tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post7011216713802887186..comments2024-03-26T15:35:56.004-04:00Comments on Delta's D&D Hotspot: Spells Through The Ages – Transmute Rock to MudDeltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-18967856121493580592018-02-10T18:08:18.145-05:002018-02-10T18:08:18.145-05:00I think one can reasonably differ about whether th...I think one can reasonably differ about whether this is a great fix or not. But I'm prone to not call obvious, time-worn, cliched spell uses as "clever". <br /><br />Coincidentally, I just got an email the other day inquiring what I thought of Gygax's very complicated response to why using it on the Temple of Elemental Evil wouldn't work. Personally, I think simple solutions like this are the best way to prevent setting-destroying side-effects.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-21775343781241583262018-02-09T20:28:58.854-05:002018-02-09T20:28:58.854-05:00"I even take an extra step in my own Book of ..."I even take an extra step in my own Book of Spells and further prohibit use of the spell against any "load-bearing" stone, so as to cut out the tunnel (and dungeon) cave-in usage."<br /><br />Every stone is 'load-bearing', if a man stands on the stone it's also that. This makes the spell pretty much useless. All I see here is another limitation attempt against mages to make non-casters more powerful compared to them, or in worse case a GM attempt of limiting players trying to avoid traps/dungeon routes by clever planning and spell use.Jorianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12048095947698696961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-34994337211785267602017-06-11T01:30:42.371-04:002017-06-11T01:30:42.371-04:00Yes. But note that this is not an isolated D&D...Yes. But note that this is not an isolated D&D thing. It's just what "square <i>anything</i>" means anywhere (e.g., video lesson above). Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-88982640723688743032017-06-09T13:54:18.009-04:002017-06-09T13:54:18.009-04:00OK, now I think I get it. And I'll post this o...OK, now I think I get it. And I'll post this only because it might help somebody else who doesn't get it.<br /><br />Here's the way I read it: <br /><br />When D&D lists 3" it really means 30 feet (or 30 yards sometimes). It's not really a math conversion, it's shorthand. <br /><br />So when it says "30 square inches" I read that as "300 square feet" because the shorthand multiplies the number by 10 and replaces the word inches with feet.<br /><br />So the spell, to me, affects 300 square feet. Which is considerably less than 3,000 square feet.<br /><br />The same thing with the 2 cubic inches. I'd equate that with 20 cubic feet. <br /><br />But what you're saying is:<br /><br />1 square inch in D&D is 10'x10. So when it says "30 square inches" you are saying they mean thirty of those 10'x10' cubes.<br /><br />That is a significant difference in size, and now I also understand how 2e came up with the 20'x20' cube description. <br /><br />Obviously, the 2e approach of identifying the number of cubes is much easier than calculating cubic feet for people like me, especially when it's also written in shorthand.<br /><br />So I guess the answer in my case is that the spell is not as powerful in my campaign as yours, since it covers a much lower AoE!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09267051945521881482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-90530070784893281282017-06-05T23:14:55.613-04:002017-06-05T23:14:55.613-04:00Area in square units has two dimensions, not one. ...Area in square units has two dimensions, not one. Area of a square is given by A = s^2. So if one linear inch is 10 feet, then a square inch is (10)^2 = 100 square feet.<br /><br />Compare: <a href="https://www.sophia.org/tutorials/converting-between-square-feet-and-square-yards" rel="nofollow">Converting Between Square Yards and Square Feet</a> (video). Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-5228947899885495182017-06-04T22:20:59.531-04:002017-06-04T22:20:59.531-04:00Doh! That's why you're the math lecturer a...Doh! That's why you're the math lecturer and I'm not!<br /><br />Except that I would translate that 30 square inches into 300 square feet. <br /><br />12" = 120'<br />30" = 300'<br /><br />So it's still smaller than a factor of 10. At least the way I would read it, as 300 square feet (or 30 x 10 feet) which is quite a bit less.<br /><br />Likewise I would read 2 cubic inches as 20 cubic feet. Which makes sense since later on they equated that to a 20' cube (which as I've shown IS mathematically incorrect - unless I'm wrong again...which is quite possible. Probable if you saw my math grades!).<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09267051945521881482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-50885152094110765352017-06-04T21:00:45.883-04:002017-06-04T21:00:45.883-04:00I think the main thing you're overlooking is w...I think the main thing you're overlooking is where the early text says "inches" (or the symbol "), meaning an in-game scale of 10 feet each. <br /><br />E.g., The OD&D text actually says "30 square inches" (not feet). A square inch means 10'×10' = 100 square feet; so the spell affects 30 × 100 = 3,000 square feet; which is identical area to Cook. Note also that the 10' depth of Cook creates a 3,000 × 10 = 30,000 cubic foot volume.<br /><br />Likewise, the AD&D specification is 2 cubic inches (not feet) per level, indicating a 10×10×10 foot volume for each of those "cubic inches". At 15th level you get the same volume as in Cook, say. The 2E specifier is trying to say the same thing (arguably off by a factor of 4).<br /><br />In conclusion: The area/volume is quite large and pretty consistent throughout early D&D. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-32054023373293694372017-06-04T13:41:13.094-04:002017-06-04T13:41:13.094-04:00It took me a moment to understand what 1d30 was go...It took me a moment to understand what 1d30 was going for here. But I think I get it:<br /><br />A fortified wall is built of separate pieces of stone, and therefore the spell only affects one of them. Very interesting (and clever) solution.<br /><br />It's funny, because I was thinking of almost the opposite solution--that large expanses of stone are too MUCH mass to be affected. Much like the difference between trying to boil a cup of water vs 5 gallons of water. You need a much bigger fire.<br /><br />It's easy enough to say that even on an area of bedrock, there are cracks and sections within the rock. <br /><br />Then I did some math:<br /><br />If we go back to the AD&D 2 cubic feet per level, but use the 5e spell slot level as the measure, then the most you can get is 18 cubic feet as a 9th level spell. That's about the size of a small refrigerator. Hardly castle-threatening. Even with the caster level, a 20th level caster making 40 cubic feet is only about 2 of those refrigerators. Depending on how many spell casters you have capable of 9th level spells, I don't consider it a real issue.<br /><br />Cook isn't anywhere close to identical.<br /><br />OD&D indicated 30 square feet, and Cook gave 3,000 square feet. That's a HUGE difference. Cook describes 3,000 cubic feet.<br /><br />That's a difference between 3' x 10' and 300' x 10'!<br /><br />I'd consider Gygax's 2 cubic feet as closer to what he meant by 30 square inches (since he wrote both the OD&D and AD&D versions). As a 5th level spell, you'd be 9th level minimum to cast it, or 18 cubic feet. That's about the size of a small refrigerator.<br /><br />2nd Edition and later described 20-foot-cubes (way different than 20 cubic feet). Again, it seems to be an issue with the TSR guys understanding math.<br /><br />30 inches by 10 inches, by 10 feet deep is 20 cubic feet (and possibly Gygax's original measurement - that's an inherent problem in using "inches" to measure feet or yards, or sometimes just inches).<br /><br />A 20 foot cube, on the other hand, is 8,000 cubic feet. At 9th level it's 18 20' cubes (which really makes the math more difficult), or 20' x 20' x 360' or 144,000 cubic feet.<br /><br />The problem here is the lack of game designers understanding their math - not the spell itself.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09267051945521881482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-22374411613342974412017-03-10T11:54:10.176-05:002017-03-10T11:54:10.176-05:00Hmmm,that's interesting, I may have to think a...Hmmm,that's interesting, I may have to think about that. A intriguing game-design problem; is it thematically really better to have <i>transmute rock to mud</i> be working on man-made, or non-man-made objects?Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-89820733949134976632017-03-10T11:51:50.662-05:002017-03-10T11:51:50.662-05:00That's a good observation about the 1E "n...That's a good observation about the 1E "natural stone" language; maybe I overlooked that a bit. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-81859730670140396382017-02-05T15:24:35.290-05:002017-02-05T15:24:35.290-05:00A typical 9th level Fighter will have a modest cas...A typical 9th level Fighter will have a modest castle, maybe just a single walled compound with a keep inside. For a caster of 9th level to be able to totally negate that is a bit much. Especially with the Druid version, making it applicable only to natural stone seems cool. But how about making a distinction between contiguous stone (like bedrock, or a cave) like with Meld Into Stone. This does a couple things: <br />1: A Wizard casting Wall of Stone to create cheap fortifications for the Fighter is not only leaving him open to Dispel, but also Meld Into Stone, Transmute Rock to Mud, etc. <br />2: Fighters who go through the expense and time to build a castle can enjoy security that it will take several dozen spells to create a small breach in a wall. <br />3: It doesn't change the spell's ability to affect the ground - as long as it's solid stone such as in a mountainous area or underground on bedrock. <br /><br />The big downside I can see is that it doesn't affect gravel, sand, etc. on a battlefield. But maybe that's good - some spells are useful in forests and grasslands, others on bare stone, some terrains are safe, etc. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-52558041166268855682017-02-02T13:00:48.763-05:002017-02-02T13:00:48.763-05:00Hmm...for whatever reason, I think I always interp...Hmm...for whatever reason, I think I always interpreted the spell (or "mis-remembered" it) as only functioning on unworked stone. Maybe the words "natural stone" in the 1E description put this in my mind. Regardless, the spell never saw much use in my games, perhaps because the text implied it's main utility was to mire and slow opposition.<br /><br />[the old AD&D comic book from DC had a rather amusing scene where an evil wizard uses "flesh to stone" and follows it up with "rock to mud." I always thought it would be badass to pull that on a PC]<br /><br />I think my opinion really depends on the relative scarcity of magic in the campaign. If there's a noticeable lack of wizards capable of casting such a high level spell, I would probably allow the wider latitude of use (bringing down castle walls, etc.). Such an individual would be rightly feared...and despised and hunted by the local nobles should he (or she) exercise such power too often.<br /><br />Yeah...the more I think about it the more I like it.<br />; )JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-71489649580469893312017-01-31T09:07:29.618-05:002017-01-31T09:07:29.618-05:00My instinct is to start with the 3rd edition, then...My instinct is to start with the 3rd edition, then simplify it. I go back and forth on the "collapse" feature, it is a 5th level spell and could be a good bang for your buck.<br /><br />It is interesting to see the push and pull of trying to maintain a mostly medieval world while acknowledging the consequences of magic and fantastic beasts. As well as the arms race of spells and counters/creative players over the editions.Baquieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357103428591599364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-51509705244019738562017-01-30T23:17:08.098-05:002017-01-30T23:17:08.098-05:00The one thing I would say about expecting transmut...The one thing I would say about expecting transmute to do tunneling work is that it would seem to make "passwall" at the same level defunct. <br /><br />I do remember being surprised at the number of spellcasters present at the start of Gygax's novel, noted above. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-22893706227639976362017-01-30T16:42:26.668-05:002017-01-30T16:42:26.668-05:00My instinct on the use of the spell on worked ston...My instinct on the use of the spell on worked stone or fortifications would be either:<br />1) place a greater limit on the area of effect of the spell (allowing it to be used to make breaches or tunnels for only a handful of people at a time, but not to collapse an entire building or wall) or<br />2) remove the spell. <br /><br />Limiting the spell to creating difficult terrain kills its excitement (although editions that allow it to be used to suffocate/drown foes make up for this) and remove the best feature of the spell. Honestly, when I first came across it, I thought burrowing through structures and fortifications was the spell's raison d'être in the first place. :)<br />(Related: many standard fantasy settings seem to portray wizards as too common. Mundane wizards - common enough that any besieging army would bring several - defeat the whole point of wizardry, haha.)Magushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04807974921087213718noreply@blogger.com