| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| martynq |
Posted - 24 Dec 2014 : 09:53:18
Anybody got any thoughts about the old 2nd edition spell air tread that can be found in the Menzoberranzan box? I was trying to work out what the differences are between it and the air walk spell (found in the 2e/3e/v3.5 Player's Handbook - I gave up keeping up when 4e came out so don't know whether it appears in later versions).
Air tread describes itself as "slightly more powerful" - but from what I can see the main difference is that it can be cast on a falling person (though that seems rather difficult to do via "touch"). Otherwise, there seems little difference.
Am I missing something?
(The background is that I am back on an old project to convert old 1e/2e spells to v3.5, and I'm trying to work out if these is any point converting this one.) |
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| AuldDragon |
Posted - 02 Jan 2015 : 08:14:23
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon
As the text does not detail drawbacks such as being knocked flying by weapon blows or light winds, one can assume...
The text doesn't mention that either for a Reduced Person shrunk down to an inch high...  Aaand we're pretty much in a circular argument at this point.
Completely irrelevant. The Reduce spell is specifically designed to shrink an object to make it more vulnerable or easier to move. Being more vulnerable to winds and blows is an inherent part of the effects of the spell. Air Tread on the other hand is specifically designed to allow one to move through the air or across liquids with normal balance. I feel that by virtue of it being an official published spell, it must be able to do that under common conditions, and so the onus is to figure out HOW it does that, rather than just assume it is broken because I don't like it or like the edition it was published for, as appears to be your point of view.
Jeff |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 02 Jan 2015 : 07:44:39
quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragonAs the text does not detail drawbacks such as being knocked flying by weapon blows or light winds, one can assume...
The text doesn't mention that either for a Reduced Person shrunk down to an inch high... Aaand we're pretty much in a circular argument at this point.
*shrug* I have nothing more of meaning to add on Air Tread. |
| AuldDragon |
Posted - 01 Jan 2015 : 12:15:31
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Fair enough, Jeff, to what you are specifically addressing but I am addressing martynq's requested comparison of Air Tread to Air Walk "found in the 2e/3e/v3.5 Player's Handbook" when I responded to your post. The reasons for my posts is to specifically help martynq find those differences and support his goal "to convert old 1e/2e spells to v3.5, and I'm trying to work out if these is any point converting this one."
Despite me not having specific 3e recommendations, describing the actual differences between the spells in 2e can only help. If martynq decides there's no point in converting it after knowing the specifics, it's no sweat off my back.
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
And without using Air Walk as a basis how would you adjudicate "temporarily alters the body weight... so that the creature can walk upon liquid or air with normal balance and at normal movement rate" to mean anything other than the target is as light as a feather but will fall over if leaned too far/overbalanced and limited to the speed of normal movement rate (IIRC, isn't that 12' for an unencumbered drow?). Would you say that an NPC drow under this spell's effect would be knocked for a distance like a ping pong ball when struck with a PC's weapon because the drow is light enough to walk on air? Can you interpret any language that would be anything but a house rule that the spell's target can grip the air to facilitate straight upwards movement? That "normal balance" limitation not only eliminates sideways and upside down postures but also precarious leanings as those are not normal. Is the target just immune to all winds regardless of intensity or subject to them and because of their new weight are rendered like blowing leaves in the gusts?
As the text does not detail drawbacks such as being knocked flying by weapon blows or light winds, one can assume such things do not occur, as they are quite common situations. As the spell grants normal balance, it can be assumed those under its affects can operate in wind strengths that they could otherwise operate in normally as well. The spell lacks the specific movement restrictions of Air Walk, and details an ability to move straight down. So the question is, can you move up at all, and if so, what are the restrictions? One option is that you can't, but since it IS a higher level spell than Air Walk, I would argue that you can move up, and use the same restriction as the ability to move down. That is a Ruling, not a House Rule.
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
A player and the game master reading the spell's description must come to the same understanding of how that spell works. Since this spell is most certainly in the hands of a GM's villain when encountered the player will be keen on knowing all the strengths and weaknesses of the spell. If the player's reading of the spell does not match the effects encountered then that player might feel cheated because black and white rules were not followed. Example, a PC magic-user might cast Gust of Wind at an Air Treading drow expecting to knock it aside for the group's escape through the portal behind it. Air Tread does not address that in its description but does say the target is light enough to walk on air and it is reasonable to believe that a Gust of Wind will send such a target tumbling far, far away. A glaring weakness like that would be exploited by any player and creating a spot house rule to patch it might break more fragile trusts between players and their GMs.
The interpretation of the rules lies strictly in the hands of the DM, and the only requirement is that he be fair (i.e. the spell operates the same if the PCs manage to get their hands on it). If a player feels cheated because he would interpret the spell differently than the DM, well, that's entirely on the player, not the DM. Feeling cheated because a DM interprets something differently than he would is amongst the worst forms of player entitlement.
As for a PC knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the spell, unless the player's character has done some research or encountered the spell before, everything about it should come as a complete surprise. I sure as hell would dock XP if a player used out-of-game knowledge like a spell weakness that there was no way his character could know.
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
If spells are written to be entirely self-contained unless making call outs to very specific mechanics as you contend, then why are they mentioned at all? Does it not make sense to you that the noted spells might be referenced for mechanics and rulings regarding aspects not mentioned at all in the original spell?
It's a literary affectation, meant to be a sort of "magical etymology," but that has nothing really to do with the function of the spell. Spells in 2nd Edition often contain bits of lore and history.
Jeff |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 30 Dec 2014 : 20:17:24
Fair enough, Jeff, to what you are specifically addressing but I am addressing martynq's requested comparison of Air Tread to Air Walk "found in the 2e/3e/v3.5 Player's Handbook" when I responded to your post. The reasons for my posts is to specifically help martynq find those differences and support his goal "to convert old 1e/2e spells to v3.5, and I'm trying to work out if these is any point converting this one."
But I do not agree that higher level spells and longer casting times should be discounted as drawbacks. Take any spell, make a new version of it (Mad Ivan's _______) that changes nothing but the spell's level (+1) and the casting time (+1). The original spell and Mad Ivan's operate the same way but the lower availability and slower cast time of Mad Ivan's version are inferior attributes to the more achievable and faster original version. Lower level spells just have those advantages with very few exceptions. Higher level spells are desirable for the powers they command, not because they are easily wielded by novices and are quick to cast.
And without using Air Walk as a basis how would you adjudicate "temporarily alters the body weight... so that the creature can walk upon liquid or air with normal balance and at normal movement rate" to mean anything other than the target is as light as a feather but will fall over if leaned too far/overbalanced and limited to the speed of normal movement rate (IIRC, isn't that 12' for an unencumbered drow?). Would you say that an NPC drow under this spell's effect would be knocked for a distance like a ping pong ball when struck with a PC's weapon because the drow is light enough to walk on air? Can you interpret any language that would be anything but a house rule that the spell's target can grip the air to facilitate straight upwards movement? That "normal balance" limitation not only eliminates sideways and upside down postures but also precarious leanings as those are not normal. Is the target just immune to all winds regardless of intensity or subject to them and because of their new weight are rendered like blowing leaves in the gusts?
A player and the game master reading the spell's description must come to the same understanding of how that spell works. Since this spell is most certainly in the hands of a GM's villain when encountered the player will be keen on knowing all the strengths and weaknesses of the spell. If the player's reading of the spell does not match the effects encountered then that player might feel cheated because black and white rules were not followed. Example, a PC magic-user might cast Gust of Wind at an Air Treading drow expecting to knock it aside for the group's escape through the portal behind it. Air Tread does not address that in its description but does say the target is light enough to walk on air and it is reasonable to believe that a Gust of Wind will send such a target tumbling far, far away. A glaring weakness like that would be exploited by any player and creating a spot house rule to patch it might break more fragile trusts between players and their GMs.
If spells are written to be entirely self-contained unless making call outs to very specific mechanics as you contend, then why are they mentioned at all? Does it not make sense to you that the noted spells might be referenced for mechanics and rulings regarding aspects not mentioned at all in the original spell?
Now, I apologize for bashing 2e along the way in my zeal answering the posts all along this thread, but I found it necessary to do so in order to strip away the romantic notions coloring what is a blunt and unforgiving task to grind up one thing and reconstitute it as another thing. The spell description, what is specifically there and not house rules, as compared to its predecessor is what needs to be assessed in the harshest glare of light possible. The only things I have added were opinions of what I'd like to see in a 3e modification of this 2e spell. |
| AuldDragon |
Posted - 30 Dec 2014 : 13:10:31
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
The definition of Air Tread specifically says it is a more powerful version of Air Walk. Therefore, anything that is true of Air Walk is true of Air Tread unless the description of Air Tread tells us differently. The description below the break is copied verbatim from the Priest's Spell Compendium Vol. 1 with parts underlined where Air Tread is inferior to Air Walk and with parts in bold where it has abilities superior to Air Walk.
That's an overly-literal reading, and I'd argue an incorrect one. 2nd Edition spells are generally self-contained; if portions of another spell apply, they will specifically call it out (and saying that it is an "improved version" is not specifically calling out portions of another spell). Take a look at the higher level Animal Summoning spells for example. In an example more in line with the Air Tread spell, see the Ravenloft reversed spells such as Cloud of Putrefaction, Zone of Deception, etc. They were developed after-the-fact and published in other supplements, but rather than being lightly described and requiring one to access the other spells for details of use, they are fully described. It's also important to note that one of the reasons the limitations of Air Walk probably don't apply to Air Tread is that the spells operate differently, as evidenced by them being in different spheres (Air Walk in Elemental Air and Air Tread being in Necromantic).
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Air Walk lasts for an hour +1 turn/level, is a 5th level spell, has a casting time of one less, and works on a creature "as large as the largest giant." The spell's Sphere is Elemental Air and the components needed are thistledown and a holy symbol. These are the things that make Air Walk different from Air Tread.
A spell does not need to be better in every respect to be considered "improved;" higher level spells generally take longer to cast for example (the casting time guideline for priest spells is generally spell level +3, and both spells follow that). Improved Haste is a 6th level wizard spell and only affects one creature, and has the same effects as the 3rd-level Haste spell; it is "improved" because it doesn't age the target. Similarly, Ghost Armor is an "improved" version of armor, except it doesn't last as long. Being labeled an "improved" version doesn't actually mean much in game terms in AD&D; generally just that it is a higher level and the author felt it was a reasonable thing to say.
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Air Walk went through changes when converted into 3/3.5e.
I was specifically addressing the differences between the spells in 2nd Edition, and I wasn't making any recommendations regarding converting it. I should have been more clear on that point.
Jeff |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 30 Dec 2014 : 09:57:15
quote:
Originally posted by AuldDragon
Air Tread allows one to walk on liquids. It also alters the affected creature's weight, which is rather unspecified, but could have a variety of other effects. In addition, since one can walk straight down, I'd assume...
The definition of Air Tread specifically says it is a more powerful version of Air Walk. Therefore, anything that is true of Air Walk is true of Air Tread unless the description of Air Tread tells us differently. The description below the break is copied verbatim from the Priest's Spell Compendium Vol. 1 with parts underlined where Air Tread is inferior to Air Walk and with parts in bold where it has abilities superior to Air Walk.
Air Tread
Drow (Alteration)
Sphere: Necromantic
Level: 6
Range: Touch
Components: V,S,M
Casting Time: 9
Duration: 1 rd. + 1 rd./level
Area of Effect: Creature touched
Saving Throw: None
This spell, a more powerful version of the air walk spell, temporarily alters the body weight of the priest or a touched being (of large size or less), so that the creature can walk upon liquid or air with normal balance and at normal movement rate. Unlike the 3rd-level spell, water walk, the being's feet do contact any liquid walked upon.
If cast upon a falling creature, this spell stops the descent within a further drop of one body length of the creature. If any surface is struck during this time, base falling damage is halved. Using the spell duration to walk straight downwards and lessen the height of a remaining unavoidable fall can lessen damage from long falls. When the spell ends, normal descent (with possible falling damage) occurs.
This spell is often used to walk across chasms, or from one rooftop to another, but can he used to cast a single spell while stationary in midair. This use of the air tread spell exhausts it immediately upon the completion of casting the other spell, so the caster immediately begins to fall.
The material components are a feather, a pinch of dust, and a sandal or shoe of any size.
Notes: Granted by the drow god Vhaeroon.
Air Walk lasts for an hour +1 turn/level, is a 5th level spell, has a casting time of one less, and works on a creature "as large as the largest giant." The spell's Sphere is Elemental Air and the components needed are thistledown and a holy symbol. These are the things that make Air Walk different from Air Tread.
There is no change to upwards movement meaning it is the same as Air Walk. There is no mention of immunity to winds so that is the same as Air Walk. Air Walk says "tread upon air just as if it were walking on solid ground" while Air Tread says "can walk upon liquid or air with normal balance and at normal movement rate" which is the same difference meaning there is no difference there either.
Air Walk went through changes when converted into 3/3.5e. Air Walk is a 4th level spell open to all clerics and druids. The movement is the same as is the wind effect though that has an initial threshold of 20MPH before it has any effect. The size limit is Gargantuan for the target. At the end of the spell an airborne target will float to the ground at 60'/round for 1d6 rounds instead of immediately plummeting. And the duration is only 10/level minutes meaning it lasts an hour less as long as the 2e spell cast by a similar level cleric.
The advantage Air Tread might have had in 2e by giving some drow aerial movement they might not have otherwise had are moot in 3e. Given that 3e Air Walk lasts 100 times longer than 2e Air Tread and 2e Air Walk pads that by an additional 60% it is hard to imagine Air Tread continuing as a 6th level spell without changes accounting for the power discrepancies between it and 3e's Air Walk. The 3e Wind Walk spell is a 6th level spell superior to Air Walk and is available to all clerics. So Air Tread must change or be rendered obsolete. |
| AuldDragon |
Posted - 30 Dec 2014 : 08:07:28
quote:
Originally posted by martynq
Anybody got any thoughts about the old 2nd edition spell air tread that can be found in the Menzoberranzan box? I was trying to work out what the differences are between it and the air walk spell (found in the 2e/3e/v3.5 Player's Handbook - I gave up keeping up when 4e came out so don't know whether it appears in later versions).
Air tread describes itself as "slightly more powerful" - but from what I can see the main difference is that it can be cast on a falling person (though that seems rather difficult to do via "touch"). Otherwise, there seems little difference.
Am I missing something?
(The background is that I am back on an old project to convert old 1e/2e spells to v3.5, and I'm trying to work out if these is any point converting this one.)
Air Tread allows one to walk on liquids. It also alters the affected creature's weight, which is rather unspecified, but could have a variety of other effects. In addition, since one can walk straight down, I'd assume one could walk straight up (like climbing a ladder, perhaps), whereas 45 degrees is the maximum angle possible with Air Walk; it also doesn't specify a movement rate penalty, so normal movement rate is theoretically possible. It also doesn't make any reference to winds interfering with it. The other big difference is that Air Walk is uncastable by Vhaeraun's clerics, prior to Demihuman Deities at least. Demihuman Deities apparently took the position that Air Tread was redundant and simply granted all of Vhaeraun's priests access to Air Walk, and made no mention of Air Tread.
While I would definitely disagree with the statement the spell makes that it is "more powerful," it is definitely different enough to be a useful addition to the game, especially if Vhaeraun's non-specialty priests are not granted access to Air Walk.
Jeff |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 29 Dec 2014 : 20:19:28
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos... My point was simply that the spell in question might be sub-par, but that's the nature of the Art...
I would totally agree with you if this were an arcane spell but this is divine magic and it has been my opinion that divine magic is immutable. The deities create their miracles and grant the ability to use them to their chosen few. I would think it sacrilegious for a priest to endeavor in a temple to alter the work of his god to suit his own needs using the power borrowed from said god. Divine magic only works because there is a divinity granting it and without that deity there is no power. The same is not true for arcane magics.
As far as I see of it the Art really does only refer to arcanists like sorcerers, wizards, bards and other practitioners of learned spell crafting. I concur that the versions of arcane spells used by PCs in the current gaming timeline are much different from the cruder magicks used by the races of Toril to end the Days of Thunder. Finding such a spell from -20,000 DR would likely have all the effect of us discovering the weapon technology the Hittites used to conquer all their surrounding lands - a novelty of historical importance but hopelessly antiquated and obsolete in our modern world as it was by the Assyrians about 3,000 years ago. And we definitely do not differ in the idea that variations of common spells have been developed and/or are in the developing process.
Divine magic is different. If a god changes anything about a granted spell it is changed for all his divine casters ex post facto. "So it is written. So it shall be..." It is the way of the deity and the pious do not object. Granted, under 3rd ed rules I do concede that PC metamagic feats allow for alterations of even divine spells but I see that as divine will, not character innovation nor aspects of the Art.
Anyway, thank you for the kind words, George. I was inspired by Spider Man but thought it too "swingy" with too much dependence on high structures being nearby. I like the descriptive color of conjured webbing for movement and the idea of players examining the spider silk left behind attaching the points from where the spell was started to points anchored in unattached space to the ground where their spellcaster was knifed by a poisoned blade behind the warriors' line and up to a bolt hole where the priestess disappeared and then having the webbing dissipate into black dust as the spell expires. The players should have that "we might be in over our heads" look that they should have when tackling the drow as an enemy. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 29 Dec 2014 : 12:28:34
The min/maxers must be stopped! My point was simply that the spell in question might be sub-par, but that's the nature of the Art. Lornathas of Arrabar may have developed a version of 'fireball' with no somatic component. The archmage Roaln "the Hagslayer" Imithil might have developed a version of magic missile that fires only one per 6 levels, but they all do maximum damage. No one spell, if a game is being DM-ed properly, should be a game breaker.
-- George Krashos
P.S. I like your ideas re the drow spell example above. Nice work. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 29 Dec 2014 : 10:52:25
I like the drow motifs presented :P |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 29 Dec 2014 : 06:45:43
George, you can never discount the significant minority of RPG fans that are min/maxing munchkins and the valiant but hopelessly overwhelmed individuals who try to stem the worst aspects of those fans by trying to make the games balanced and fair. If we were to run the Realms as they are written most gaming groups would experience Total Party Kills, often in very lopsided conflicts. It's why we have rules that favor PC survival and balanced play structure that ensures everyone has a fair chance to be the heroes they envision themselves to be instead of some simile of "Angel Summoner and BMX Guy."
Air Tread is a spell that might be in the arsenal of a drow priestess, one of the iconic bad asses of the Realms. Saddling her with a subpar spell like Air Tread as it is is like giving a Marine a Nerf gun to take into battle - a limitation that needlessly detracts from the ability to provide the utmost effort in accomplishing a goal. A drow priestess giving her all to defeat the PCs should test them sorely, not make them wonder why it was so easy to beat down one of Lolth's special daughters.
If you're still interested, martynq, I have another idea regarding Air Tread. The original spell created aerial travel for drow clerics. How about the spell providing special movement but in the motif of the Spider Queen? As a free action the enspelled target can create a tendril of web that propels her 30' to its anchor point. Here's the kicker, the anchor point is anywhere in space including midair with no solid object anywhere nearby. The movement itself is treated for the spell target as taking a 5' step as far as other actions are concerned. Even when surrounded by enemies, so long as the movement goes at least 15' up no attacks of opportunity can take place unless the opponents have reach weapons or are larger than medium sized. A "double move" or full round movement allows use of the tendril ability twice. The target can stay at the anchor point, even in midair, until the spell expires and be treated as if they were standing on solid ground with no hindrances (full dex bonuses and able to face any direction). Everything else is as per the spell in the 2nd Ed material. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 28 Dec 2014 : 23:28:41
I hear you Jeremy, but we're not talking about the "Simbul's Spell Trigger", we are talking about "Air Tread/Walk", which in most campaigns would make an appearance every 8th or so session.
-- George Krashos |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 28 Dec 2014 : 19:37:03
Well, not every campaign can handle a magic item or spell that puts one player ahead of everyone else, or that gives players the means to make mincemeat out of an adventure the DM spent hours working on.
These things can happen even when everything is reasonably balanced, sure, but there's no reason to make life harder than it has to be when you're playing the game. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 28 Dec 2014 : 05:32:23
Umm, why does it have to be 'balanced'? It is what it is. Spells and magic items shouldn't be approached with a cookie cutter mentality, IMO.
-- George Krashos |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 28 Dec 2014 : 01:35:03
Yep some spells don't translate well into 3e and this seems to be one of them. However, there were several examples of spells in 2e that didn't make logical sense compared to others when it came to their power. That's to be expected though when literally thousands of spells exist in a game. |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 25 Dec 2014 : 09:09:00
2nd Ed Air Walk (D: 1 hour + 10 Min/lvl) is way more powerful than Air Tread (D: 1 rnd + 1 rnd/lvl). The only advantage I see in the description of one over the other is Air Tread allows a single spell to be cast while in the air before instantaneously negating itself.
3/3.5 Ed Fly is a 3rd level Travel Domain spell which is superior to the Air Walk spell as written in 2nd Ed in all aspects (speed, duration, ability to cast spells while flying, spell casting access). Keeping Air Tread as a Drow sphere priest spell in 3rd Ed is going to require more than one of the following: - increased duration (10/lvl minutes or hour/lvl)
- increased range (short or ranged touch)
- Decreased Level (as appropriate)
- better movement category (perfect flight movement and able to "run" like in normal movement on ground)
- Increased movement speed
- Dodge bonuses to AC
- circumstance bonuses to Hide & Move Silently
All in all, it seems like a complete rewrite is necessary. Maybe it would be best to prune this one unless you really want to tackle it. |
|
|
