By "effect" I mean that spells are organized on the spell-level scale based on their anticipated effect on the game, not on how they achieve the effect.

Creative spell use involves manipulating the "how" of a spell so that it does something to achieve a final effect that wasn't considered by the designers, so as to make the spell far more effective than spells of that level are intended to be.

I personally don't mind a bit of creative spell use - as long as it doesn't make the game less fun.

Edit: As an example: There's nothing in the description of 1st Edition AD&D "Enlarge" that says you can't shrink metal objects around softer objects, and crush the softer object. Now - the intended effect of "Shrink" is probably just to make objects a teensy bit smaller, maybe to shrink doors, or whatever. But, by noting that a crown, or a helmet, encircles the head, and the spell actually says "instantly" - as in, the opposite of "gradually", the shrink spell can be used to kill anything that relies on its brain and wears a helmet.

You manipulate the "how" to get a much more powerful "effect". You note that shrink shrinks "instantly" - that's the "how". You manipulate it so that instead of being a marginally useful object shrinker, it becomes an instant death, no save skull-crusher.

And then, in later versions of the game, the designers have been made aware that people are using it that way, and they intentionally change the spell to prevent this from happening.

If you (general you here, everyone feel free to answer) had a player who decided to use shrink as a skullcrusher, and you were playing an edition of the game that didn't explicitly say it couldn't be used that way, would you allow it?

Would you have an NPC unexpectedly do the same to a player character?

I've actually dealt with this in my game.

I did not allow the 1st level character to insta-kill with the spell. Instead, I ruled that the helmet shrank as far as it could, then did 1d2 damage and 1 hp per round until the helmet was yanked off, at which point it did 1d2 more damage, and tore off the ogre's ear.

I told the player that he was very clever, but that by using the spell in this way, he could feel it trying to backfire on him - the spell had an "intended" use, which he knew of, and he was taking a risk warping it out of its "comfort zone".

And no, NPCs did not then start using it on the PCs, because NPC casters know that it's dangerous - if the object can't shrink without destroying something, there's odds that it will slow the spell, causing gradual shrinking, or cause the spell to rebound on the caster, making all of HIS items shrink, etc, etc. It occasionally works - but it's more likely to backfire.

I came up with the reason this time, but on other occasions, it's been my players coming up with reasons why certain spells just don't work right when you try to abuse them beyond a certain limit, which experimentation generally reveals safely enough.

Creative spell use is best when it's situationally clever, like using an unseen servant to carries the parties lantern 100 feet ahead of the party, so they can ambush monsters trying to sneak up on them, or using mage hand to safely open a door with a possible ambusher behind it so that the monster on the other side swings wildly into empty air as the door opens.

It's less fun when it sets precedence for a game breaking rort that can be applied any place or any time.

The world the game emulates is artificial, and it's conveyed to the players through the medium of language.

Language is not precise or concrete enough to close loopholes that would be closed if the game world were "real".

So, that's what the DM is for, adjudicating those loopholes and omissions and whatever, and that's why I don't adjudicate spells by the letter of their description - because those descriptions are never complete, as long as their goal is to describe a situation as it happens in an emulated world, rather than on a gameboard.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;492357How does that link relate to what you are talking about?

You really can't figure out the connection between "you did something I didn't like, so the gods kill you" and "if I did allow it ... the gods themselves would strike them down"? The re-phrasing has left you so completely baffled that you claim to need a supercomputer to decode the connection?

Guess "Blazing Donkey is illiterate" is the confirmed winner here.

(If you're having problems figuring out what I'm saying there:

(1) "Blazing Donkey" is the handle you post under here.
(2) By '"here" I'm referring to the RPGSite.
(3) "Illiterate", in this context, means "unable to understand English".
(4) "English" is the language that the rest of us are using to communicate.

If any of the words in this explanation are confusing you (and I'm assuming all of the words with one or more syllables fall into that category for you), then I recommend checking out http://www.dictionary.com.)

Ciao.

I am more comfortable with creative insta-kills if they rely on siezing unusual opportunities or involve some tactical set-up. The issue with the shrink example is after the initial clever use it becomes an effortless way to dispatch anyone wearing helmets. I think in that case either limiting shrinks ability to damage someone that way (d2 was a good example) or allowing npcs to use it on the pcs as well is the way to go (if people really want it fine, but it is a double edged sword).

I liked the d2, 1 hp per round it was left on, and then another d2 and some cosmetic damage when it got torn off. I also had the ogre lose a turn pulling the helmet off. Did about what I thought, at the time, a first level spell used creatively should do.

But I could see where it was going to go if I went strictly by the text - the party would be playing insta-kill ring-toss with every monster they met.

Quote from: daniel_ream;492393It's entirely the point. The OP was about the creative use of existing spells. There are no official spells in any version of D&D[1] that will allow the gravity-driven mass driver effect so beloved by some of you.
 

Well..um...sorry to have brought this up I think, but for the record, the situation came up in a 2nd edition game I was running circa 1995. The power in question wasn't technically a spell, it was a psychoportation psionic power which I find after checking was called Dimensional Door (Complete Psionics Handbook, pg. 69). It creates a sustained gateway at a PSP cost of 4, + 2 per additional round (minute).
(This particular power is also famous for "creative use" by letting players teleport monsters 50 yards up, BTW - someone wrote in to Sage Advice and complained about it at one point).
 
The power was actually known to one of the characters in the party, a halfling multiclassed psionicist/thief - though she needed more PSPs to have done anything particularly destructive. One of the other players was a 1st year uni physics student at the time and did some calculations of kinetic energy etc., but it being 15 years ago I forget the details.

Quote from: Benoist;492343Therefore, it's really about you finding that the use of teleport spells proposed is unbalanced, a munchkin use of spells, instead of anything else having to do with game world consistency and the like. Thank you for admitting it.

I can see why your resume was rejected by the LaToya Jackson Psychic Network. You're really not Uri Geller material, are you?

Once again, your attempt to read my mind - instead of reading the real, tangible words on the screen - has led to the formation of another delusion in that ageis of intelligence that you so humbly carry within that nervously ticking brain of yours.

I admitted nothing. This is effectively another strawman argument.

I'll bet the crows stay the hell away from your house.

Quote from: Benoist;492375No mate. It's Daniel who completely ignored my point about innovation and analogy, lateral thinking and association,

Did you really just say that? I thought I was having an acid flashback, but no, you did just say that.

Why is it signficant? -- Here's why: You and Justin have been trumpeting the cause of this silly 12th century mass driver idea (for reasons I have yet to understand) and Daniel comes along and outs both of you for not even understanding how the spell workis.

THEN you say: "It's Daniel who completely ignored my point about innovation and analogy, lateral thinking and association..."

You completely ignored what he said and completely ignored the actual words written by Gary Gygax himself as to how the spell works. But, hell, none of that matters because according to your logic, Daniel is in the wrong for not entertaining your drunken ramblings about why the spell should work the way you want it to.

Since you're the one arguing that a dimension door mass driver is possible, the burden of proof is on your back; not the other way around. This is understood everywhere and is actually incorporated into the legal systems of most countries of the world.

It's not Daniel's responsibility to prove your argument. That is completely absurd (and, ironically, the same trick that Wise Sage Justin tried to pull on me.).

Daniel shot down your argument and, like so many others who have yet to attain emotional puberty, you couldn't admit that you were wrong so here we are with you rolling around and spraying spittle and moaning that everyone else must justify your arguments.

Buck up, little guy. The sun will shine again.

Quoteand you who then jumped on the bandwagon because it was convenient for you to get a buddy on the thread to give you ammunition you sorely needed.

It's really fascinating that you view all of this as some sort of power struggle. You just unintentionally gave us all a panoramic view into the way you think and gain emotional validation & self-worth. To which I will respond with a Cthulhuesque poem:

QuoteAnswer my point about analogy. If you can use analogical reasoning, lateral thinking and association to come up with creative uses of spells, then the creation of such an effect is, in theory, actually possible.

Newsflash! You can't use a spell to do something it doesn't do. To use an analogy, you can't use a wooden spoon to cook food as one would do with a microwave oven. The spoon does not generate microwave radiation and is incapable of cooking food.

A dimension door spell simply does not work the way you want it to, so you're arguing that if you can make some kind of crazy balls-out rationalization, you can make dimension door do something that goes against the very fiber of what the spell actually is.

To use another analogy, this would be like saying "I am going to use Spiritwrack to cure disease."

Be sure to send NASA some telemetry data on your voyage into deep space.

QuoteNevermind the exact combo of spells required. That is, in fact, neither here nor there.

Why? Because you say so? -- LOL!!!

How hilarious to watch you trying to rule as 'irrelevent' the very thing that is being argued about in the first place.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;492442You really can't figure out the connection between "you did something I didn't like, so the gods kill you" and "if I did allow it ... the gods themselves would strike them down"? The re-phrasing has left you so completely baffled that you claim to need a supercomputer to decode the connection?

"What Are You Talking About - The Commercial" - Take 26.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I don't know what point you are making. I don't know extrapolation you are trying to string togather with this quote you keep bringing up.

Please clarify your point and your argument. Don't assume that I know what you are talking about because I'm telling you that I cannot decipher any of your reasoning. Also, try picking a point and sticking with it, rather than dancing around all over the place like Al Gore waking up in bed with Paris Hilton.

Thanks in advance.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;492435Creative spell use is best when it's situationally clever, like using an unseen servant to carries the parties lantern 100 feet ahead of the party, so they can ambush monsters trying to sneak up on them, or using mage hand to safely open a door with a possible ambusher behind it so that the monster on the other side swings wildly into empty air as the door opens.

It's less fun when it sets precedence for a game breaking rort that can be applied any place or any time.

Well said. That's how I see it, too.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;492465Well..um...sorry to have brought this up I think, but for the record, the situation came up in a 2nd edition game I was running circa 1995. The power in question wasn't technically a spell, it was a psychoportation psionic power which I find after checking was called Dimensional Door (Complete Psionics Handbook, pg. 69). It creates a sustained gateway at a PSP cost of 4, + 2 per additional round (minute).

Thank you for clarifying this.

This should effectively end the debate. We were under the impression that you were talking about AD&D - which as you know - has a very different description of "Dimension Door".

Problem solved - and the egg is on all of our faces because we made an assumption.

Quote from: Blazing Donkey;492525I can see why your resume was rejected by the LaToya Jackson Psychic Network. You're really not Uri Geller material, are you?

Of course. "It's about balancing the game" and "it's about considering the approach to be munchkin, 'overpowered'," are two statements that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Either you are mentally crippled, or you believe I am. Either way, there's no future for our "conversation."