Community

Dec 28, 2012 -- 9:50AM, MrCustomer wrote:

In the case of the acid, I justify the "inconsistancy with the variable nature of exposure" with the fact that if the acid would have killed you, then you would never have finished the action. And really if you want to argue realism, then why isn't the character Blinded from the acid, disoriented from the severe pain, blindness and fall and going into shock? We are talking of acid that would instantly kill a man and disolve his bones in under 1 second as would happen to the average human with 4 hit points when they take 10d6 acid damage.

We've already tossed credulity to the wind when we said falling into Molten lava does 20d6 damage per round, rather then "Molten lava kills you." because somehow we expect to crawl back out with only slightly singed eyebrows.

Even if the situation has elements that strain believability (like not modelling location damage such as blindness, and presumably wrapping the effects of pain and shock into general hit points), it doesn't mean that you choose to apply the method that makes it even less believable.

While the degree of damage is certainly enough to kill any normal human before they could complete an action (even split down to per-action damage), we're potentially dealing with adventurers who have relatively superhuman levels.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 9:50AM, MrCustomer wrote:

The only real reason to do this is to prevent the effect from killing you. So essentially making it less deadly, you can now take half the damage from an effect and apply the full Resistance. So you are going to have to either adjust the CR or the trap or the damage accordingly. You are forgetting the damage doesn't just reflect a "realistic model of how acid works" but also the challenge and level appropriate deadliness. Your change made it less deadly so lets change it from CR 8 down to CR 6.

Or else change it to 7d6 per Action and allow them to add Resistance each time.

Or you split it against the resistance without applying it twice, as previously discussed.

If we were actually trying to be realistic, though, a spell that provides you resistance to acid should be more effective than it truly is against a continuous acid effect, since it's blocking the continuous accumulation of damage across that entire round of time.  It's kind of a case where the mechanics of the game are rubbing up against what reality is saying "should" happen.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 10:58AM, MrCustomer wrote:

That is my point however, if you cast a spell it effects not only yourself but everyone else. and the benifit of most spells exists outside of your turn. An AC buff for example protects you from all enemy attacks made against you during that entire round because every single enemy has a turn after yours during the round. You really can't argue that you didn't get a full round of protection from Mage Armor or Magic Circle against Evil.

You can certainly argue it; enemies could have readied to attack you before the spell was cast, or could have attack you with attacks of opportunity because you were casting a spell (if you're not careful).  And on that real time level, the actions of any enemies that go before you in initative likewise overlap with your turn.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 10:58AM, MrCustomer wrote:

Wait, round 2 is identical! so you didn't in fact loose half a round of effect by casting the spell. You would be stretching it to say you are loosing even .05 of a round, especially if the effect targets someone else in which case it will do the full effect for that many rounds (ie Melfs Acid arrow will do 3 rounds of damage so arguing that you are loosing half a round and therefore shoud get 4 rounds is rediculous)

Round 2 isn't identical, since you didn't cast haste, and you've got the benefit of haste's protection against enemies that attack you before your turn or before the spell is completed, unlike round 1.

As for Melf's acid arrow, you're arguing it by using the conclusion as evidence, since the amount of total damage the spell deals is based on the number of rounds it lasts, not the other way around.  If it is supposed to last into that round, that's the correct damage, and arguing that you should lose a round of effect is consequently what's ridiculous.

As a slight aside, it's less beneficial than you might think to gain the longer duration beyond a certain number of rounds, since encounters can often be resolved before the spell's full effect applies.  Not, however, that this is a real issue, due to the effect applying equally to all spellcasters and spells (and to other effects with a certain duration in rounds).