Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[tussock]

A legit counter-example would be something that explicitly states that an item can become an unattended object and still remain affected by a personal spell.

No.

The problem is, when you are ethereal, you cannot attack the material plane. Seriously, look it up.

When you are blinking, and you try to attack the material plane, 20% of the time you try that it turns out you are ethereal at the time and so you can't.

That is the Blink spell. Every other point here about what happens to your gear when dropped is irrelevant, but possibly interesting in various edge cases and any interpretation basically works fine, except the one where you can attack the material plane while ethereal, because that is explicitly forbidden in every case, including Blink.

Ethereal characters can in fact make ranged attacks against other ethereal creatures, spells, bows, everything, because that is how being ethereal works, explicitly including the Blink spell!

[Pariah Dog]

Or maybe (aka how I'd rule it at my table):

You cast blink. You and everything on your person does what blink says for rounds per level.

Items drops, thrown, etc leave your person on the same plane you are on (so 20% chance to drop it in the ethereal plane). After blink wears off these items flop back onto the material plane.

In the event the blink spell is permanent (ring, permanency, etc) the item in question is stuck on that plane until a blink spell cast as cast by the caster or creator of the ring (if unknown I'd go with CL7 per the magic item) would wear off then it would pop back into the material.

As for the flaming scroll debate, I do not think the scroll would burn up when changing hands assuming both parties are under resist energy. If the receiving party was just "Fuck you I'm immune to fire" or has Fire resistance: TEXAS in a form that does not extend to their equipment then I'd rule the scroll bursts into flames once the original resistance wears off. Anything you'd pick up while rolling RE would benefit from it until it wears off and anything that leaves your possession benefits until the spell would wear off (or until a spell cast by the creator of your resist energy would end if using a ring or permaspell shenanigans.)

But yeah the way it is written sucks and results in some tables allowing things like blink archers and others giving them the same 20% miss chance as everyone else. Something to consider for everyone writing their own rules.

[erik]

Tussock, you aren't grasping the central argument from my side. "You" aren't attacking someone when launching an arrow or throwing a flask, it is an ammunition projectile, and once it leaves your person, it isn't affected by the spell because it isn't a part of you, so it isn't ethereal, same thing as when the spell is dropped. You are Blinking, but the items you dropped aren't because they aren't you. That's the argument. Arguing "20% attacks means all attack types" or "Weapons carried change damage values" doesn't touch the argument because they don't address the You/Not You problem. Those arguments ignore that dichotomy.

Now Virgil was asking about consequences of whether You/Not You is relevant. If unattended items do not remain affected then obviously enables a 20% improvement in ranged kiting and sneak attacks with Blink, and a 7th level spell (Ethereal Jaunt) can let you kite with arrows for one combat except 13+ level casters would typically have much better things to do with their actions than loose arrows, beginning with a different use for that 7th level spell slot. Would your warm breath make little steam puffs in a cold environment while Blinking? Probably, and that's kinda cool, though not mentioned as a way to track people. Pretty niche case. Mostly the consequences are limited. It gives a little something to rogues and kiting.

If unattended items remain affected then you can cast Magic Fang on a critter and take pieces off it to make a lot of magic weapons. depending upon the critter. Awakened Trees beware! Can a wizard have Permanency on Comprehend Languages and send adventurers to touch a lock of their hair to some dungeon's tome so they can read it from the safety and comfort of their home? Kaelik suggested using a twig as you for stuff like Contingency, but that's hard for some people to process so make it hair instead. That hair is you, affected by your spell. Can you use hair to share other spells? Give everyone an Entropic Shield? Fire Shield? Just plain Shield?


Fear my pilomancy!

Kaeilk's Temporal Stasis shenanigan gives me an idea to pour an ooze into a mold and cast Temporal Stasis on it to make indestructible armor and weapons (with hilarious results when someone dispels it). This is an outstanding advance in material science! Air Elementals are even better. Almost weightless unbreakable armor. Or ship hulls! Unrelated to this whole topic, but it amused me.

Tangential from the You/Not You issue, are things that you gain after casting a spell. Do things you pick up become you for the purpose of an already active spell? Or no? I dunno. Weird things happen either way. I'm inclined to say no since picked up items don't resize or disappear to match you with spells like Enlarge or Invisibility or Polymorph. So that makes Blink shit for pickpockets and robbers, but great for trespassing and escape.

[DrPraetor]

Items drops, thrown, etc leave your person on the same plane you are on (so 20% chance to drop it in the ethereal plane). ...
But yeah the way it is written sucks and results in some tables allowing things like blink archers and others giving them the same 20% miss chance as everyone else.

As written, you have an 80% chance of dropping the item on the plane of your choosing, and a 20% chance of dropping the item on whichever other plane by accident.

This explicitly applies to spells - so you can put a web on the ethereal plane, for example, and it would stay there for the duration of the web.

Whoever wrote Blink clearly thought of the ethereal plane as a place-you-go and not as an effect-you-have-on-you; and, did not seem to think it important that you can therefore use blink to pick things up and leave them on the ethereal plane. So you can pick up skeletons, drop them on the ethereal plane, and then cast animate dead on them (with a 20% miss chance at each step.) The resultant animated dead would be permanently ethereal. That's stupid, but yeah, that's how the author of the blink spell thought it should work.

Other ethereal spells notably do not work this way.

[Pariah Dog]

As written, you have an 80% chance of dropping the item on the plane of your choosing, and a 20% chance of dropping the item on whichever other plane by accident.

That says what I was trying to say, just written clearer. That basically you have a 20% chance to fuck up and drop your material item on the Ethereal plane.

Other ethereal spells notably do not work this way.

Probably because they wrote blink as a combat/utility buff and didn't expect people to use it for more than avoiding getting stabbed in the face or passing through solid matter in quick bursts.

[erik]

Actually there's several possibilities to a discarded item from Blink while on the Ethereal plane (either by 20% miss chance or 50% chance if just dropped):
1) Returns to Material Plane immediately as it isn't a target of the spell.
2) Remains on Ethereal plane until retrieved.
3) Remains on Ethereal plane until duration ends. Then returns to initial plane.
4) Blinks back and forth until duration ends. Then returns to initial plane.
5) Blinks back and forth until duration ends. Then 50/50 chance of which plane it remains on until retrieved.

If we treat the spell as only affecting the caster and not discarded items then #1 is an easy consequence to determine. If not then you have to somehow make a choice between #2-5, and the rules don't give guidance there.

And as a bonus confusion on options #4 and 5 is the item blinking in sync with the caster, or is there only a 50% chance you'll be on the same plane if trying to grab it?

[Thaluikhain]

And as a bonus confusion on options #4 and 5 is the item blinking in sync with the caster, or is there only a 50% chance you'll be on the same plane if trying to grab it?

Also, if it hits a target, will it Blink out of it? Can someone else pick it up and hold it?

(While we are at it, if two people who both have Blink are fighting each other? RAW, you'd have a chance of missing them due to your Blink, and then another chance of missing them due to their Blink, but if you got both your Blink and their Blink wrong you'd hit them. And is there a 20% miss chance of doing any other interaction other than attacking things?)

[Jason]

Well...RAW, you can shoot people on the Ethereal Plane.

That's actually one of the important Points. If Ethereal Jaunt allows you to attack Targets on the ethereal plane without restrictions that ranged ammunition cannot simply drop back into the material plane.

There is also this part about Ethereal Jaunt:

"An ethereal creature can’t attack material creatures, and spells you cast while ethereal affect only other ethereal things. "

That's pretty unambiguous, if you ask me. You just plain can't attack material creatures. No exceptions. How you Interpret that restriction is up to you, but I see no exceptions mentioned.

[shlominus]

the central argument from my side. "You" aren't attacking someone when launching an arrow or throwing a flask

indeed. when you are attacking you are not actually attacking. makes sense. it's not "you" making the attack, it is... someone else? something else? the thrown object maybe? is it frank?

you just spelled out why your argument seems more than a bit delusional. you have to bend over backwards claiming that "you" are not actually attacking when you are attacking for your argument to make sense. shitmuffin would be proud.

Whoever wrote Blink clearly thought of the ethereal plane as a place-you-go and not as an effect-you-have-on-you;

this. the "effect you have on you" is "moving between the planes".

edit: nice one, jason! i wonder how frank&friends, in all their good faith glory, could miss that.

[Jason]

"You" aren't attacking someone when launching an arrow or throwing a flask,...

That's obviously nonsense! "You" attack a target the moment you (as in: the player) are asked to make a roll or take an action with hostile intent for it. Even by the strictest of definitions, any action requiring you (the player) to make an attack roll, is an "attack" made by "you".

Your argument basically boils down to "I didn't shoot him, officer. I just discharged my gun, then my bullet attacked him!"

[Kaelik]

While I do think that most You range spells change the definition of you to include items you pick up, the reason I said a scroll won't burn is because the Elemental plane of fire attacks creatures, not objects, so when you hand it to another creature, it could only be destroyed if the fire attacked them, burned them, and then they catch on fire, and then they roll a 1 on their reflex save.

As for polymorph, nah, you pick shit up it doesn't meld into you, but not because the spell isn't now effecting it, because it's you. It is you, and the spell is effecting it. But the spell doesn't say that all equipment melds it says:

(by inheritance from Alter Self) "When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional."

So since you were capable of picking it up, you are capable of holding it, and thus it doesn't meld.

Oh I guess the example was Wildshape, which.... 1) Isn't a spell though I'm not SURE if that actually changes anything?

2) Uses the Wildshape and Alternate Form Inheritance rules.

So: "Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and vice versa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped.

Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When the druid reverts to her true form, ... [a]ny new items worn in the assumed form fall off and land at the druid's feet."

So it seems to just say A and ~A in the same ability, and leave it to you to figure out whatever compromise position you want.

[erik]

There are multiple meanings of “you”. There is you as a motive force and you as a body. If you cannot understand the distinction then i cannot help you.

Jason, I agree it is ridiculous but both options are ridiculous. You are faced with choosing the easiest to rule and least ridiculous. The ridiculous outcomes for #1 are improved kiting with a couple spells. The consequences for the others can lead to tons of unintended shit like trees of unlimited +1 weapons. Sharing spells by dropping equipment. And as I noted if you don’t treat left objects as separate objects not targets of a spell then you have a bevy of conflicting choices none of which have any rules guidance (options 2-5). So guaranteed requirement that you house rule it anyway.

P.S. shlominus, fuck off. Everything you said was stupid and is an embarrassment to the people arguing the case against mine. Shut up and let the adults talk.

[deaddmwalking]

In the case of magic fang, it is not a natural consequence that you can harvest an essentially unlimited +1 weapons. Even if you allowed for 'every tooth' as a weapon, and they were 'real weapons' and not subject to a -4 for improvised weapons, and you granted them damage as a particular weapon (like a dagger), you're not doing what the spell says.

Take the example of a crocodile - we know that it is a dangerous real-world animal with a bite that can kill a human. The base damage from ALL THE TEETH is 1d8+6. With magic fang it is 1d8+7. A claim that each individual tooth should do 1d4+1 (or some such) is to disregard that the natural attack constitutes a single 'weapon'.

The spell description says:

Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)

Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

Now, if you cast it on a crocodile and started pulling teeth, eventually it would be reasonable that the base damage would decrease - a toothless crocodile probably doesn't do the same damage as a toothy crocodile, but the rules don't say anything about that. But clearly taking a tooth from the crocodile doesn't destroy the 'natural weapon', nor does it duplicate it. The tooth may have been a constituent part of the natural attack that benefited from the spell, but it isn't the natural weapon.

When you cast magic fang on a crocodile, it gets a magical attack, the end. The magic weapon is non-transferable. But you can enhance a natural 'ranged' attack like a manticore's spikes.

[erik]

I forgot magic fang was just 1 weapon. Still works on a giant tree branch used for slam attacks. Or greater magic fang on same awakened tree. Don’t recall if GMF can be permanent

Harvest magic weapons and make arrows spears maybe even bows.

No I never advocated crocodile as an ideal source. Nor did anyone.

[Jason]

There are multiple meanings of “you”.

While I could agree with you on that on a philosophical level, I simply cannot on a rules level. "You" in that context means first and foremost your character and your trappings as they are willed into action by you (the player).

There is no metaphysical treatise needed to understand "You cannot attack creatures on the material plane". It's unambiguous. Claiming it is anything but is nothing but an attempt to bypass the rules as written, as well as their apparent their intent.

Keep in mind: the rules are written for laymen. They are written to be as easy to understand as possible. Occam's razor dictates that "you" refers to character actions willed by the controlling player.

I forgot magic fang was just 1 weapon. Still works on a giant tree branch used for slam attacks.

Only if the branch is a natural weapon of the creature targeted by the spell. If you seperate if from the creature (which would require a house rule as far as I am aware) it could lose that weapon. Nowhere does the spell state that you could now use that severed branch as a weapon yourself or craft magic weapons out of it.

I fail to see how you would multiply +1 weapons that way.

[erik]

Then we are left in a state where anything you drop is also you. And we have no idea what that means happens to those items. (Options 2-5)

And we get to deal with all the consequences of discarded equipment and body parts also being you.

[Jason]

Then we are left in a state where anything you drop is also you.

To a degree, yes. The problem is that the rules in 3.5 are not consistent about what they intend to be affected by spells that target "you". With the most legalese reading you'd lose all your clothing and equipment the monent you start Blink. That's obviously silly, so we can all agree that the spell should affect your equipment as well, otherwise the miss chance would make no sense to begin with.

But I highly doubt the designers who came up with the spell description ever considered that. They rather consider "You" as "Your character, directed by you". That's not really a usefull guideline, either, though.

Magic in 3.5 (or D&D in general) doesn't follow any rules of logic. Not just in-universe, but also in the rules themselves.

That's why it's my position that we should treat the rules as they are, without questioning them. They do exactly what they say they do and have no import on anything beyond them.

What does that mean in regards top dropping items while Blinking? Nothing. You drop the item, it lies on the ground. That ground being wherever your actual action takes place. You want to attack someone trying to drop an item? 20% miss chance. Why? The rules say so.

I find it utterly futile to argue anything beyond that. D&D just isn't consistent enough for such an effort to yield any significant result.

[violence in the media]

Magic in 3.5 (or D&D in general) doesn't follow any rules of logic. Not just in-universe, but also in the rules themselves.

That's why it's my position that we should treat the rules as they are, without questioning them. They do exactly what they say they do and have no import on anything beyond them.

I think this is the part of the argument that I have the most trouble with, as it denies any sort of logical extension to situations the rules don't cover and aims to thwart any attempts to derive consistent conclusions. Spells doing exactly what they say is certainly consistent and straightforward, but it is also unsatisfying and restrictive. Especially because it relies on us having perfect faith that the designers didn't forget a word, or a chunk of text, or omit something for space, or were unaware that another rule already exists, or whatever else.

I don't think I've ever played at a table where no player ever asked something along the lines of "the spell/rule/whatever says I can do X, that should mean that I can also do Y, right?" Spells doing only what they say, with no interpretation or influence from any other rule of the game, is what gives us things like 4th edition and magical flames that can't start fires.

[deaddmwalking]

Harvest magic weapons and make arrows spears maybe even bows.

No I never advocated crocodile as an ideal source. Nor did anyone.

A dragon, a tree, a crocodile - it doesn't matter. You can't make magic weapons for other people by cutting the target of a spell into pieces. Unless, of course, the spell says you can.

The logic is 'they intend the spell to make the target have a slight buff'. Any use of the spell that is inconsistent with that intent is suspect. The spells themselves don't follow any internal logic.

For example, fire shield (brought into the conversation by Frank Trollman with some BS about how if you believe that items you drop are still affected by your spell must give you fire spit) is really weird. It's intended to give you a defensive buff by making you on fire (but not hurt by it). But the intent is not to give you an offensive buff, so you can't hurt people with the flames. I can be hugging two people at the same time and neither of them is hurt by the flames. One of them can attack me and take damage from the 'heat of the flames' while the other suffers no damage. By any definition of 'fire', this makes absolutely no sense. If the flames are hot and the person I'm hugging has no protection from flame, they should take damage. There is no way for the 'fire' to be simultaneously hot and not hot at the same time for two different people. And yet, that's exactly what the spell does.

We can pore through the spell lists and most of them are subject to this type of logic fail. They work in a way that they couldn't possibly work, even if magic was real. But it's not and they're not. Even very basic spells are subject to this - why doesn't burning hands hurt the caster? Why doesn't enlarge person cause your legs to break because doubling the cross-section while multiplying your weight by a factor of 8 exceeds the stress tolerance of human bone?

The only sensible answer is: Spells do what they say they do and they don't do things that they don't say they do.

If you follow that through every spell in the book, you'll very rarely run into problems. And if it offends your sense of 'reality', you should repeat to yourself that this is all imaginary magic and keep in mind that fire is both hot and not hot in the same place and hurts one person and doesn't hurt another even if they're literally touching the same spot. If you can accept that, you shouldn't have a problem with magic at all.

[Jason]

I think this is the part of the argument that I have the most trouble with, as it denies any sort of logical extension to situations the rules don't cover and aims to thwart any attempts to derive consistent conclusions. Spells doing exactly what they say is certainly consistent and straightforward, but it is also unsatisfying and restrictive. Especially because it relies on us having perfect faith that the designers didn't forget a word, or a chunk of text, or omit something for space, or were unaware that another rule already exists, or whatever else.

I can certainly sympathize with that. And yes, I would use my own house rule explanation for a consistent approach as well. But then we are talking about house rules and no longer about RAW applications.

I don't think I've ever played at a table where no player ever asked something along the lines of "the spell/rule/whatever says I can do X, that should mean that I can also do Y, right?" Spells doing only what they say, with no interpretation or influence from any other rule of the game, is what gives us things like 4th edition and magical flames that can't start fires.

That's what makes designing good rules hard. I know of no D&D Edition that had rules I was happy with. And I am someone who actually liked playing 4th Edition, even still do, (I am into boardgames and 4e just tickles my fancy there). Even 3.5 was a clusterfuck of rules. I highly doubt anyone actually plays D&D for the rules, rather than the setting and nostalgia.

[Ignimortis]

That's what makes designing good rules hard. I know of no D&D Edition that had rules I was happy with. And I am someone who actually liked playing 4th Edition, even still do, (I am into boardgames and 4e just tickles my fancy there). Even 3.5 was a clusterfuck of rules. I highly doubt anyone actually plays D&D for the rules, rather than the setting and nostalgia.

Eh. 3.5 is still the best fantasy superhero system I've seen. Everything else is either a larger clusterfuck (Exalted), doesn't follow the powerlevel (every other D&D edition), or isn't fantasy-focused by default (GURPS).

[Whipstitch]

D&D 3.5 isn't perfect but it was written back before the industry went all defeatist on us and quit trying.

[tussock]

Tussock, you aren't grasping the central argument from my side. "You" aren't attacking someone when launching an arrow or throwing a flask, it is an ammunition projectile, and once it leaves your person, it isn't affected by the spell because it isn't a part of you, so it isn't ethereal, same thing as when the spell is dropped. You are Blinking, but the items you dropped aren't because they aren't you. That's the argument. Arguing "20% attacks means all attack types" or "Weapons carried change damage values" doesn't touch the argument because they don't address the You/Not You problem. Those arguments ignore that dichotomy.

Sigh. "You" is used for "Target: You" spells. It's a naturalistic use of the term of art to reinforce that rule. But in all seriousness, when something says you can't attack, check what "attack" means.

It's an attempt to hit your foe. You roll an attack as 1d20+mods. If the attack roll succeeds you do damage according to the weapon. So you cannot attempt to hit your foe, you cannot roll 1d20+mods, and you cannot succeed and do damage, because you cannot attack. It doesn't fucking matter what you think happens to your shit when you throw it in this case because you cannot attack material targets from the ethereal plane, and "you" obviously includes all your equipment and weapons for that rule too. This pops up in every use of ethereal stuff, including in Blink if you understand it.

That is why Blink gives you a miss chance, that's what it says about that flat miss chance, because you are sometimes ethereal just as you attack, it just fucking fails because you can't attack! That ethereal is another defined term that means "on the Ethereal Plane". When "you" are on the Ethereal Plane "your" attacks strike ethereal creatures and cannot be used on material ones. Phase Spiders can't fucking well drop rocks on material people from the Ethereal Plane, OK, that is not a thing, though they could phase in way up high ....

Stop referring to fucking Enlarge Person, refer to Ethereal Jaunt. You cannot attack while ethereal, because nothing can attack the material plane when ethereal. It's why all the ethereal creatures can step on to the material plane (or do the ghost's manifest thing, which puts a copy in). In blink it's the same, but you can attack either way because you shift all the time, there's just a miss chance because you can't predict when, so sometimes you waste it on the wrong plane. It's not difficult.

I know you want to say, "but my equipment isn't me after I attack", but your fucking attack is you, and it's your equipment at the time you make it, and you can't attack. If you want to invent a story about how dropped stuff always falls onto the material plane (but really, don't do that, at least not before the spell ends), you still have to not allow attacks that way because you cannot attack! /Sigh.

[virgil]

A character on the ethereal picks up a sword with ghost touch that's on the material, but it doesn't matter, because they can't attack anyone on the material.

[erik]

Too late Tussock. Jason already won me over enough that I don’t care to argue the point further. I will grant that it is a dumb game and there doesn’t have to be a unifying physics. I find one interpretation yields more sensible outcomes but I have run out of fucks to give. If I’m not responding to the corollary topic with deaddm, I’m sure as fuck not rolling back the clock to arguments already made and repeatedly addressed on the basis of nothing new beyond the introduction of bold and underline.