C&C rule head-scratching moments.

[Lord Dynel]

I was thumbing through the PHB and I landed on the spell, Reincarnate. Great spell, I must say. Reading through it, I noticed this little bit, something I had previously not noticed:

Quote:
A reincarnation followed by a subsequent wish spell can restore a reincarnated character to their original form.

Interesting. So I can cast reincarnate followed by a...hey wait a minute! I then flip to the wish spell:

Quote:
(6) A wish can bring back a dead creature back to life by duplicating resurrection

Now, the wording of reincarnate says that a wish must follow up on the reincarnate to bring back the original form of the reincarnated person. It doesn't give the impression, at least to me, that the wish can be cast at any ol' time after the reincarnate. The words "followed" and "subsequent" lead me to believe that the wish must be close behind.

So, the $23 questiuon is this - why don't I just skip the reincarnate and just cast wish?? Assuming both are available, and the druid's about to reincarnate the rogue, why don't I just tell the druid to save that spell and just cast wish alone.

Now, that said, I understand the difference in level between the two spells. That and the ambigous wording can possibly be construed to give the impression that wish doesn't have to immediately follow the reincarnate - that wish can be cast at a later date. But it still made me scratch my head.

Anything in the books, either the actual rule or an interpretation of something, make ytou scratch your head?
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Omote]

Lord Dynel wrote:
... That and the ambigous wording can possibly be construed to give the impression that wish doesn't have to immediately follow the reincarnate - that wish can be cast at a later date.

Interesting find. I would go with your quoted section above if I were to adjudicate such a circumstance.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Relaxo]

I'm inclined to think the WISH in this case can come from any source, even if there's no spell caster in the party with the spell. (?) So that, yeah, I'd allow some time to pass, based on the idea that wish is like, the most powerful spell there is. (right?)

This is why, as CK, you should always TPK in ways that disintegrate the bodies entirely.

[moriarty777]

How closely the spell has to be cast is up to the CK I would think. Cicumstances, available characters and memorized spells could all be factors to why. It also may to a bad thing to reincarnate a character but it could be problematic if the character were to be reincarnated into a Badger. Sometimes when you're in the middle of a dungeon, choices may suggest one course of action over another. Besides, casting wish would age the caster where as Reincarnate would not.

None are these are solid answers though but more contingent on the CK and the length of time casting Wish after a Reincarnate. Personally, as long as the character was still the same level, I'd allow for the Wish.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[DangerDwarf]

It's a wish spell. Why impose a time limit? I could polymorph myself into an elf with a 4th level spell. Why should a wish spell be less pimp?

[DangerDwarf]

Oh..I got one.

Illusionist cast heals require a saving throw but....

from the magic chapter:

A creature can voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept the spell's result.

[CKDad]

With all respect LD, I think you're over-thinking this one. There's no time limit, express or implied, in the first sentence - although from how that particular phrasing is commonly used, I can understand how one could get that impression. But "follow" and "subsequent" by themselves just mean that one event takes place after the other.
Wish can be used to alter reality in a truly major fashion, so I think putting some sort of time limit on the use of wish after reincarnate isn't mandated in the rules.
_________________
"I don't wanna be remembered as the guy who died because he underestimated the threat posed by a monkey."

[DangerDwarf]

And I agree with CKDad, I dont find it ambiguous.

But, thats not really LD's point. He's asking for things in the book that at first glance make you go hrmmmmm.

[serleran]

At first reading of the way class-and-a-half handles "arcane spellcaster" combinatorial applications, it seems odd, but a more close reading reveals the intent and way to handle it.

Regarding the reincarnate/ wish thing... I find reincarnate is way better than wish in this use, because it can make you something you were not, and that something may be much better.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Lord Dynel]

CKDad wrote:
With all respect LD, I think you're over-thinking this one. There's no time limit, express or implied, in the first sentence - although from how that particular phrasing is commonly used, I can understand how one could get that impression. But "follow" and "subsequent" by themselves just mean that one event takes place after the other.
Wish can be used to alter reality in a truly major fashion, so I think putting some sort of time limit on the use of wish after reincarnate isn't mandated in the rules.

True enough. It's true that "follow" and "subsequent" simply mean that one event happens after another. For sake of argument, couldn't have been simply worded like so?

A better way to have wrote:
At any time after the reincarnation takes place, a wish spell on the reincarnated creature will revert that creature to its original form.

I mean, technically the only thing that it actually says it one must be after the other. It doesn't say it has to be immediate but it doesn't say there can be an indefinite amount of time, either.
[/Devil's Advocate]

But yes, as a CK, I would play it to be "any time after."

DangerDwarf wrote:
But, thats not really LD's point. He's asking for things in the book that at first glance make you go hrmmmmm.

Exactly, DD. Seeing this earlier today made me think, "hmm, I wonder what else is in here that makes for an ounce of confusion or doubt...and I wonder what the other guys have found to be a little odd seeming."

And yes, failing the save for illusionist healing spells, on purpose, is a perfect example of this. Bravo!
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[dachda]

Just dealt with this in my campaign. My player's fighter was crushed by the hill giants north of the Green Man Circle in the Haunted Highlands. the druidess reincarnated the fighter, but as a wolf. I let the player create a new character (a 4th print barbarian!!), and she came up with the back story that her first character and second were twin sisters, separated at age 10, by an orc attack. One sister, the fighter was raised by a farmer, the other, was found by a barbarian tribe and raised. The barbarian was tracking down her sister, and arrived too late, the fighter sister was now a wolf. But I let them buy some dog chain barding for the wolf, and the two sisters now adventure together. If they ever find a wizard who can cast a wish, I let the wolf be changed back to human, but would probably ask the player to retire one of the two characters.
_________________
Sir Dachda McKinty,

Margrave and Knight of Portlandia
Castles & Crusades Society

[Treebore]

Personally, rather than a Wish I would just ask my mage buddy to polymorph me back to my original form as best he can, maybe with some better endowments in certain areas.

Or if I want to be exactly the way I was before require the use of a limited wish rather than a full wish.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Relaxo]

I almost agree, but some of the critters on the reincarnate table are like, newt... frog... not so heroic.

[DangerDwarf]

One of the most heroic guys I know is a newt.

[Lord Dynel]

Treebore wrote:
Personally, rather than a Wish I would just ask my mage buddy to polymorph me back to my original form as best he can, maybe with some better endowments in certain areas.

Ha! Wouldn't that be nice.

Quote:
Or if I want to be exactly the way I was before require the use of a limited wish rather than a full wish.

That would actually be a much better alternative, actually. Since limited wish, in and of itself, is not powerful enough to replicate a spell that raises the dead, this spell followed by a reincarnate would make better sense.

I think I may have to file this into the house rules of my game.

So, any other head-scratchers out there?
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[serleran]

I wonder why people allow "negative challenge difficulties."
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Omote]

serleran wrote:
I wonder why people allow "negative challenge difficulties."

Every once in a while, I do call for them. Only becuase in some instances the check is very, very easy, but if it does fail there is some type of large problem for doing so. Case-in-point. I recall the story of a rogue trying to climb over a sleeping stone giant to get at the headboard of it's rather large bed. The wall was made of rough cut stone, and there was a mantle of sorts atop the headboard. A simple climbing check, right? I think the CL was -5. "Roll a d20 the CK says." The rogue rolls a 2 or 3. Close, but no cigar. "Bah!" said the CK. "You slip and make little noise. But make the climb check to see if you catch yourself on the mantle before you fall onto the stone giant." The dice don't lie. The next climb check was a natural 1.

Easy for a 5th level rogue, right? Not so much when the chance for failure at this kind of roll is so catastrophic.

The giant ate well that night.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Frost]

That's a good point, Omote. Though, Steve had a good article in The Crusader a while back warning of the problems those situations kind of rolls can cause. In his article he argues that if you are going to call for a roll for an "easy" challenge, you, as a CK, better be ready for the worst case consequence. In his case, it was inadvertently causing a PC to fall to his death based on a failed roll even though as a CK, he hadn't meant the climb involved to really result in that sort of thing. Your case seems different though. I can see the argument for calling for the roll in your situation. That is rather a dramatic situation and certainly worthy of seeing if a PC's nerves, or what have you, got the better of him. In Steve's example, he sort of says he called for the roll off the cuff and, well, a PC went splat. I've been in that situation myself and try to keep that article in mind when behind the screen.

Even though I DM D&D 3.5, I find myself more and more nixing a lot of skill checks. Folks don't need to make a "rope use" check to tie up a monster, etc.
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

[koralas]

See now here is a situation that I wouldn't necessarily have called for a climb check for the rogue. The rough cut stone wall of a giant abode would have more than ample hand/foot holds, along with the mantle, to be so simple a climb that the rogue could do it with little effort. On the other hand, I would require a move silently check, which in this event, with that die roll, was failed anyhow.

And, call me a stickler, I don't have my book in front of me, but with climb being a dex check, and the rogue requiring dex as a prime, wouldn't the base check be a 12, then with a -5 CL, and a 5th level rogue, ending up with a die roll of 2+ required for success? So wouldn't that 5th level rogue player need to roll 1 twice? So maybe the CL wasn't -5...

Regardless, even in other areas, if a good enough description is given, I would not require a SIEGE Engine check, if feasible, or a bonus to the die roll (as opposed to a negative CL, same end result I guess). This is back to old school gaming, kind of why I like the rules light from C&C. Don't let the rules rule you, and more, don't let the ROLLS rule you.

As an aside, I am playing in a Dark Heresy (Warhammer 40k RPG) game, where there are a large set of skills, and the GM requires everything to be based on the die rolls. Picture searching a dead enemy that was just using a LasGun on you, and you roll poorly and can't see the 4' long weapon that he was shooting you with. One extreme to another here, granted, but goes to the point, that really, there are a lot of situations where you shouldn't be falling back to the die rolls.

Omote wrote:
Every once in a while, I do call for them. Only becuase in some instances the check is very, very easy, but if it does fail there is some type of large problem for doing so. Case-in-point. I recall the story of a rogue trying to climb over a sleeping stone giant to get at the headboard of it's rather large bed. The wall was made of rough cut stone, and there was a mantle of sorts atop the headboard. A simple climbing check, right? I think the CL was -5. "Roll a d20 the CK says." The rogue rolls a 2 or 3. Close, but no cigar. "Bah!" said the CK. "You slip and make little noise. But make the climb check to see if you catch yourself on the mantle before you fall onto the stone giant." The dice don't lie. The next climb check was a natural 1.

Easy for a 5th level rogue, right? Not so much when the chance for failure at this kind of roll is so catastrophic.

The giant ate well that night.

~O

[cleaverthepit]

Monkeys make great gifts for xmas

[Omote]

koralas wrote:
And, call me a stickler, I don't have my book in front of me, but with climb being a dex check, and the rogue requiring dex as a prime, wouldn't the base check be a 12, then with a -5 CL, and a 5th level rogue, ending up with a die roll of 2+ required for success? So wouldn't that 5th level rogue player need to roll 1 twice? So maybe the CL wasn't -5...

You are 100% correct. In fact, the rogue in the above story was actually a bard. The bard in our game was the default "rogue" (and she was the groups cleric, but that is another story).
~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Relaxo]

See, I think Omote did that perfectly. It was, like the books said, a scenario where the randomness of life would lead significant outcomes if the character failed or succeeded. making it easy still ratchets up the tension and therefore fun, but simply deciding the character fails would be arbitrary. I'd argue that was good storytelling. He even gave the bard two chances.

[koralas]

Granted, but some things are so simple, that they don't require a die roll check. Now as I mentioned, the move silently check on the other hand... So same result, different method to get there
The storytelling as you mention, even more points out to make sure you ROLEplay and not ROLLplay. While I would not arbitrarily decide a character fails at something, there are times that, either through circumstance, or excellent descriptions, a character can automatically succeed at something.

Relaxo wrote:
See, I think Omote did that perfectly. It was, like the books said, a scenario where the randomness of life would lead significant outcomes if the character failed or succeeded. making it easy still ratchets up the tension and therefore fun, but simply deciding the character fails would be arbitrary. I'd argue that was good storytelling. He even gave the bard two chances.

[moriarty777]

cleaverthepit wrote:
Monkeys make great gifts for xmas

DAMN STRAIGHT!
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Bowbe]

Relaxo wrote:
This is why, as CK, you should always TPK in ways that disintegrate the bodies entirely.

What he said.

[Bowbe]

I love it when rules are goofa doofa.

Example... and hopefully my players aren't reading this.

SO in a fight with werewolves in a evil cleric bell tower in the sea port of Eskadia, a couple of our PCs were bitten, and one was infected.

Later on that same character was the unfortunate victim of a nat 1 saving throw vs. a skeleton pull spell.

The party cleric happens to hate the character who was skeletal pulled so... he attempted to turn/destroy the PC skeleton.

Now...

(spoiler alert)

Most people would rule the character's skeleton turned and destroyed.

I voted fail.

The PCs bashed and broke down the skeleton. Later the skeleton appeared carrying the skin and organs of the slain character about.

They tried to turn it again. Fail

They got banished from the city for causing a zombie apocalypse and the death of a lot of the town leaders. The skeleton carrying its dripping organs followed them onto the boat and keeps trying to hang out with them, occassionally trying to climb back into its old skin without much luck.

The cleric is pissed and thinks he has somehow annoyed his capricious god Ataxus.

In 30 days I'm allowing the corpse to reunite as a whole character again as if he wasn't dead. And they are on a ship.

And the character will be a werewolf...tho when the moon is full will be rolled randomly at that point .

Missing sailors on the ship where a guy went from living dead to living? Should be good time

IF they attacked the corpse with silver... I would rule the character truly dead.

Rules wonk is just another way to create a good adventure.

As per the reincarnate/wish. You could indeed end up a newt, and someone might WISH you were back to your original form. Then again that original form chould always be some maggot ridden revenant bent on killing the party that let them die!

C.

[Hrolfgar]

Relaxo wrote:
I almost agree, but some of the critters on the reincarnate table are like, newt... frog... not so heroic.

Frogs figure in alot old tales as well. Usually end up getting that hot babes as well.

Today I just realized that C&C combines the old Wizard Lock(or arcane lock for 3rd edition) with the Knock spell. And it gets rid the old higher level wizard free pass rule, an improvemnt IMO .

[Omote]

Bowbe... wicked.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society