Question about the ToM spell: Random Causality - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Question about the ToM spell: Random Causality

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
algolei_dup
Jul 04, 2004 6:55:46 The spell random causality is from the 2nd-edition Tome of Magic. It looks to me like there's an error in the casting time. It says:
Duration: Special
Casting Time: 3 rounds + 1 round/level
#2
zombiegleemax
Jul 04, 2004 7:25:35 To the best of my knowledge no errata ever came out for this book and all versions I've ever seen have the same casting time for that spell.

But I'd suggest a casting time of 3. The one listed is obviously an error and it probably occured because the base duration and casting time were the same. What's more, a casting time of 3 seems to fit the level of power for this spell. Anyway, this would be my personal call for what it's worth.
#3
varl
Jul 04, 2004 23:44:57 I'd agree with 3. I even changed it in the books.
#4
algolei_dup
Jul 06, 2004 3:29:00 Hmmm, vader42xx and Varl. Them's two good votes for a CT of 3, I'd say. If I were the DM in this case, that would be good enough for me. But I'm not.

Anybody else got any info/houserules?

Oh yeah, just remembered: My nephew thought the spell was called "random casualty." First I laughed at him for being stupid--he's an A student or something, but he can't spell or add two double-digit numbers together--then afterwards I thought, "Hmmm, random casualty might actually be a better name for the spell, given what it does."

What're the odds it was a spelling mistake in the first place that got the spell its name? ;)
#5
zombiegleemax
Jul 06, 2004 13:17:41 Thanks for the compliment and I wish I could help more but I don't recall ever seeing any official errata or any reprints that fixed the mistake. :sad:

And that is a pretty cool name for the spell. :D Though I doubt it was a typo...TSR wouldn't have two typos in one spell...would they? ;)
#6
algolei_dup
Jul 08, 2004 11:44:56 Hee hee hee! :D

[Just a meaningless addendum: My nephew was an A student, but he just graduated high school so now he's an A unemployed bum. ;) ]
#7
varl
Jul 09, 2004 18:00:36 Yeah, I've never seen any errata regarding this spell either. I just took one of those cool whiteout pens and cleared everything but the first 3 in the string, so (other than the whiteout) it looks like it is as it should have been. :D
#8
algolei_dup
Jul 10, 2004 8:26:46 Hey! Yes! The first digit is a 3, that makes perfect sense if it was a typo--turns it from a "what the hell were we thinking" typo to an "oops I put it on the wrong line" type.

Much better evidence. My DM should probably buy it now.
Originally posted by vader42xx
...the base duration and casting time were the same.

Is that what you meant? (I didn't get it the first time, so I just bleeped over it like a name in a Russian novel.)

#9
zombiegleemax
Jul 10, 2004 11:20:12 Yes, that's exactly what I meant. ;)

I'm assuming since the duration was 3 +1/level and the casting time was 3 (in the case of the book, starting with 3) that whoever typeset the thing just wrote the same line twice while not thinking of it.
#10
sildatorak
Jul 15, 2004 8:53:36 I always used casting time of 6 in my games since it was a 3rd level priest spell and they are generally 3+spell level for their CT.

side note: Until I read this thread I always thought it was random casualty, now I find out that it is causality? I'm sticking with the one that suggests hurting people.
#11
realmaster
Jul 18, 2004 23:39:19 Would a later printing of the book have the corrected printing?
#12
zombiegleemax
Jul 19, 2004 1:38:41 I haven't been able to check a "black cover" printing of it but all the other printings say the same thing.

And I doubt even the black cover version fixed it as those books didn't really make any changes. But if anybody has this version they can let us know.
#13
algolei_dup
Jul 19, 2004 1:39:19 I dunno for sure, but in my limited experience, later printings seem to continue the errors (especially the ones I'd like to see fixed) while occasionally muddying up the obvious bits with strange "fixes."

Originally posted by Sildatorak
I always used casting time of 6 in my games since it was a 3rd level priest spell and they are generally 3+spell level for their CT.

Yeah, I was thinking of that too. The PH was pretty consistent with that, I think, but the later books--ToM and PO:S&M--seemed to bounce around a lot with their casting times, from 1/2 to 6 for a third-level spell.

side note: Until I read this thread I always thought it was random casualty, now I find out that it is causality? I'm sticking with the one that suggests hurting people.

Mwah ha ha! Yes! And I shall continue to call Juiblex Jubilex because that's the way I learnt it!
#14
zombiegleemax
Jul 19, 2004 3:49:02 Regarding the casting time of 6, that is more PHB than ToM. In fact, the 3rd level priest spells from the ToM have more 3 casting times than anything else so that's one more argument for the 3 casting time.
#15
algolei_dup
Jul 19, 2004 18:41:34 Oh yeah, I definitely noticed that too. That's why I'm urging my DM toward the CT of 3. (Yah, that's the reason! ;) )
#16
zombiegleemax
Jul 20, 2004 1:18:08 Yes, of course, we understand. :D

But, really, I have no doubt that it was supposed to be 3. All the evidence we have suggests that casting time and the power level of the spell is in line with such a casting time. That was the entire purpose of ToM (and why most people consider it the 4th core book for 2e); to fill in some of the huge gaps for spellcasters. In this case, priests got a little combat ability added to their spellcasting and it wouldn't do them any good with a long casting time as it would get interrupted more often than not.

Anyway, 3 is the most reasonable casting time I see for many reasons...so good luck with your DM.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 algolei_dup Jul 04, 2004 6:55:46	The spell random causality is from the 2nd-edition Tome of Magic. It looks to me like there's an error in the casting time. It says: Duration: Special Casting Time: 3 rounds + 1 round/level
#2 zombiegleemax Jul 04, 2004 7:25:35	To the best of my knowledge no errata ever came out for this book and all versions I've ever seen have the same casting time for that spell. But I'd suggest a casting time of 3. The one listed is obviously an error and it probably occured because the base duration and casting time were the same. What's more, a casting time of 3 seems to fit the level of power for this spell. Anyway, this would be my personal call for what it's worth.
#3 varl Jul 04, 2004 23:44:57	I'd agree with 3. I even changed it in the books.
#4 algolei_dup Jul 06, 2004 3:29:00	Hmmm, vader42xx and Varl. Them's two good votes for a CT of 3, I'd say. If I were the DM in this case, that would be good enough for me. But I'm not. Anybody else got any info/houserules? Oh yeah, just remembered: My nephew thought the spell was called "random casualty." First I laughed at him for being stupid--he's an A student or something, but he can't spell or add two double-digit numbers together--then afterwards I thought, "Hmmm, random casualty might actually be a better name for the spell, given what it does." What're the odds it was a spelling mistake in the first place that got the spell its name? ;)
#5 zombiegleemax Jul 06, 2004 13:17:41	Thanks for the compliment and I wish I could help more but I don't recall ever seeing any official errata or any reprints that fixed the mistake. :sad: And that is a pretty cool name for the spell. :D Though I doubt it was a typo...TSR wouldn't have two typos in one spell...would they? ;)
#6 algolei_dup Jul 08, 2004 11:44:56	Hee hee hee! :D [Just a meaningless addendum: My nephew was an A student, but he just graduated high school so now he's an A unemployed bum. ;) ]
#7 varl Jul 09, 2004 18:00:36	Yeah, I've never seen any errata regarding this spell either. I just took one of those cool whiteout pens and cleared everything but the first 3 in the string, so (other than the whiteout) it looks like it is as it should have been. :D
#8 algolei_dup Jul 10, 2004 8:26:46	Hey! Yes! The first digit is a 3, that makes perfect sense if it was a typo--turns it from a "what the hell were we thinking" typo to an "oops I put it on the wrong line" type. Much better evidence. My DM should probably buy it now. Originally posted by vader42xx ...the base duration and casting time were the same. Is that what you meant? (I didn't get it the first time, so I just bleeped over it like a name in a Russian novel.)
#9 zombiegleemax Jul 10, 2004 11:20:12	Yes, that's exactly what I meant. ;) I'm assuming since the duration was 3 +1/level and the casting time was 3 (in the case of the book, starting with 3) that whoever typeset the thing just wrote the same line twice while not thinking of it.
#10 sildatorak Jul 15, 2004 8:53:36	I always used casting time of 6 in my games since it was a 3rd level priest spell and they are generally 3+spell level for their CT. side note: Until I read this thread I always thought it was random casualty, now I find out that it is causality? I'm sticking with the one that suggests hurting people.
#11 realmaster Jul 18, 2004 23:39:19	Would a later printing of the book have the corrected printing?
#12 zombiegleemax Jul 19, 2004 1:38:41	I haven't been able to check a "black cover" printing of it but all the other printings say the same thing. And I doubt even the black cover version fixed it as those books didn't really make any changes. But if anybody has this version they can let us know.
#13 algolei_dup Jul 19, 2004 1:39:19	I dunno for sure, but in my limited experience, later printings seem to continue the errors (especially the ones I'd like to see fixed) while occasionally muddying up the obvious bits with strange "fixes." Originally posted by Sildatorak I always used casting time of 6 in my games since it was a 3rd level priest spell and they are generally 3+spell level for their CT. Yeah, I was thinking of that too. The PH was pretty consistent with that, I think, but the later books--ToM and PO:S&M--seemed to bounce around a lot with their casting times, from 1/2 to 6 for a third-level spell. *side note: Until I read this thread I always thought it was random casualty, now I find out that it is causality? I'm sticking with the one that suggests hurting people.* Mwah ha ha! Yes! And I shall continue to call Juiblex Jubilex because that's the way I learnt it!
#14 zombiegleemax Jul 19, 2004 3:49:02	Regarding the casting time of 6, that is more PHB than ToM. In fact, the 3rd level priest spells from the ToM have more 3 casting times than anything else so that's one more argument for the 3 casting time.
#15 algolei_dup Jul 19, 2004 18:41:34	Oh yeah, I definitely noticed that too. That's why I'm urging my DM toward the CT of 3. (Yah, that's the reason! ;) )
#16 zombiegleemax Jul 20, 2004 1:18:08	Yes, of course, we understand. :D But, really, I have no doubt that it was supposed to be 3. All the evidence we have suggests that casting time and the power level of the spell is in line with such a casting time. That was the entire purpose of ToM (and why most people consider it the 4th core book for 2e); to fill in some of the huge gaps for spellcasters. In this case, priests got a little combat ability added to their spellcasting and it wouldn't do them any good with a long casting time as it would get interrupted more often than not. Anyway, 3 is the most reasonable casting time I see for many reasons...so good luck with your DM.