|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 6:59AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
especialy in the older editions certain parts of spell discriptions are very vague.
even the simple fire ball has it's problems.
This is taken from the 2nd edition fireball.
Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball melts soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Exposed items require saving throws vs. magical fire to determine if they are affected
well now what items need to save to see if they combust ?
wel to detirmin that you have to do a lot of searching as it just sais combustible, whick basicly means any non oxide with the right amount of heat and oxigen.
lets asome the normal 19 ish percent oxigen.
wel we do know it melts gold as it sais so in the discription so this means a minimum teprature of 1064 degrees celcius ( as this is the absolut minimum to melt gold.)
this temprature is very high so high that you have to wonder does a person count as a object if he failed his save?
as humans combust at a temprature of 760 degrees celcius.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 7:39AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
Hmm. I don't see anything too vague in your 2e fireball example.
Living creatures take x damage, or 1/2 damage if they save.
In the case of them actually bursting into flames? I don't see a second save as neccesary. If you failed the 1st one, guess what YOU'RE ON FIRE! (look for more rules). If you saved? Then you just took damage.
For items exposed to the fireball? You just roll - or make up results - for anything that's important.
(otherwise you waste ALOT of time rolling dice for little reason)
Other than that? Some of those vague descriptions people like to complain about are actually very usefull that way. It allows for variable effects depending upon what types of stories you're trying to tell.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 10:21AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Sadly, real-world physics and chemistry rarely translate into fantasy. I think you are just over-thinking this. The DM should have a reasonable idea of what is damage/destroyed and what isn't. Most of that decision is DM fiat. Dragons breath fire, classically setting fire to buildings, yet not every edition explicitly states that combustable objects damaged by the fire are ignited. Does it need to? Not in my opinion. Just assume all magical fire damage ignites combustables in it's area of effect.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 10:25AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
That always seemed like an error in writing. Maybe the person writing it down didn't do the research, and was under the belief that precious metals have a much lower melting point than they actually do. This was before the internet, after all.
Of course, it was also magical fire, which was explicitly hotter than regular fire, without ever getting into temperatures. It could melt gold and partially injure people even though anything that could melt gold should kill a human. It's not vague; it's explicit and contradictory.
The important vague bit, missing from certain later editions, was that it would set obviously-combustible objects on fire. Things like exposed paper (scrolls, documents), or a dry grassy field. It's just saying that this is actual fire and should be treated accordingly, and not a mere xd6 damage within the area of effect.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 3:28PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
especialy in the older editions certain parts of spell discriptions are very vague.
even the simple fire ball has it's problems.
This is taken from the 2nd edition fireball.
Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball melts soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Exposed items require saving throws vs. magical fire to determine if they are affected
well now what items need to save to see if they combust ?
wel to detirmin that you have to do a lot of searching as it just sais combustible, whick basicly means any non oxide with the right amount of heat and oxigen.
lets asome the normal 19 ish percent oxigen.
wel we do know it melts gold as it sais so in the discription so this means a minimum teprature of 1064 degrees celcius ( as this is the absolut minimum to melt gold.)
this temprature is very high so high that you have to wonder does a person count as a object if he failed his save?
as humans combust at a temprature of 760 degrees celcius.
Or you could just wing it on the fly and go. Poof! No research. No soul searching. No science degree needed. The DM is there for a reason.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 09, 2012 - 8:47AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
It has to be built from the ground up, so there are rules in place to explain some of the physical expectations or realism in the game in regards to movement, damage, range, area, melee, elements, etc. and spells should be put in place that are easy to read and are concise on how they influence the physical world or realism in the game. This will help define martials characters as well.
You can have fluff in the spell that lends to its history and purpose, but the effects should be concrete.
So I agree spells should not be vague, but that is only part of the problem, as the majority of arguments start on how that spell effects the physical world, so you need strong set of underlying rules to take away alot of the guesswork. And then the DM can help guide the players on how those rules work in their world.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 09, 2012 - 9:21AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
I thought the burning hands description in the playtest handled it pretty well: "The spell ignites unattended flammable objects in the area." Keeps it simple and clear, but still conveys the fact that there actually is fire filling the area of effect. The DM can decide what counts as flammable for this purpose, I don't think that's too hard.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 09, 2012 - 3:15PM
#8
|
|
|
I generally don't have a problem with spell descriptions; they're all written fairly well. My problem is that I don't want to wade through the text to weed out the rules. Give us a statblock that has all the rules in it. Not only does it help those who want to reflavor spells, or invent new spells, by presenting a mechanics-only version, but it also acts as a quick reference for players who are fine with the text version.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 09, 2012 - 6:34PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2007
|
I generally don't have a problem with spell descriptions; they're all written fairly well. My problem is that I don't want to wade through the text to weed out the rules. Give us a statblock that has all the rules in it. Not only does it help those who want to reflavor spells, or invent new spells, by presenting a mechanics-only version, but it also acts as a quick reference for players who are fine with the text version.
+1 to this.
Besides the part where the melting point of metals was flubbed, I thought the 2e spell description was fine.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 09, 2012 - 8:12PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I thought the burning hands description in the playtest handled it pretty well: "The spell ignites unattended flammable objects in the area." Keeps it simple and clear, but still conveys the fact that there actually is fire filling the area of effect. The DM can decide what counts as flammable for this purpose, I don't think that's too hard.
if a spell does fire damage ... .that little clause can be taken out of every description and put in one place under the fire key word. (you could even have a heat wave spell and add the exception to say while it is resisted as fire it would never ignite flammables )
|
|
|
