worked within the rules: nothing was even *bent*. I guess the one thing that would irritate me would be his assumption that he could get such an item without consulting me. Just "okay, I buy this item" ... If he'd said "this is what I want to do..." ... I'd gape at him for a moment and then work with him, and make getting such an item and pulling it off the focus of the session, rather than just snapping my fingers and it's done. Also: Keeping the money is a chaotic evil act, and they wouldn't get the full xp for beating a dragon of that CR. And if it's enough to level three times, not even half. For the post above me: Hm, okay, so you can't teleport inside a creature. I'd imagine you could do it to something with a stomach, perhaps - its meant to prevent telefragging, I don't see a reasonable reason it'd be unreasonable to teleport into a place that will hold you, including a dragon's stomach... And if you say teleport still won't work, tell me a reasonable reason a wizard couldn't research a spell to get it somehow inside the dragon. And: don't know what it looks like? Bah, that's what scrying is for! For weight of the rod: Well, the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook says you can use multiple rods to support the weight of a floating fortress ... so if you set it up so that the dragon's weight (which you can ascertain) is diffused over enough rods ... wham. No problem. And oh: How exactly are they going to deactivate the rod? You could turn it on, cover up the rod, and move it with either an antimagic field, or teleportation ... heh, now if you could somehow trigger an 'instant summons' inside it's stomach ... but I dunno how you'd set that off ... But how does "moving it's weight" turn off the rod? Tell me, could you swallow a cellphone and then dial it while it's in your stomach?
Gold Medal Jedi 05-05-06, 12:18 AM	I read about the first quarter, and totally disagree with coranthulle ... I'd probably walk out of one of his games within the first session. That was a brilliant tactic, and should be applauded, or at the very least told simply "it won't work". It shouldn't EVER be PUNISHED. Especially because everything they did worked within the rules: nothing was even *bent*. I guess the one thing that would irritate me would be his assumption that he could get such an item without consulting me. Just "okay, I buy this item" ... If he'd said "this is what I want to do..." ... I'd gape at him for a moment and then work with him, and make getting such an item and pulling it off the focus of the session, rather than just snapping my fingers and it's done. Also: Keeping the money is a chaotic evil act, and they wouldn't get the full xp for beating a dragon of that CR. And if it's enough to level three times, not even half. For the post above me: Hm, okay, so you can't teleport inside a creature. I'd imagine you could do it to something with a stomach, perhaps - its meant to prevent telefragging, I don't see a reasonable reason it'd be unreasonable to teleport into a place that will hold you, including a dragon's stomach... And if you say teleport still won't work, tell me a reasonable reason a wizard couldn't research a spell to get it somehow inside the dragon. And: don't know what it looks like? Bah, that's what scrying is for! For weight of the rod: Well, the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook says you can use multiple rods to support the weight of a floating fortress ... so if you set it up so that the dragon's weight (which you can ascertain) is diffused over enough rods ... wham. No problem. And oh: How exactly are they going to deactivate the rod? You could turn it on, cover up the rod, and move it with either an antimagic field, or teleportation ... heh, now if you could somehow trigger an 'instant summons' inside it's stomach ... but I dunno how you'd set that off ... But how does "moving it's weight" turn off the rod? Tell me, could you swallow a cellphone and then dial it while it's in your stomach? Not breaking the rules eh?? Refer to post #3 That was my knee jerk reaction to something i felt was obviously wrong but didnt have the books in front of me to support my position.. Assumption is the MutterFicker of all Frag ups.
StruckingFuggle 05-05-06, 03:35 AM	Okay, so as I admitted, it breaks one rule. And only one: the rather silly restriction of not being able to teleport inside of someone ... which I can see to prevent telefragging or "will it fit?" arguments, but ... blarg. Solution: Go ethereal. Go inside the dragon. De-etherealize with the item, turn it on, lock the switch in, and then teleport out without it?
Gold Medal Jedi 05-05-06, 09:23 AM	still got the natural tendacies of a creature and just how much pressure it takes to activate the button.
Illion the Red 05-05-06, 09:57 AM	Aren't most dragons sorcerers? One targeted dispel magic later and the rod is being digested - remember dragons can digest diamonds. A (now nonmagical) rod isn't going to last long.
Derren S. 05-05-06, 11:18 AM	Solution: Go ethereal. Go inside the dragon. De-etherealize with the item, turn it on, lock the switch in, and then teleport out without it? That also wouldn't work. YOu can't reappear in solid objects, and that includes creatures. Read the Etheral Jaunt spell. If people would read rules instead of glossing over them things like this would never happen.
StruckingFuggle 05-05-06, 11:31 AM	Aren't most dragons sorcerers? One targeted dispel magic later and the rod is being digested - remember dragons can digest diamonds. A (now nonmagical) rod isn't going to last long. Hah! For once the rules are in favor of this: you don't have LoE to inside you, so you can't target it. And like with Teleport: If EJ itself doesn't work, research a spell that does.
Illion the Red 05-05-06, 11:34 AM	Hah! For once the rules are in favor of this: you don't have LoE to inside you, so you can't target it. And like with Teleport: If EJ itself doesn't work, research a spell that does. I thought you always had line of effect to anything you could touch. I don't have my books with me, so I can't research that one. Anyone have the relevant pages available?
Maraxus 05-05-06, 11:48 AM	dok: Well, Point C and D: If you arange some rods with the buttons showing inwards (as on the picture), it could not push them out. However, for a large dragon, I would say, that it can move about a 5ft diameter object up it's throat, so he better takes at least 6 immovable rod's arranged like a cube - At least 3 rounds, and in that rounds, you can expect the dragon to shake, cast spells (hey, suddenly saying that dragons have anti-magic fields in their bellies is horrible dming (he deserves to be eaten by a dragon for this) - but saying that the very old (or older) red dragon did take anti-magic field as his first or second sorcerer spell is reasonable - it's one of the best 6th level spells and probably the best one, if you are a dragon. About E: No, I don't think, it deactivates. It just follows gravity. When you put 8001 pounds on a rod holding only 8000 pounds it falls as fast as a 1 pound item. However, especially point A still stands. Plus the fact, that you don't get custom magic items like that. StruckingFuggle: About etheralness: I still think, a stomach has no empty space in it. As long, as it holds no creature, there should be no more space then for a creature ... at least 3 size categories smaller. Only when it eats something, the stomach get's that big. But anyway, I would probably refer to the rule "If you end the spell and become material while inside a material object (such as a solid wall), you are shunted off to the nearest open space and (...)." in any case. Still, a bit still stays: If you find a creature with swallow whole and if you get yourself the rights defences (against bludgeoning and acid), and if you fufill whatever the dm wants for special immovable rods, then you can go for the trick. But as said, the dm knows this rods, he has approved them (maybe delaying it a bit with ("Yes, you need a copy of 'Thesis Arcana Vol 26' to make that custom rod"). So it should not ruin the story. I will definitly have two to six of this rods, and a Cape of the Mountebank when we get to the higher levels.
Keenath 05-05-06, 12:16 PM	Your stomach isn't a big, empty bubble like people seem to think. It's like a balloon -- small and flat while empty, balooning out to contain your lunch. Whether before a meal or after, a stomach simply has no empty space to teleport or etherealize into. If you do get some gas-space in there, you burp. However, assume we can get the dragon to swallow this structure, activate it, and, say, unfold it so that it can't be coughed up. Next issue: Rods. Either the dragon has enough weight/strength to shut down the rod by overcoming its limit, or it doesn't. If there's not enough weight, he's effectively pinned in place. If he does, he's only inconvenienced for a few turns while he wrenches the rod loose, shutting it off in the process. Assume the dragon isn't heavy enough to get the rod loose. Whatever structure you attached to the rod to keep it in his stomach (assuming you're doing SOMETHING to keep him from just backing off the rod and letting it go up his throat) is probably not magical, and thus can melt down in his intensely acidic belly. If you do something to try to make sure it can't, such as enchanting the support structure, there's probably still a break DC to something so spidery-looking. Whatever. It won't work anyway, because you'd need to convince a dragon to eat something weird.
Balor von Balorvitch 05-05-06, 12:16 PM	That also wouldn't work. YOu can't reappear in solid objects, and that includes creatures. Read the Etheral Jaunt spell. If people would read rules instead of glossing over them things like this would never happen. If you can make it into the gut then there is most likely enough space for you to reappear without touching anything solid. Oh and can't the dragon cast teleport or ethreal juant himself?
StruckingFuggle 05-05-06, 02:47 PM	Hm ... you could always Shrink Item it, and get the dragon to swallow it ... oh oh oh! Shrink it! Put it in a ... cow! Throw the mouse at the dragon, and watch it consume the cow, and then wham, when it deactivates ...
Balor von Balorvitch 05-05-06, 03:08 PM	Hm ... you could always Shrink Item it, and get the dragon to swallow it ... oh oh oh! Shrink it! Put it in a ... cow! Throw the mouse at the dragon, and watch it consume the cow, and then wham, when it deactivates ... Seriously if i threw a steak at you would your frist instinct to catch it and eat it?
Jaeron Dalur 05-05-06, 04:30 PM	Seriously if i threw a steak at you would your frist instinct to catch it and eat it? Well the plot of the encounter *was* that they were giving tribute so...
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 05-05-06, 05:03 PM	About E: No, I don't think, it deactivates. It just follows gravity. When you put 8001 pounds on a rod holding only 8000 pounds it falls as fast as a 1 pound item. Weight does not affect speed of falling.
Maraxus 05-05-06, 05:25 PM	Weight does not affect speed of falling. Exactly, falling speed (or better: acceleration) is 9,80665 m/sē. dok said, that the fact, that the rods falls to the ground and not slowly sinks (when you load more then the maximum) is one argument, that it just shuts of, I said, that it would fall and not sink, even if it was still active (not considering air friction).
StruckingFuggle 05-05-06, 08:17 PM	Seriously if i threw a steak at you would your frist instinct to catch it and eat it? Well ... meh. I forgot, most dragons don't have a dex of 18 and combat reflexes. But you don't have to throw it ati t, I guess... just offer it up as part of the tribute. :p So, a question for everyone who's frowning on this: Why are you so opposed to the idea?
dok 05-05-06, 09:36 PM	So, a question for everyone who's frowning on this: Why are you so opposed to the idea? Well, a couple of reasons, really... This isn't the first time I've seen this particular idea. It's been around since the begining of 3E: "immovable rod + creature's inside = r0xx0r!" It wasn't all that interesting the first time I heard it, and it certainly hasn't gotten any better with age. Every time this comes up, it depends on ignoring the rules for spells like teleport and ethereal jaunt. The defenders of this trite, tedious idea always fire back along the lines of "research a spell that does work for this idea". The problem with that hackneyed response is that the rules work the way they do usually for good reason! There's a reason you can't use teleport to appear inside a creature. There's a reason you can't use magic spells to place items inside other creatures without allowing SR or saving throws. DMs shouldn't allow spells that let players teleport/ethereal jaunt inside a creature's stomach and leave an immovable rod there not because of this particular trick, but because the underlying concept (magically moving inside a creature & leaving something behind) is broken within the structure of the game. Forget the immovable rod; why not drop a necklace of fireballs with a delayed blast fireball inside a creature's gut? How about an instant fortress? Or a folding boat? Likewise, while a DM could allow a player to make special 6-way immovable rod out of dwarf-crafted Adamantine with all the buttons facing towards each other, again we see that it requires us to go outside of the rules. If we're doing that, why not make an immovable rod that uses a command word and doesn't require line-of-sight? Why not make it totally indestructable, and activated by a command thought? And again, we see the issue isn't the immovable rod, it's a player crafting a custom item that doesn't use the rules for damaging items or activating them. The other reason I frown on this idea is the immovable rod portion. The immovable rod could have a lot of interesting, creative uses. But this isn't one of them. Two immovable rods make the perfect climbing tools, while three could make a fairly workable ladder. Hold a door shut? Make the barricade across the toll road surprisingly resistant to a team of charging horses? How about a clever way to escape from being grappled by a flying creature? What about following up a successful Bull Rush with a Tower Shield by 'locking' the shield (and the pinned foe) in place? Being chased on horseback, at high speeds and need a way to stop your pursuers? These are all creative uses of the rod that don't require us to do something the rules clearly prohibit. (and prohibit with good reason) These are smart, creative, interesting uses. And I'm sure there are a lot more interesting, creative uses out there. But "use magic to put it inside a monster" isn't one of them.
dok 05-05-06, 09:51 PM	And: don't know what it looks like? Bah, that's what scrying is for! And again we see how this idea only works if you ignore the rules: You can see and hear some creature, which may be at any distance. That's 'some creature', not 'some location'. "Bob the Dragon" is a creature. "The innards of Bob the Dragon's stomach" is not a creature. Ultimately, what bugs me is that this isn't a brilliant idea; it's just yet another attempt by a player to use things in the game in ways they weren't intended to. It goes right up there with people arguing that unseen servants could be used in combat, or that mage hand could be used against someone's spleen or kidney. It's an attempt to "hack" the game system and exploit the rules to do something they were never intended to do. I love it when my players are creative with tactics; I am thrilled to see good strategy. Innovative roleplaying and clever reasoning inside the game should be rewarded. But this isn't any of those things. This is sad, sorry metagaming along the lines of "can I strap six flasks of alchemists fire together and throw them all at once for extra damage" thinking. Now, if a PC was fighting a monster, was swallowed whole, and while inside the stomach got out a folding boat/instant fortress and activated it, I'd applaud that thinking. And I'd probably rule that the monster would be badly injured, if not killed. Then again, so would the PC. And the magic item would definitely be ruined. Notice the three elements here: Monster hurt by creative magic item use, magic item is destroyed (cost), and PC must suffer some risk of severe injury/death in the process (cost). The endless variations of immovable rod stunts instead aim for the first element, while negating the 2nd & 3rd. Kill a monster in an interesting way with a magic item not intended for that use? OK. Lose a magic item, and risk injury/death? Nope. And that's what I mean by a "hack": it's an attempt to get better-than-normally-possible results from expending the same effort.
malykoth 05-05-06, 10:10 PM	To dok: :clap: Well said...
StruckingFuggle 05-05-06, 11:15 PM	Huh, I thought you could look at places, too, with Scrying, not just creatures.
Jaeron Dalur 05-06-06, 12:26 AM	And again we see how this idea only works if you ignore the rules: That's 'some creature', not 'some location'. "Bob the Dragon" is a creature. "The innards of Bob the Dragon's stomach" is not a creature. I agree that the guys shouldn't be able to do what he said. But let's not act like there is no way to see inside a dragon's stomach (though scrying clearly isn't the way). Clarivoyant Sense for example would allow you to do so (though you still couldn't teleport in). And Ethereal Jaunt *can* work. Who says you have to return to the material plane to activate an Immovable Rod? Last I checked, magic items still work on the etherial plane. Take one sleeping dragon; have the etherial PC walk into the dragon; activate the Immovable Rod where the dragon's stomach would be if you were on the material plane; walk *out* of the dragon; dismiss the spell and... Voila! an Immovable Rod activated while in a dragon's stomach. Though the dragon's brain or heart might be a much better places to put it. I love it when my players are creative with tactics; I am thrilled to see good strategy. Innovative roleplaying and clever reasoning inside the game should be rewarded. But this isn't any of those things. This is sad, sorry metagaming along the lines of "can I strap six flasks of alchemists fire together and throw them all at once for extra damage" thinking. Now, if a PC was fighting a monster, was swallowed whole, and while inside the stomach got out a folding boat/instant fortress and activated it, I'd applaud that thinking. And I'd probably rule that the monster would be badly injured, if not killed. Then again, so would the PC. And the magic item would definitely be ruined. Notice the three elements here: Monster hurt by creative magic item use, magic item is destroyed (cost), and PC must suffer some risk of severe injury/death in the process (cost). The endless variations of immovable rod stunts instead aim for the first element, while negating the 2nd & 3rd. Kill a monster in an interesting way with a magic item not intended for that use? OK. Lose a magic item, and risk injury/death? Nope. And that's what I mean by a "hack": it's an attempt to get better-than-normally-possible results from expending the same effort. I wonder whether you would think of my solution to a dragon "instakill" inspired by this thread: Method of Killing Dragons via Internal Bleeding (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=633384) Edit: wrong word used
dok 05-06-06, 01:56 AM	And Ethereal Jaunt *can* work. Who says you have to return to the material plane to activate an Immovable Rod? Last I checked, magic items still work on the etherial plane. Take one sleeping dragon; have the etherial PC walk into the dragon; activate the Immovable Rod where the dragon's stomach would be if you were on the material plane; walk *out* of the dragon; dismiss the spell and... Voila! an Immovable Rod activated while in a dragon's stomach. Except for one problem: you're assuming that items released by a character while under the effects of an Ethereal Jaunt would return to the material plane when the spell ends. In other words, you're assuming the following events: a.) Cast ethereal jaunt and move inside a creature. b.) release an item, such as an immovable rod, while ethereal. c.) move out of the creature, and end the ethereal jaunt spell. d.) items previously in your possession, but released while Ethereal, become solid. I see nothing in the spell to support step d.) In fact, it is more consistant with the existing rules that if you used ethereal jaunt and dropped an item during the duration, that said item would remain ethereal after the spell's duration was up, and not return to the material plane. dismiss the spell and... Voila! an Immovable Rod activated while in a dragon's stomach. Though the dragon's brain or heart might be a much better places to put it. Except again, this brilliant idea requires that we ignore the rules... If you end the spell and become material while inside a material object, you are shunted off to the nearest open space and take 1d6 points of damage per 5 feet that you so travel. So even if we assume items dropped or released while ethereal return to the material plane when the spell ends (an unsupported conclusion), then the item would be appearing inside a material object (a dragon's brain or heart would definitely be considered an object), and the item would be shunted off to the nearest open space, being damaged in the process I wonder whether you would think of my solution to a dragon "instakill" inspired by this thread: Method of Killing Dragons via Internal Bleeding (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=633384) On first glance, I think it too relies on ignoring the rules. You want to use shrink object on a bag full of metal shards. Sadly, the spell only works on one object, which means it can shrink the bag, or it can shrink a shard, but it can't shrink a bag full of shards, because you're not affecting just one item, you're affecting a lot of items. You want to make a trap "that activates when the stirge's mouth hits the bloodstream". Unfortunately, trap triggers (magical and otherwise) don't work that way (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm#trigger). Lastly, your plan requires a Stirge to make a successful attack roll (Touch +7) and survive a full round without being removed (grapple bonus +1, 5 hit points). (The stirge can't begin it's Blood Drain ability unless it starts a round attached) Against low-level creatures, that might work, but against a dragon (blindsense, high strength & grapple scores, breath weapons that they themselves are immune to, frightful presence) it's absurd. If you can catch a powerful creature by surprize, and keep it helpless for 1 full round, you don't need a stirge with a snoot full of shrunken adamantine shards to kill it, you just need a big sword.
Jaeron Dalur 05-06-06, 08:34 AM	Except for one problem: you're assuming that items released by a character while under the effects of an Ethereal Jaunt would return to the material plane when the spell ends. In other words, you're assuming the following events: a.) Cast ethereal jaunt and move inside a creature. b.) release an item, such as an immovable rod, while ethereal. c.) move out of the creature, and end the ethereal jaunt spell. d.) items previously in your possession, but released while Ethereal, become solid. I see nothing in the spell to support step d.) In fact, it is more consistant with the existing rules that if you used ethereal jaunt and dropped an item during the duration, that said item would remain ethereal after the spell's duration was up, and not return to the material plane. Except again, this brilliant idea requires that we ignore the rules... So even if we assume items dropped or released while ethereal return to the material plane when the spell ends (an unsupported conclusion), then the item would be appearing inside a material object (a dragon's brain or heart would definitely be considered an object), and the item would be shunted off to the nearest open space, being damaged in the process Here is what I see in what you just said that makes me a bit confused. You say in the one hand that the object would remain ethereal. This makes very little sense to me as: a) the spell ends when you dismiss it, b) the text of the spell mentions objects you are carrying becoming etherial but makes no mention of them not coming back if you drop one, c) given both a and b, this would mean that, since objects are not returned when you stop being etherial, every bit of equipment you carry when you cast the spell is irretreavable until you use a spell like plane shift Given the way you use the rules, objects shouldn't be subject to being pushed to a new square as it never mentions objects even coming back. Let alone what happens when they come back within a creature (after all, why keep that, also unwriten, rule and throw out the other imaginary rule you made about losing objects?). (note: I really dont feel strongly about the Immovable Rod thing. I just generally dislike your flippant condecending attitude and wished to take some of the wind out of what are IMO your overfull sails) On first glance, I think it too relies on ignoring the rules. You want to use shrink object on a bag full of metal shards. Sadly, the spell only works on one object, which means it can shrink the bag, or it can shrink a shard, but it can't shrink a bag full of shards, because you're not affecting just one item, you're affecting a lot of items. You want to make a trap "that activates when the stirge's mouth hits the bloodstream". Unfortunately, trap triggers (magical and otherwise) don't work that way (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm#trigger). Lastly, your plan requires a Stirge to make a successful attack roll (Touch +7) and survive a full round without being removed (grapple bonus +1, 5 hit points). (The stirge can't begin it's Blood Drain ability unless it starts a round attached) Against low-level creatures, that might work, but against a dragon (blindsense, high strength & grapple scores, breath weapons that they themselves are immune to, frightful presence) it's absurd. If you can catch a powerful creature by surprize, and keep it helpless for 1 full round, you don't need a stirge with a snoot full of shrunken adamantine shards to kill it, you just need a big sword. What, in DnD, counts as an object then? The shards are part of one item, a bag of shards. If you contend that that is 501 objects, then what counts as one object? Does an object with 20 parts count as one item? If not, why? What about an object with 4 parts making up an item, is that also 4 objects? A sword is made from at least 3 different parts, a crossbow even more. Are these single objects or many objects? What is the thresh-hold on the number of parts to one object? It's rather hypocritical to say my use of the word object is wrong and then provide no definition to support it. (Before you say it, I also want to know what the thresh-hold is for how a bunch of different parts becomes one object. How many peices of a sword do you need for it to be one object and not just a collection of sword parts? It can't be that they are non-removable parts because the bag of shards is sealed. And it can't be something like "what you would normally call one item", that's a copout.) The trap problem can be fixed by adding a detect evil/good/chaos/law proximity trigger to it with a range of 2" or so. Heck, even a delayed contact trigger would work. The only requirement is that the trap go off while inside the stirge. this is pretty much a non-issue. I already stated in the post that the only way for a stirge to NOT hit with it's touch attack is to roll a one (the Great Wyrm Gold Dragon I used in my example has a touch AC of 2). And if the dragon's asleep it would need to roll a 13 or better on it's listen check to hear the stirge get onto it (15 or better if you think to cast cat's grace on it first). There is no rule for being accidentally awoken by a touch (except or the sleep spell which states that dealing damage will do the trick). Especially if the stirge touches only scales (the things covering a dragon). When you are asleep, do you usually catch the misquito/bed bug/flea/spider that bit you? No. I don't see why it would wake a dragon which doesn't even have feeling where the misquito would land like we do. Blindsense, high strength & grapple scores, breath weapons that they themselves are immune to, and frightful presence don't mean anything to an invisible dominated monster that the dragon doesn't even know is there. Since it IS a surprise round, even if the stirge does somehow wake the dragon, it has an equal chance of going first in the next round since grappling makes you lose your dex bonus. So, if you take the proper precautions, even if everything goes wrong (except the dragon being awake when you start), you still have a 35% chance of it working. And about other methods being more efficient: I don't see how a minimum of 250 points of damage per round that can't be stoped except by magical healing (or surgery but that would take quite a few rounds, by which point the moster is dead), is at all weak. Most dragons are loners and almost none are divine spellcasters or bards. There is no way they would get help in time to not die.
Derren S. 05-06-06, 09:10 AM	And if the dragon's asleep it would need to roll a 13 or better on it's listen check to hear the stirge get onto it (15 or better if you think to cast cat's grace on it first). Except that the dragon would detect the Stirge automatically because it doesn't need to make spot and listen checks with its blindsense.
Jaeron Dalur 05-06-06, 10:54 AM	Except that the dragon would detect the Stirge automatically because it doesn't need to make spot and listen checks with its blindsense. That really doesn't change anything. Cast haste on the stirge (and the person controlling it) and it can get through the 60 ft of blindsense and attach itself to the dragon in one turn. Surprising the dragon. The stirge then has a 50% chance of going first the next turn. If it wins the initiative it kills the dragon. if it loses intitative it has a 50% chance to not get hit with the pin attack needed to remove it, or any attacks to kill it (though it gets 6 of them making survival unlikely). If you use more than one stirge your chances of succeding improve dramatically. & stirges guarantees victory while 4 gives you an over 90% chance of success. Making yourself seem like larger threats than the stirges (not a hard thing to do) can also greatly increase your chances of victory. Problem solved. This was not meant to be the most optimized setup. Just an interesting and "cool" one (and having a dragon bleed to death from internal wounds is pretty cool in my book).
savant_warlord13 05-06-06, 11:05 AM	If dragons aren't scary anymore, the DM is using dragons with to low a CR or isn't using them properly.
digoraccoon 05-06-06, 01:13 PM	I think the comic is funny because it breaks a few rules to make the idea work. As a comic it works. If I was the DM in an actual adventure where this came up, I'd say it wouldn't work due to problems with the rules. Then we move on to an idea that can work. No need for violence... ... well, unless the next idea was attacking the dragon. :D
savant_warlord13 05-06-06, 01:48 PM	No, you cannot teleport inside a dragon. Your stomach is surprisingly small with nothing in it. You eliminate empty space in your stomach by burping. As for immovable rods in the stomach, if one isn't enough to support the dragon's weight, use more than one. To find out how many you need, take the dragon's weight (in tons), and divide four. Round up. The resulting number is how many immovable rods you need.
EldonG 05-07-06, 02:26 AM	Here is what I see in what you just said that makes me a bit confused. You say in the one hand that the object would remain ethereal. This makes very little sense to me as: a) the spell ends when you dismiss it, b) the text of the spell mentions objects you are carrying becoming etherial but makes no mention of them not coming back if you drop one, c) given both a and b, this would mean that, since objects are not returned when you stop being etherial, every bit of equipment you carry when you cast the spell is irretreavable until you use a spell like plane shift Given the way you use the rules, objects shouldn't be subject to being pushed to a new square as it never mentions objects even coming back. Let alone what happens when they come back within a creature (after all, why keep that, also unwriten, rule and throw out the other imaginary rule you made about losing objects?). (note: I really dont feel strongly about the Immovable Rod thing. I just generally dislike your flippant condecending attitude and wished to take some of the wind out of what are IMO your overfull sails) The answer is incredibly simple...when you 'go ethereal', you are going into another plane. If you drop something in that other plane, and then leave...do you honestly expect it to do planar travel to get to you? Hint: It doesn't. It stays where you put it, until it gets moved.
Atirakis 05-07-06, 04:42 AM	Qoute from OP "If the player can derail the entire adventure in six minutes, then it was a very shallow adventure indeed." First let me say S@10 Rules! Seriously check them out. That being said no plan survives contact with the PCs and the depth of that storyline will never be known. Just because a player derails it in no time doesnt mean it wasnt a kick ass story that the DM planned for months. I would have to agree that creating a situation in which the PC died for trying that sounds a little too much like punishing them for thinking, however that doesnt mean that there wouldnt be other problems with the plan.
dok 05-07-06, 01:10 PM	given both a and b, this would mean that, since objects are not returned when you stop being etherial, every bit of equipment you carry when you cast the spell is irretreavable until you use a spell like plane shift No, it means unattended objects are not returned. Carried item are treated as being "attended". If you're holding a sword and it gets targeted by a spell, the sword uses your saving throw, because it's 'attended' by you. If your sword is on the ground and its targeted by a spell, it gets either no saving throw (if its nonmagical) or it uses its own saving throw. (if its magical) This is all in keeping with logic and the flow of the rules. It means you don't want to drop items when you're using ethereal jaunt unless you want to leave them on the Ethereal Plane. Given the way you use the rules, objects shouldn't be subject to being pushed to a new square as it never mentions objects even coming back. What I said was if you decided that objects did come back (which I don't think they do), then the objects should be subject to the same rules as a creature coming back. ('pushed to the nearest open space') Once more, for clarity: 1.) Releasing an item from your possession while under the effects of an ethereal jaunt means the item stays Ethereal after the spell ends. 2.) If you disagree with #1, then objects returning to the Material plane should follow the precident set by creatures, and be subject to the same restrictions as creatures returning to the Material plane. Drop an Ethereal object inside a creature? Either #1, it stays Ethereal, or #2, it's shunted off into open space. (note: I really dont feel strongly about the Immovable Rod thing. I just generally dislike your flippant condecending attitude and wished to take some of the wind out of what are IMO your overfull sails) So you don't feel strongly about the issue, but you still want to argue with me because you think I'm smug for being right? That's OK, but I'd really love to see you cite some rules, or some precident, or some logic showing consistency with other parts of the rules. What, in DnD, counts as an object then? The shards are part of one item, a bag of shards. If you contend that that is 501 objects, then what counts as one object? "A bag" is an object. "A bag full of marbles" is one object full of small objects. Look at the wording. What's so hard about this? You want to know what one object is? It's a reductive argument. What can you take away and still have the "object" in question? Bag of metal shards: if you take away the metal shards, is it still a bag? Quiver full of arrows: empty out the arrows, is it still a quiver? Sword, composed of hilt, crossbar, and blade: remove the hilt, is the remaining object still a sword? Whoops! Looks like we've found a definition! Does an object with 20 parts count as one item? If you mean "20 joined pieces that are part of a single functional item", (a belt and buckle) then yes. Now this is a little tricky: a belt buckle, all by itself, is an item. And the leather strap all by itself is also a single item. But when they are put together, into a single, functional item ("belt"), then we have a single item. What about an object with 4 parts making up an item, is that also 4 objects? Again, it's a reductive issue. Is the item still the item without the parts? Is a Bow still a Bow without a bowstring? No. Its a bowstave. So the bowstring is part of the bow, and together they make a single item. Bowstring sitting on a table? Single item. Bowstring on a bow? Part of the bow. Not hard. A sword is made from at least 3 different parts, a crossbow even more. Are these single objects or many objects? What is the thresh-hold on the number of parts to one object? Straw-man argument. It's not an issue of the number of parts, but whether they compose a single, functional item, or whether they exist as seperate items. Is a quiver with 20 arrows a single item? No. The quiver is a single item and each arrow is an individual item. Take away the arrows, and you still have a quiver. However, a sword without a hilt is not a sword, it's just a blade. So a sword is a single item; we could remove the parts, and each part would be a single item, but together they form a single item. An arrow consists of a shaft, arrowhead, fletchings, and a nock. Single item? Yes. If we take away the arrowhead, fletchings, and nock, is it still an arrow? No, not it isn't. It's rather hypocritical to say my use of the word object is wrong and then provide no definition to support it. Silly me. I thought common sense would be enough. A container is a seperate and distinct object from the things it contains. I don't see that as rocket science. Is a bag still a bag, whether it's empty or full? Why yes, yes it is. Is a crossbow still a crosbow, whether its assembled or not? No, it needs to be assembled. (Before you say it, I also want to know what the thresh-hold is for how a bunch of different parts becomes one object. How many peices of a sword do you need for it to be one object and not just a collection of sword parts? Straw man again. It's not about "parts", it's about reducability. Wagon wheel, all by itself? Object. Wagon wheel, as attached to wagon? Part of a single object. (wagon) Wooden box? Object. Wooden box sitting on the back of a wagon? Two objects. (Wagon and box) Grandfather clock? Single object. Single cog sitting on a table? Single object. Single cog inside the grandfatehr clock? Part of a single object. (Grandfather clock) Bag? Single object. Needle sitting on a table? Single object. Bag full of needles? Just look at the phrase: Object full of objects. The trap problem can be fixed by adding a detect evil/good/chaos/law proximity trigger to it with a range of 2" or so. Except that shrink item only works on nonmagical items, and you're using a magical trap that now includes a magical trigger. Oh wait, you'll probably complain that I didn't define what a "magical item" was, and argue that just because the trap uses a spell to trigger another spell, that doesn't make it magical, right? And if the dragon's asleep... I love it when people talk about "how easy it is to kill a dragon" and immediately adjust their scenario to include the dragon being asleep. Sure. OK. Dragons usually sleep unprotected, without guards or alarms or anything else. I mean really, every dragonslayer knows how to catch a dragon while he's sleeping, right? Don't most dragon encounters involve the dragon being asleep? Once again: if you have a full round of actions against a sleeping (read: helpless) dragon, you don't need some exotic spell-item-dominated monster package, you just need a big sword and Power Attack. If you get to write the scenario with your opponents being helpless and surprised and your PC having all the time in the world to prepare, gee, well then I guess most monsters aren't that tough, are they? If your "method of killing most monsters" requires always surprising the opponent, winning initiative, and using a CR 1/3 monster to succeed on a touch attack and survive until its next initiative, that seems like it's not quite a method to kill most monsters, just most weaker monsters. And about other methods being more efficient: I don't see how a minimum of 250 points of damage per round that can't be stoped except by magical healing (or surgery but that would take quite a few rounds, by which point the moster is dead), is at all weak. And here's the last example of it only working if you ignore the rules. It's not a minimum of 250 points of damage per round. Against any creature with DR x/magic, (or x/alignment or x/bludgeoning or x/slashing or x/silver or x/cold iron) it's zero damage. Each shard would deal 1 damage (if that), and the shards are nonmagical, adamantine peircing weapon. It'll kill younger dragons, I suppose... Notice how I've stuck to the rules so far. I haven't argued that Stirges can only "suck" blood, they can't expel it. I haven't argued that a single drop of blood would mix with any other blood the stirge might have, nor have I argued that if all the stirge had was a single drop of blood it would begin to digest the blood involuntarily. I haven't argued that a silk bag would rupture or be shreded from 500 adamantine needles in the process of being dropped into a droplet of blood, well before the plan could be put into motion. I haven't pointed out that any plan that requires the use of a 17th level NPC spellcaster falls into the realm of "if you can use any spell or combination of spells, then everything becomes easy" category of silliness.
Majorafire77 05-07-06, 09:16 PM	There's probably some trick you could use with contingency to make it work. "When my immovable rod goes into the dragon's stomach..."
Kothardarastrix 05-07-06, 11:24 PM	Actually, Dragon's don't Swallow Whole. They don't have that as a special ability. Well not with anything in the core at least; but if we take Snatch, Improved Snatch, and the Snatch and Swallow Mostrous Feats. It allows a huge or larger dragon to swallow a creature two sizes smaller held in it's mouth at the start of it's turn to make a grapple check, if it succeeds the opponent takes bite damage and is swallowed taking bludgeoning and energy damage each round.
Sphyre 05-08-06, 03:14 AM	Oh really? Teleport belongs to the Conjuration school of magic. A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. You cannot use teleport to teleport inside a creature. You cannot use teleport to appear in mid-air. While I agree with you in almost all of your points, and I agree with the spirit of your post too. I'd just like to point out to you, for future reference and clarification: You can still use teleportation spells to teleport into mid-air. The conjuration line is specified in the way it is, so that when you summon that [insert really large creature here] you can't have it appear way above your enemy and fall on them, as a weapon. And yes, I agree, a dragon, something of extreme, almost deific, if not deific intelligence (Depending on age/type), is going to be smart enough to counteract such a pompous plan.
Kothardarastrix 05-08-06, 10:13 AM	Once again, If the Dragon isn't scary for its CR, you either aren't playing it right or aren't interpreting the rules correctly. Conversely, if you aren't willing to enact a ruthless TPK on the party without pulling punches, then a dragon is not the correct monster to use.
malignor 05-08-06, 12:39 PM	Immovable Rod(s)? - Targetted Dispel Magic (is touching, which always qualifies as target; arguable if you claim LoE supercedes) - Antimagic field (guaranteed; works on many) - Polymorph (something too small to fit an immovable rod in its belly - temporary) - Teleport (into a known antimagic zone) - Limited Wish (simulate any of the above) - Move around until the button(s) gets pushed Shards of Adamantine? - Damage Reduction; then processed/cleaned out by organs. --------- This is assuming that you can actually get these foreign objects into a dragon. The OP: Making up a bunch of silly houserules to auto-kill smarty-pants PCs is not good DMing... not good at all. Instead, just ask for a minute, figure things out and then go "okay, you do it." And then counter the move in an instant. Then kill the party, legally, if you can... they wanted to set themselves up as an example, so it's your job to follow through. However, if they're just being creative as a way to gain an advantage, don't penalize them. Like, for example, a sorcerer using invisibility on a door to see what's behind it or the cover on a trap mechanism invisible so you can see how to disable it. That's just good thinking, and if i derails your plot, and you're screwed, learn to think faster.
Sarlax 05-08-06, 01:10 PM	Is this all about an immovable rod? This is a bar or cylindar that's maybe 12 inches long. Even if you allow all the rules violations it requires to get it inside of a dragon and the fact that the rod almost certainly can't support the weight of the dragon (a huge dragon weighs 20,000 pounds, see Draconomicon), what does the dragon care? When you're dealing with a huge monster, Constitution 20+, and tons of hit points, what's to stop the thing from just flying forward and letting the thing tear out of its gut? Call the damage a critical hit from a spear and be done with it.
jasper 05-08-06, 04:30 PM	As with any tactic I just say, "Great tactic. Do you mind if I do to your pc?"
malignor 05-08-06, 06:29 PM	A good trick if you're stuck: Give a smart player (who knows how not to metagame) the character sheet of your monster. Let him play the monster as an NPC villan for awhile and, if he outsmarts the tactic, his PC gets a certain a amount of "invisible XP" or "invisible GP" which he gets in the form of a discount, merchant bias or merchant error in his PC's favor when next buying magic gear. In other words, if you can't solve it, a player probably could. Use that, and reward any successful efforts.
Gold Medal Jedi 05-08-06, 07:48 PM	Once again, If the Dragon isn't scary for its CR, you either aren't playing it right or aren't interpreting the rules correctly. Conversely, if you aren't willing to enact a ruthless TPK on the party without pulling punches, then a dragon is not the correct monster to use. You are missing the point of the post then.... I made the statement that dragons arent scary anymore as a jest in sarcasm, due to the apparent ease by which some wish to dispatch them. And you are correct, a CR should reflect the inherent fear one should experience when confronted by said creature. But if its that easy to defeat a creature of that CR, would it be fair to say that the creatures CR should be reduced to reflect the realitive ease with which it is dispatched? And before anyone starts to argue for or against the Tele-Frag method and its many intricacies, keep in mind that i am asking a hypothetical question. If its discovered that its easy to defeat a high CR creature, should the DM lower the CR to reflect its new found ease of dispatch?
AT-AT Assault 05-08-06, 08:18 PM	If its discovered that its easy to defeat a high CR creature, should the DM lower the CR to reflect its new found ease of dispatch?Perhaps not the first time it happened(after all you should reward ingenuity), but if it becomes a common tactic then the CR should be lowered. Speaking of all this "easiness" suppose you're playing a modern or futuristic setting and you approach a 20th level <insert a fighting oriented class here> who carries grenades. Would it be fair to award less XP to a player who succeds in killing the 20th X by shooting the grenades(causing them to explode)?
Gold Medal Jedi 05-08-06, 11:56 PM	No i wouldnt penalize him for killing the BBG with the grenades all over him because as a GM i made that character and was stupid enough to place him in that position. Where as the dragon is not built by me, the stats it receives minus any augments i place upon it is determined by the game designers. Granted with rule 0 i control most if not all aspects of the game, but the dragon still represents a high CR creature, my only real control of it is in how i play him. This tactic compromises in my opinion the CR of the creature without my control of the outcome or its utilization. Where as the BBG with the grenades stupidly displayed in an easy to access location that is detrimental to his well being by a mundane and well placed shot is my fault entirely for being stupid enough to not factor in luck, that is unless i build the BBG to be that dense. The aforementioned tactic utilizes seperate aspects of a theme that were not meant to be used in a manner in which they will compromise the order of the game and its pre-stated objectives.