# EoM-R Questions Continued...



## sirwmholder (Jul 10, 2006)

I hope I can illustrate this query detailed enough to get my point across... I'm having trouble calculating damage for this spell... and would a save be for half or no damage?

If I were to use *Move [Force] 4 / Gen [Area/Range] 1*... the effect could be eight squares ( using a battle mat ) of earth surrounding the caster lift into the air and all that earth can be dropped on a creature no more than 30 ft. away... dealing ??? damage for dropping 50,000 lbs. of dirt / stone / plant matter on them.  Given that 1 cubic foot of earth weighs approximately 90 lbs. / stone weighs about 100 lbs. / and plant matter or roots weigh considerably less... using an average of 100 lbs. that would leave a 2.5 sq. foot hole around the caster and a lot of damage on a creature... granted the affected creature would get a reflex save... but for how much?... in any case for a level 5 Mage... ouchie... using similar wall spells from SRD I came up with 10d6... though to be honest 25 tons would deal more damage I would think.

Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 11, 2006)

Very interesting idea.... hadn't thought of picking up a bunch of dirt and dropping it on someones head..


 But, a couple of issues:
 - add in +4 MP of Move Air to give the pile of sod a flight movement mode.
 - Your Area of effect is actually a 10' circle, to get 30' of sod you need +3 MP for Area Effect
 - When parts of the spell go beyond your range, the spell stops funtioning, so you also need to extend the range, +2 MP for Medium Range
 - The sodonly has a movement rate of 30'

Then you have a spell capable of dropping a large section of turf on someones head...which means having to come up with damage..
   Easiest way to do this is run it as falling damage rules...I have attached some HRs gleaned from the HR forum a while back.. you will have to extrapolate somewhat..

Remember, the basic concept that if you want to hurt someone, Evoke should be better than dropping sod on someones head....

The save would be for half..


----------



## genshou (Jul 11, 2006)

Evoke Earth or Evoke Nature would be a faster and more efficient way of dealing physical damage, as it doesn't require you to spend a few rounds moving it into place and then hoping the enemy stays underneath until your next turn when you dismiss the spell.  Since concentration on (in order to control) and dismissing a spell are both standard actions, you can only do one of them, once per round.

If your foe is helpless and you want to bury them, though, this would be a good way to do it.

Also, remember that the earth is firmly attached to itself.  You can't just grab a chunk out of it and lift it off without breaking the dirt up first, unless it's already been loosened up into powdered dirt somehow.


----------



## Verequus (Jul 11, 2006)

I believe it can be done a bit more elegant. As you need already to concentrate on the spell, you could choose to use the Concentration duration enhancement, which allows the dismissal of the spell via simple ceasing to concentrate.


----------



## sirwmholder (Jul 11, 2006)

Thanks everyone for your for your quick responses.  I can definitely use all of the help I can get .



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Very interesting idea.... hadn't thought of picking up a bunch of dirt and dropping it on someones head..




This spell actually started off very differently...  The intention was to lift a giant doughnut/column of the dirt around the caster and have it begin to spin... add a Scry 0 to see what's going on outside during combat and have the benefits of 100% concealment.



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> But, a couple of issues:
> - add in +4 MP of Move Air to give the pile of sod a flight movement mode.




Aye you are absolutely right... I knew I forgot something 



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> - Your Area of effect is actually a 10' circle, to get 30' of sod you need +3 MP for Area Effect
> - When parts of the spell go beyond your range, the spell stops funtioning, so you also need to extend the range, +2 MP for Medium Range
> - The sod only has a movement rate of 30'




I'm still not sure I need this one... Using the chart Area, Targeted 1 has a range of 30' and an area of effect of 10' radius... since I need the 5' square in front of me and the 5' square behind me the 10' radius should be adequate... after the spell is cast I want to move it up to 30' as per the range... or am I still reading this wrong?



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Then you have a spell capable of dropping a large section of turf on someones head...which means having to come up with damage..
> Easiest way to do this is run it as falling damage rules...I have attached some HRs gleaned from the HR forum a while back.. you will have to extrapolate somewhat..
> 
> Remember, the basic concept that if you want to hurt someone, Evoke should be better than dropping sod on someones head....
> ...




Wow... using Table 1: Object Resilience... I would say d6... because sod might not be as solid as wood (though the spell would lift just as much stone since it's based on weight and stone = 100lbs. per square foot)... on Table 2: Damage From Falling Objects... the last entry... would be 250... 250d6... reflex save for half... somehow this is seems to be much more than I intended... maybe make it non-lethal damage... and apply suffocation rules if they are not dug out...



			
				genshou said:
			
		

> Also, remember that the earth is firmly attached to itself. You can't just grab a chunk out of it and lift it off without breaking the dirt up first, unless it's already been loosened up into powdered dirt somehow.




I can see your point but it still seems odd to me to be able to lift 25 tons but not be strong enough to rip through roots while pulling it out of the ground...



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I believe it can be done a bit more elegant. As you need already to concentrate on the spell, you could choose to use the Concentration duration enhancement, which allows the dismissal of the spell via simple ceasing to concentrate.




I was thinking of that also but I wanted to get the mechanics down before I added any of the details...

On a side note what would I need to lift the same area of dirt around the caster and have it explode outwards?

Thanks again,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 11, 2006)

Frag...
 Damn quad button mouse. I just finished a nice 30 minute long post..grabbed my mouse and hit the 'back' button...

Hmm.. shortened up..

*Range and area of effect...*
  Radius? I could have sworn that was diameter.. will have to re-read when I get home...

*Damage*
 I did some extrapolation on the table and came up with damage for a 5' cube of dirt dealing 1D8 per 5' of drop.. from 30' this makes 6D8, almost equivilent to the core Wall spells and about the same you can get from a pure Evoke {9D6 for the same area/MP cost}

As falling damage, the usual rules for non-lethal apply.. tumble checks etc...

*Fling*
  The mechanics should be the same, so you can describe it as either ripping earth up and dropping it on the targets or as having the earth boil up and explode outward. You would still deal 6D8 to targets within 30' and knock them prone..cover them with a layer of dirt..and generally make a mess. 

I would add the effect that the area the dirt came from and where it got dropped at is now difficult terrain...but thats just me 

Sorry for missing all the reasoning behind the above.. but my lunch break is over and I can't afford to rewrite it all


----------



## sirwmholder (Jul 11, 2006)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> *Range and area of effect...*
> Radius? I could have sworn that was diameter.. will have to re-read when I get home...
> 
> *Damage*
> ...




Thanks so much... I'm still not sure how to read your tables though .  Given the above I need to add this... if a 5' cube of dirt deals 1d8 per 5' of drop... then a single 5' cube dropping 30' deals 6d8 damage... however this spell effects the eight squares surrounding the caster... going only 2.5' deep... so that would still be 24d8... unless I missed something... that's still too much damage for the 9 MP spent on the spell...  I'm thinking of making a house rule... all spell damage is non-lethal damage unless it is the direct result of an Evoke Spell list... For this spell I rationalize it by you see it coming so you cover your vital spots... like a cave in... it may knock you out but it's not like dropping a lead weight on you.

As for the Fling I was thinking of adding Evoke Air for the Knockback effect... I'm loving the difficult terrain idea... I was thinking of having it leave a cloud of dust behind but I'm not sure if it should impede visibility though... thoughts?

Thanks again everyone for your help,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 12, 2006)

The additional side effects should be primarily descriptive.. I was thinking difficult terrain because, unlike Evoke that calls up the ton of sod, you are literally moving it from one place to another.. a natural consequence...
 A cloud of dust could very well hang in the area, but not have any mechanical affect. It would add to the 'realism' of the encounter as the characters could be described as coughing, hacking.. waving arms to clear the air.. If it does provide a mechanical advantage you should have to pay extra MP for it...in this case create Fog 

*damage*
"... however this spell effects the eight squares surrounding the caster... going only 2.5' deep... so that would still be 24d8... "

Yeah, this is what happens when I spend 30 minutes carefully laying out my reasoning...


			
				Extrapolation on the Falling Objects rules said:
			
		

> - I added more layers to Table 2, doubling the weight of the object each time and halving the dropping distance. I decided that a 5' drop is the minimum rating that could be used. This allowed me to get up to the estimated weight of a 5' cube of dirt, based on your 90lbs for the 1' cube. Then, by raising the resiliance 1 step I reduced the effective weight 2 steps, until I had a dropping distance that would work.
> - It worked out to match the Core damage and Evoke damage fairly resonably. Makes me think the HR Falling Objects was properly done.
> - The one thing I didn't cut/paste from the thread was how to handle heavier than 200lb objects...




   The main difference in calculations is that the entire mass does not damage the critter in the single square, just the cube of dirt directly above the critter. Essentially you are dropping individual chunks of sod that deal 6D8 damage to each square within your area of effect. Adding up the entire mass is a good way to convince people to Transform: Dragon and do death from above attacks... While 'realistic', I think it would impair the fun of the game.
  If you are using only 2.5 cubic feet of depth essentially half the weight, then the falling increment would be every 10', making it 3D8. I think the spell has enough power to dig up 5' worth of depth 

    I much prefer a spell that has some very cool visuals, does some very different {from Core} effects, yet would not cause a player to yell 'no fair' when used on them.
 Your 'Dump the Ground on Thier Heads' spell, which probably needs a cool name to match, fits this perfectly 

   The idea of having all non-Evokes deal non-lethal damage is an interesting one...The only objection I have is a tendency to try to keep the mechanics to match across similar situations..
   So, if someone drops a 150 lb boulder from 100 ft' up, it should deal 5D10, REF for half and tumbling to deflect some damage to non-lethal {the covering up critical areas}
 Then, if someone else 'Create: Nature' a 150 lb boulder and teleports to drop from 100' up, it should still deal 5D10, etc...

*Area* err... your right, it does say 'Radius'. I think I will continue to HR this to Diameter as Radius can get things pretty nasty.. I have done a Move: Death spells that just p*ssed my temporary DM off.. took a CR +4 encounter and turned it into a cakewalk.


			
				aside said:
			
		

> The 2 BBGs were unintelligent undead charging the group.. I tossed down a -40 Move zone in front of them with a 40' "diameter"...on top of difficult terrain. They both failed thier saves and got stuck doing double moves for 10' progress...and became pin cushions for the archers and other caster.... DM decided he might want to read the rules he had allowed sight-unseen into the game



I can hardly image the pain of that being a 40' _Radius_!


----------



## genshou (Jul 12, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> I can see your point but it still seems odd to me to be able to lift 25 tons but not be strong enough to rip through roots while pulling it out of the ground...



I'm not referring to roots.  You can't just lift a chunk of earth out of the ground without tearing it up first; look at how a backhoe is designed and how it operates to see a good example of the existence of this problem and how to counter it.


----------



## sirwmholder (Jul 14, 2006)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> ...If you are using only 2.5 cubic feet of depth essentially half the weight, then the falling increment would be every 10', making it 3D8. I think the spell has enough power to dig up 5' worth of depth



I've done the calculations... but feel free to check me here...

50,000 lb. of sod ( 1 cubic foot of sod = 100 lb. )
500 cubic feet of sod
5x5 squares at 1' deep times 8 = 200 cubic feet

500/200 = 2.5' Hole around the caster... 

Conversely you could have it go 5' deep and only 2.5' out... though the amount of dirt is unchanged.  Or you could have it just do the 4 cardinal squares at 5' deep... since the mass is spinning it shouldn't matter that the corners are exposed... which may make more tactical sense... anyway... thoughts and suggestions are always welcomed 

Attached is a page out of my spell book detailing this spell... hope you enjoy! 

Thanks for all of the help,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 14, 2006)

Very nice...

 One factor to consider on it.. if someone blunders into the spinning mass of sod, how to rule?

Perhaps pushed back ala bullrush with 1D4 points of damage?
 STR Check to push through the mass, DC somewhere around 35 with a circumstance mod of +/-2 for each size larger/smaller than medium? This way a large strong critter could barrel its way into the center, possibly taking 1D8 damage for each square moves into. Smaller critters would get bowled over and shoved out of the mass of dirt.

This would make the spell very nice for walking out of a mass of enemies...


----------



## Verequus (Jul 14, 2006)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Perhaps pushed back ala bullrush ... and shoved out of the mass of dirt.




Somehow this reminds of the situation, where you push someone slowly towards a cliff - and beyound.  Or simply pushing against a wall would be enough to kill weaker foes slowly. Too good?


----------



## sirwmholder (Jul 17, 2006)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> ...The only objection I have is a tendency to try to keep the mechanics to match across similar situations..



I took this advice to heart and was reexamining the spell again... I found something that doesn't make much sense and I was wondering if anyone else has made a house rule restricting Move [Force]... The problem I found was the strength chart listed in Move [Force] is well under the amount of strength you would need to move that much mass... attached is a revised chart I'm currently using for Move [Force]... I used the heavy load / Max Lift numbers straight from Core Rule Book 1.



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Very nice...



Thanks but it looks like my house rule will kill the spell for good.



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> One factor to consider on it.. if someone blunders into the spinning mass of sod, how to rule?
> 
> Perhaps pushed back ala bullrush with 1D4 points of damage?
> STR Check to push through the mass, DC somewhere around 35 with a circumstance mod of +/-2 for each size larger/smaller than medium? This way a large strong critter could barrel its way into the center, possibly taking 1D8 damage for each square moves into. Smaller critters would get bowled over and shoved out of the mass of dirt.



I would use the strength listed in the spell to push back anyone trying to enter... which is one of the things that brought this HR to fruition.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 17, 2006)

Using the STR score to push people around makes sense.. but what to do if the critter 'wins' and pushes into the spinning mass?

As to the revised Move Force.. your logic is sound... and it would kill the spell.. perhaps this is one area that its good to have magic break the rules..

Calling RW!!! Whats your take on the STR table presented above?


----------



## genshou (Jul 18, 2006)

The listed Str bonus is only for uses of the spell that pertain to bull rush, trip, grapple, etc. attacks at range.  The other function of the spell is separate, so the numbers do not have to correlate in any fashion.


----------



## sirwmholder (Jul 18, 2006)

Thank you so much for your responses... I love this type of discussion on game mechanics... ok I'm weird 



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Using the STR score to push people around makes sense.. but what to do if the critter 'wins' and pushes into the spinning mass?



I would treat the creature as grappling with the sod... each round the creature stays inside the swirling mass he takes 3d8 of damage and displaces that much earth... effectively weakening the spell each round he is there... each round he makes opposed strength checks... if the creature fails he is pushed out of the mass.  Conversely a creature can choose to end his grapple early and retreat out of the mass without sustaining further damage.  Since the creature is being treated as grappling he still doesn't threat the caster... all in all a creature could do it... but I wouldn't do it.



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> As to the revised Move Force.. your logic is sound... and it would kill the spell.. perhaps this is one area that its good to have magic break the rules..



I'm not opposed to magic breaking the rules... but I like cohesion... besides I used the numbers for Max Lift... if a player character or a creature were to have that much strength and lift that much weight all they could do would be staggering around at a 5' movement as a full round action... the spell still allows movement at a base speed of 30'.



			
				genshou said:
			
		

> The listed Str bonus is only for uses of the spell that pertain to bull rush, trip, grapple, etc. attacks at range. The other function of the spell is separate, so the numbers do not have to correlate in any fashion.



I see your point though to be honest the spell is just too good as is... for example... Move Force 8/ Move Air 4 / General 3 [Area/Range]... 15 MP spell... PC Mage ~ "That evil wizard has built a fortress on the top of a mountain... watch this! I'll ignore weight... that castle is Colossal sized ( since nothing is bigger than Colossal )... so I'll lift the castle and move it 150' over the edge of the mountain and end the spell... better yet... the mountain it's on is Colossal sized... so I'll lift the entire mountain rotate it until it's upside down with the castle at the bottom and drop it back down..." As a DM I don't mind world changing magic at very high levels (20+) but I'd rather not let a PC have that much power at level 15.  Since I was upping the MP cost for the size I threw a carrot and increased the amount of strength that the spell generated as well... if you notice a lot of the numbers are close (2MP will still effect 800lbs. up to medium sized... 4MP will still give 35 strength)... I dropped the 3MP and 6MP entries and continued to scale it up at 2MP per 5 strength... but I grouped it together in 3's so you would only have entries when the size category changes... there is also a logic to the way I calculated the lower cost MP... I started with 1 and doubled to 2, doubled to 4, doubled to 8 and then went to six per increase... which works out pretty fairly in my honest opinion.

Thanks so much for the comments!  On a side note I sent an e-mail to RangerWicket but haven't heard back on this yet.

Thanks so much for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 18, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> Thanks so much for the comments!  On a side note I sent an e-mail to RangerWicket but haven't heard back on this yet.




For some reason my email account doesn't like messages sent from EN World, and it tosses them in the junk folder (probably because you aren't sending the message, EN World is, so it can't verify your address).

I haven't used EOM-R myself for more than a year now; I know Mythic Earth a bit more intimately, and I don't have EOM-R available right now (I'm answering from a public workstation), so I can't answer right now about the table in particular.

However, items can certainly be bigger than colossal. I believe I use the term 'whoppin' the few times I feel the need to quantify these larger sizes.


----------



## Verequus (Jul 18, 2006)

While the SRD has extended the sizes beyound Collossal via Collossal+, ++, +++, etc., I prefer the mechanics in the Immortals Handbook - Bestiary. It even includes a better weight drop (like being crushed by big rocks) damage table. Even alone for the short section of new mechanics in the beginning the price of the book is worthy, but I wouldn't miss the rest myself. You have to see it with your own eyes to know that this book is worth every second you spend with it.  And no, I don't get anything for the sales promotion.


----------



## sirwmholder (Jul 18, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> ...I haven't used EOM-R myself for more than a year now; I know Mythic Earth a bit more intimately, and I don't have EOM-R available right now (I'm answering from a public workstation), so I can't answer right now about the table in particular.



That's cool... this is just a change I would feel more comfortable with before I would allow it at my table .  My group isn't ready for Mythic Earth just yet... I've been reading through the rules and I like what I see... I love how things have been streamlined... I just don't see it working with my group just yet...



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> However, items can certainly be bigger than colossal. I believe I use the term 'whoppin' the few times I feel the need to quantify these larger sizes.



I can definitely see your point here... also something to keep in mind is size is a relative term. Something that is Large to a Hill Giant would be Huge to Human... so maybe going with a straight weight limit dropping the size limitation altogether would be the most beneficial.  What do you think?



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> While the SRD has extended the sizes beyound Collossal via Collossal+, ++, +++, etc., I prefer the mechanics in the Immortals Handbook - Bestiary. It even includes a better weight drop (like being crushed by big rocks) damage table. Even alone for the short section of new mechanics in the beginning the price of the book is worthy, but I wouldn't miss the rest myself. You have to see it with your own eyes to know that this book is worth every second you spend with it.  And no, I don't get anything for the sales promotion.



Thanks for the heads up RuleMaster... I may have found my next purchase... That's the Immortals Handbook - Epic Bestiary correct? Just checking I didn't know if there was an unEpic version out there too 

Thanks again guys, keep it coming,
Wm. Holder


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 18, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> I can definitely see your point here... also something to keep in mind is size is a relative term. Something that is Large to a Hill Giant would be Huge to Human... so maybe going with a straight weight limit dropping the size limitation altogether would be the most beneficial.  What do you think?




Consider, though, that if you put an actual weight limit, players are going to argue about weight of objects. It's much easier to gauge the size of something than it is to figure out its weight. I'd be more tempted to drop the weight limit and replace it with a size only version, perhaps with a provision that particularly dense things like steel and neutronium would count as higher size categories.


----------



## Verequus (Jul 18, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> Thanks for the heads up RuleMaster... I may have found my next purchase... That's the Immortals Handbook - Epic Bestiary correct? Just checking I didn't know if there was an unEpic version out there too




No problem! And it is indeed the Epic Bestiary, but if you had known Upper_Krust, the author, then you would know that everything he does is EPIC! 

In case, you think: "Who is that guy now?" - Yes, it is me, RuleMaster! I've decided to change my nick, because I find the old one not neutral enough anymore, which happened coincidentally today.


----------



## sirwmholder (Jul 18, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Consider, though, that if you put an actual weight limit, players are going to argue about weight of objects. It's much easier to gauge the size of something than it is to figure out its weight. I'd be more tempted to drop the weight limit and replace it with a size only version, perhaps with a provision that particularly dense things like steel and neutronium would count as higher size categories.



In that case there would have to be an in game mechanic in place to guage size... for instance:

# of 5' Cubes : Size
1/4 : Tiny
1/2 : Small
1 (1x1x1) : Medium
8 (2x2x2) : Large
64 (4x4x4) : Huge
512 (8x8x8) : Gargantuan
4096 (16x16x16) : Colossal

x8 : x2

Is something like this what you had in mind?  Players can argue about anything but since you have strength listed and there is a basis for a coorelation between strength and weight I'd still feel more comfortable coming up with a chart to guage how much objects weigh based on materials used in construction verses how large an object is with only consideration for extremely dense metals... I realize that it's a bit more work figuring out these things up front but I feel it's important for emersion... I can see an arguement coming about lifting a pile of gold coins with a spell and the same spell can only lift roughly the same area of feathers...

Thanks for the feedback,
Wm. Holder


----------



## genshou (Jul 23, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> However, items can certainly be bigger than colossal. I believe I use the term 'whoppin' the few times I feel the need to quantify these larger sizes.



There are only three sizes.  "Wee", "not so wee", and "frickin' huge!".


----------

