Quick Questions & Answers

[Kylia Quilor]

If they're all one linked plant, then theoretically I suppose yes, but it would have to be a fairly large fairy ring in total, as most versions of the spell I'm familiar with require either a 'Large' (as in the size of an ogre) Plant, or a plant that is the same size as the caster. And most understandings of the spell I'm familiar with would focus on the aboveground part of the plant.

That said, as a GM for a PF game where someone wanted to use transport via plants to travel via fairy ring, I'd probably be okay with it, if it was large enough overall. Definitely a case where a ruling could be made.

[Lord Foul]

3 hours ago, Avaday Daydream said:

D&D/Pathfinder general:
Is a fairy circle (one of those rings of fungi) considered a valid target for a Transport Via Plants spell? Either coming or going?

That sounds like a DM discretion thing. D&D generally treats fungi as plants for the purposes of magic spells and similar, so it feels okay to me. The issue might be size, so the decision could be down to whether the collective root system counts as a medium sized creature. But many DMs may just feel that the flavour text is appropriate and so let it happen anyway.

 

[leons1701]

Right. Technically fungi aren't plants but that is a distinction magic may well not make. Since the fairy ring itself is a tiny fraction of a much larger organism, I'd say it meets the size requirement. It's pretty much up to the DM. Fairy rings are pretty transitory, even if the organism that extrudes the ring is the same one, I'd probably not allow the use of a ring over more than a few days.

[CharmingSatyr]

On 12/23/2023 at 11:34 AM, Avaday Daydream said:

D&D/Pathfinder general:
Is a fairy circle (one of those rings of fungi) considered a valid target for a Transport Via Plants spell? Either coming or going?

Rules-As Written ... no. My answer is maybe. It depends on the details. At first read, the biggest obstacle will be size.

QUOTE

You can enter any normal plant (equal to your size or larger) and pass any distance to a plant of the same kind in a single round, regardless of the distance separating the two.

So, if you're a RAW-type GM, the answer would be a flat no, unless they were literally man-sized mushrooms, or the players shrunk down to mushroom size (which isn't beyond the pale in fantasy, let's be honest), those would be viable options.

However, all that being said, there are circumstances where it could be interesting to bend the rules for interesting story telling.

• Treat the ring as one plant, which could be technically possible since they share/communicate via their root system.
• As mentioned above, enlarge the mushroom or shrink the people.
• Have the spell caster research/modify the spell to make a new version of the spell that works with faerie rings. This could involve side-quests, pacts/negotiations/bargains with the fae, visits to Arcadia, and dangerous journeys to distant lands.
• Yes it works, but maybe faeries don't like people using their magic mushroom rings, so they send you off someplace else -- maybe someplace dangerous. Characters should learn not to play with faerie toys.

---

 

TL;DR SUMMARY:
It shouldn't work. But maybe you should allow it if it makes the game/story/plot more interesting without causing the GM too much of a headache.

Edited December 29, 2023 by CharmingSatyr
Oops! I didn't see the other responses! lol. (see edit history)

[Kylia Quilor]

1 hour ago, CharmingSatyr said:

Rules-As Written ... no. My answer is maybe. It depends on the details. At first read, the biggest obstacle will be size.

QUOTE

You can enter any normal plant (equal to your size or larger) and pass any distance to a plant of the same kind in a single round, regardless of the distance separating the two.

So, if you're a RAW-type GM, the answer would be a flat no, unless they were literally man-sized mushrooms, or the players shrunk down to mushroom size (which isn't beyond the pale in fantasy, let's be honest), those would be viable options.

However, all that being said, there are circumstances where it could be interesting to bend the rules for interesting story telling.

• Treat the ring as one plant, which could be technically possible since they share/communicate via their root system.
• As mentioned above, enlarge the mushroom or shrink the people.
• Have the spell caster research/modify the spell to make a new version of the spell that works with faerie rings. This could involve side-quests, pacts/negotiations/bargains with the fae, visits to Arcadia, and dangerous journeys to distant lands.
• Yes it works, but maybe faeries don't like people using their magic mushroom rings, so they send you off someplace else -- maybe someplace dangerous. Characters should learn not to play with faerie toys.

---

 

TL;DR SUMMARY:
It shouldn't work. But maybe you should allow it if it makes the game/story/plot more interesting without causing the GM too much of a headache.

Except that Fairy Rings are actually one plant. Most of it is just underground.

[leons1701]

Even more technical correction, one fungi. Not plants at all. However, it seems magic in D&D treats fungi as plants for most purposes.

[TheFred]

Even more technical correction, one fungus. 😀

[Coruja]

I am planning to run a game that uses two different game systems. I would like to know how can I set such a game?

The systems are: Chronicles of Darkness (CofD) and Dungeons and Dragons 5e (D&D5e). The two systems are needed because they are each used in different situations within the game. Basically, the characters are people in our world who play a virtual reality role-playing game. CofD enters in the real world, and D&D5e enters in the VRRPG.

I wanted to make sure interested people know this beforehand so that nobody interested misses the game, and I don't attract too much people that don't like either system so that I don't bother them.

Thank you for your help.

[Excior]

what is the exact order of combat for AD&D I have talked to people that say magic users tell what spells they are going to cast before inish is rolled and the spell goes off at the end of the round.

 

[leons1701]

That's sort of correct. 1e dMG p 65:

"SPELL CASTING DURING MELEE
These functions are fully detailed in PLAYERS HANDBOOK. Their commencement
is dictated by initiative determination os with other attack
forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time. Both commencement
and/or completion can occur simultaneously with missile discharge,
magical device attacks, and/or turning undead. Being struck by
something during casting will spoil the spell,
Spell-casters will always insist that they are able to use their powers during
combat melee. The DM must adjudicate the success of such use. Consider
this: The somatic (movement) portions of a spell must be begun and
completed without interruption in a clean, smooth motion. The spell as a
whole must be continuous ond uninterrupted from beginning to end. Once
interrupted, for any reason whatsoever, the spell is spoiled and lost (lust as
if used). Spells cannot be cast while violently moving - such as running,
dodging a blow, or even walking normally. They are interrupted by a
successful hit - be it blow, missile, or appropriate spell (not saved against
or saveable against).
Thus, casting a spell requires that a figure be relatively motionless and
concentrating on the effort during the entire course of uninterrupted casting.
For example, a magic-user casting a fireboll must be in sight of the
intended area of effect during the course of the spell (although an associate
could be there to open a door intervening between caster and
target area at an appropriate time - provided the timing was correct, of
course). The caster cannot begin a spell, interrupt it just prior to
completion, run to a different area, and then complete the spell; interruption
instantly cancels it. Unless a spell has no somatic components, the
caster cannot be crouching, let alone prone, during costing.
It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky
business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer! Any spell
can be attempted, but success is likely to be uncertain. Use the following
procedure for spells cast during melee:
1. Spell casters must note what spell they intend to cast at the beginning
of each round prior to any knowledge of which side has initiative.
2. Attacks directed ot spell casters will come on that segment of the round
shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die, whichever
is applicable. (If the spell caster's side won the initiative with a
roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent's losing roll of
4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1 st-6th segments of the
round.
3. Intelligent monsters able to recognize the danger of spells will direct
attacks against spell casters if not engaged by other opponents so as to
be prevented from so doing.
4. The spell caster cannot use his or her dexterity bonus to avoid being hit
during spell casting; doing so interrupts the spell.
5. Any successful attack, or non-saved-against attack upon the spell caster
interrupts the spell.
Because spell casting will be so difficult, most magic-users and clerics will
opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee, if they are wise."

 

PHB p 104

"Spell Combat:
Unless combat is spell versus spell, many such attacks will happen near the
end of a melee round. This is because the spell requires a relatively
lengthy time to cast, generally longer os spell level increases, so high
level spells may take over a full melee round to cast. Furthermore, if the
spell caster is struck, grabbed, or mogicolly attacked (and fails to make the
requisite saving throw - explained later), the spell will be spoiled and
fail. Spell combat includes cleric and magic-user, as well as monster oriented
spells. Curative spells are handled likewise."

 

Basically, the default assumption in 1e is that casting spells in combat is dangerous and difficult. Many, many people did not and do not play it exactly that way, but that was the default rules.

[cailano]

I love how @leons1701 summarizes all that Gygaxian in one sentence. The DMG was so freakin' wordy. I could not decipher it as a kid, so I stuck with Basic.

I think this is how an AD&D combat round goes:

1. Spell casters declare if they are casting spells

2. Both sides roll initiative

3. Spells go off at the end of the appropriate initiative segment

4. Any spellcaster struck before completing their spell loses said spell with no additional effect

As for me, I never allowed spellcasters to cast in melee unless they had some sort of defensive spell up, such as shield or mirror image. In that case, I allowed spell casting, but any damage taken would disrupt the spell.

And if you think that's bad, casters in Swords and Wizardry (an OD&D retroclone) had it even worse! In that version of the game, a combat round was broken into different phases: movement, missiles, and melee/magic. So, even if the caster's side wins the initiative, the enemy still gets the missile round to try and disrupt the effect. I actually like that way of playing better at the table because the spells in early editions are so powerful. One NPC spell caster with sleep can cause an instant TPK. Unfortunately, breaking rounds up like that in PbP would take up too much real-world time.

I think the Holmes edition of Basic used that same method of breaking up combat rounds. I tried it in a live Swords and Wizardry campaign last year, and it made for surprisingly tactical combat. I enjoyed it.

 

[yxanthymir]

On 1/7/2024 at 9:13 PM, Coruja said:

I am planning to run a game that uses two different game systems. I would like to know how can I set such a game?

The systems are: Chronicles of Darkness (CofD) and Dungeons and Dragons 5e (D&D5e). The two systems are needed because they are each used in different situations within the game. Basically, the characters are people in our world who play a virtual reality role-playing game. CofD enters in the real world, and D&D5e enters in the VRRPG.

I wanted to make sure interested people know this beforehand so that nobody interested misses the game, and I don't attract too much people that don't like either system so that I don't bother them.

Thank you for your help.

 

I don't want to throw a curse in your game, but that would be really hard to pull off and unnecessarily complicated. It would function a lot better with just one system, probably a light rpg system, and use different characters for each part of the game.

[Coruja]

38 minutes ago, yxanthymir said:

 

I don't want to throw a curse in your game, but that would be really hard to pull off and unnecessarily complicated. It would function a lot better with just one system, probably a light rpg system, and use different characters for each part of the game.

I agree. I gave it some thought and I'm reading modern 5e, but it's not kicking.

[Avaday Daydream]

Pathfinder 1e:
How much would it cost to make an item of infinite Wishes? Assuming it’s in the form of a shrine that gradually (over 30 rounds/3 minutes) grants a +5 inherent bonus to all ability scores to anyone meditating at it?

[Lord Foul]

4 hours ago, Avaday Daydream said:

Pathfinder 1e:
How much would it cost to make an item of infinite Wishes? Assuming it’s in the form of a shrine that gradually (over 30 rounds/3 minutes) grants a +5 inherent bonus to all ability scores to anyone meditating at it?

I don't think cost is really the issue here; at least not monetary cost.

This item would probably be the single most valuable artifact in the multiverse, so it would likely draw every powerful being to hear of it into one almighty clash that would surely destroy the unfortunate planet that happened to be its current resting place. So, yeah, the cost would be... high!

Then there is the question of how one might create such a thing. What can cast unlimited wishes? We're talking gods here, and a big one at that. So, you have an actual god bound into item form and compelled to dish out wishes to anyone meditating at it. That's going to be quite a tricky build, and watch out if the god ever gets loose; it's going to be seriously mad at you!

Honestly, why would you do a thing like this?