PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Spell Effect



sofawall
2010-05-28, 05:46 PM
(Lesser (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/globeofInvulnerabilityLesser.htm)) Globe of Invulnerability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/globeOfInvulnerability.htm). Some relevant text: "Note that spell effects are not disrupted unless their effects enter the globe, and even then they are merely suppressed, not dispelled" and "The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability". You'll note that these both reference the effect of spells. Antimagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicfield.htm) is similar: "The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects..." and "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area..."

You'll note antimagic field specifies the effect must be magic, so casting a Wall of Stone spell won't work, but walking next to the result of one won't cause it to wink out of existence. Glove of Invulnerability, however, only mentions spell effect. The effect of, say, a Sanctum Spell Wall of Stone would be affected (Spell effect, 4th level or lower). The spell's effect is "Stone wall whose area is up to one 5-ft. square/level". So what does the Globe do to this spell effect?

Optimystik
2010-05-28, 06:08 PM
A wall of stone is not a spell effect, because it is Instantaneous. The spell itself is no longer in effect, only its result.

Eurus
2010-05-28, 06:11 PM
Walking through a Sanctum Spell'd Wall of Force would be kind of fun, though.

arguskos
2010-05-28, 06:12 PM
Opti: That doesn't seem to matter. The effect line of Wall of Stone creates a wall of stone. Globe specifically interferes with the effect line of spells. It reads like Globe would wink out the wall when they came into contact, which is bizarre. :smallconfused:

Lysander
2010-05-28, 06:22 PM
Opti: That doesn't seem to matter. The effect line of Wall of Stone creates a wall of stone. Globe specifically interferes with the effect line of spells. It reads like Globe would wink out the wall when they came into contact, which is bizarre. :smallconfused:

My interpretation is that the wall is a spell effect, but only for the instantaneous moment of its creation. Afterwards, it is just a wall.

arguskos
2010-05-28, 06:26 PM
My interpretation is that the wall is a spell effect, but only for the instantaneous moment of its creation. Afterwards, it is just a wall.
I dunno, as written (and this is pretty clearly a "lol, look at how stupid RAW is" thread, or at least that's how I'm looking at it), it appears that Globe only cares if the wall is the effect of the spell, which it was, meaning it counts. RAW is stupid in this way it seems.

Also, I'd like to note the silliness of even IF Wall of Stone is winked out by a Globe, you have to Sanctum Spell it, and who seriously Sanctum Spells a Wall of Stone?

Fayd
2010-05-28, 06:29 PM
My guess is that you do it yourself, seal an enemy inside of a room, and then Globe of Invulnerability walk out. Mostly for style. Especially because it only suppresses the effect. Meaning it pops back up once the globe leaves the area.

Lysander
2010-05-28, 06:33 PM
I dunno, as written (and this is pretty clearly a "lol, look at how stupid RAW is" thread, or at least that's how I'm looking at it), it appears that Globe only cares if the wall is the effect of the spell, which it was, meaning it counts. RAW is stupid in this way it seems.

Also, I'd like to note the silliness of even IF Wall of Stone is winked out by a Globe, you have to Sanctum Spell it, and who seriously Sanctum Spells a Wall of Stone?

My reading is that the wall used to be a spell effect, but no longer is. After all, Globe of Invulnerability only says it stops spell effects, not former spell effects.

Also, no matter which interpretation you choose the globe could not suppress a wall created before the globe was cast.

arguskos
2010-05-28, 06:40 PM
My reading is that the wall used to be a spell effect, but no longer is. After all, Globe of Invulnerability only says it stops spell effects, not former spell effects.
Totally sane, and I agree in practice. :smallwink: RAW, it's probably debatable as the exact understanding of effect in relation to duration isn't clear.


Also, no matter which interpretation you choose the globe could not suppress a wall created before the globe was cast.
Actually... why not? The wall was still the effect of a spell. Just because the spell doesn't continue doesn't mean the wall wasn't the effect of the spell anymore or something.

This does come down to "what is the precise relationship between spell effects and spell durations" which is an unclear question. I'm just saying, it's a viable reading to say that the wall is still a spell effect, even though it's creation was instant. Personally, I'd smack a player who suggested this trick, because it's insane, but, hey, this is RAWLand, where anything is possible. :smallwink:

Temotei
2010-05-28, 06:44 PM
I concur. This is stupid. :smallamused:

I hate RAW so much.

Lysander
2010-05-28, 06:44 PM
Actually... why not?


There's a line in Lesser Globe of Invulnerability's description that bars it from blocking anything cast before the globe:


Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast.

Optimystik
2010-05-28, 06:46 PM
My interpretation is that the wall is a spell effect, but only for the instantaneous moment of its creation. Afterwards, it is just a wall.

Exactly.


I dunno, as written (and this is pretty clearly a "lol, look at how stupid RAW is" thread, or at least that's how I'm looking at it), it appears that Globe only cares if the wall is the effect of the spell, which it was, meaning it counts. RAW is stupid in this way it seems.

RAW is indeed stupid, enough so that we don't have to actively try to make it moreso. The PHB clearly states that instantaneous conjurations cease to be spells, therefore the things they create can't be "spell effects."

EDIT: Also, Lysander's tortuous reading of RAW trumps the OP's tortuous reading of RAW :smalltongue:

sofawall
2010-05-28, 09:31 PM
Ok, new scenario. You cast Globe. They proceed to cast Santum Spell Wall of Stone. It is now a level 4 spell effect that did not already exist when the Globe was cast.
Yes, this is totally RAWtarded. It came up in ToS chat.
Your move.

Douglas
2010-05-28, 09:46 PM
The Globe is immobile. It can't move.

Drakevarg
2010-05-28, 10:01 PM
After all, Globe of Invulnerability only says it stops spell effects, not former spell effects.

Consider it this way; you blast someone with Burning Hands, and the opponent catches on fire (or, if that doesn't actually work by RAW, I know for a fact that Flaming Sphere can set things on fire...) You cast the Globe. The dude is not instantaneously extinquished, because the fire that is currently eating his clothes is not part of the spell effect, it's merely the logical consequence of the spell's effect. Similarly, casting Wall of Stone causes a wall made out of stone to come into existance. It does not, however, cause that wall to continue to exist. A wall of stone existing is merely the logical consequence of causing a wall of stone to come into existance.

sofawall
2010-05-28, 10:05 PM
The Globe is immobile. It can't move.

Fine. Move the Wall.

Another_Poet
2010-05-28, 11:44 PM
Euros and Lysander are correct.

The wall of stone is not affected. It's just a mundane stone wall, and the spell is over.

sofawall
2010-05-28, 11:56 PM
Euros and Lysander are correct.

The wall of stone is not affected. It's just a mundane stone wall, and the spell is over.

And why do you say that? The wall is the effect of a spell, no?Yes, it's RAWtarded, yes, it's RAW.

Drakevarg
2010-05-29, 12:07 AM
And why do you say that? The wall is the effect of a spell, no?Yes, it's RAWtarded, yes, it's RAW.

No, it's not. See my last post for the logic. The wall is not the effect of a spell. The CREATION of a wall is the effect of the spell. A wall existing afterwards is merely the logical consequence of that effect. Just as being on fire is the logical consequence of someone dropping a flaming sphere on you.

sofawall
2010-05-29, 12:12 AM
Wall of Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallofstone.htm) Effect: Stone wall whose area is up to one 5-ft. square/level (S)

Oh look, it's a wall.

Flaming Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flamingsphere.htm) Effect: 5-ft.-diameter sphere

Oh look, it's a sphere that mentions nothing about being on fire. Your arguments seems to be pretty much totally wrong by the rules in the book.
Although, again, I am merely arguing on RAWtarded grounds.
Didn't I already link similar above? If not, I meant to.

Lysander
2010-05-29, 12:12 AM
And why do you say that? The wall is the effect of a spell, no?Yes, it's RAWtarded, yes, it's RAW.

However Wall of Stone's effect is to create a wall. Not to maintain the existence of a wall. After the "wall creation" effect has already happened there's no spell effect still going on for the globe to suppress.

sofawall
2010-05-29, 12:17 AM
Erg. I just posted that. The effect of Wall of Stone is a Wall. Not the creation of a wall. Not the existence of a wall. Not the maintenance of a wall. A Wall.

Drakevarg
2010-05-29, 12:18 AM
Wall of Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallofstone.htm) Effect: Stone wall whose area is up to one 5-ft. square/level (S)

Oh look, it's a wall.

Flaming Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flamingsphere.htm) Effect: 5-ft.-diameter sphere

Oh look, it's a sphere that mentions nothing about being on fire. Your arguments seems to be pretty much totally wrong by the rules in the book.
Although, again, I am merely arguing on RAWtarded grounds.
Didn't I already link similar above? If not, I meant to.

That's assuming, of course, that the flavor text is not "the rules in the book."

Lysander
2010-05-29, 12:19 AM
Wall of Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallofstone.htm) Effect: Stone wall whose area is up to one 5-ft. square/level (S)

Flaming Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flamingsphere.htm) Effect: 5-ft.-diameter sphere

Didn't I already link similar above? If not, I meant to.

I also think the confusion here is a case of mixing up the official DnD terminology and normal English spell description versions of "effect." I think the globe spell when it says "effect" isn't referring only to spells with an effect listing, but to all spells and by "spell effect" just means "whatever the spell does"

The same way you can't pick a "target" with a fireball, but you can still target someone with a fireball.

sofawall
2010-05-29, 12:21 AM
I also think the confusion here is a case of mixing up the official DnD terminology and normal English spell description versions of "effect." I think the globe spell when it says "effect" isn't referring only to spells with an effect listing, but to all spells and by "spell effect" just means "whatever the spell does"

The same way you can't pick a "target" with a fireball, but you can still target someone with a fireball.

Maybe it's just too much M:tG, but when something (like a spell) uses a keyword that actually has a D&D definition (like effect), I tend to use that keyword in my thoughts (like above).

Frankly, I don't see why there would be a D&D definition if we were menat to use the English one.

Drakevarg
2010-05-29, 12:25 AM
Maybe it's just too much M:tG, but when something (like a spell) uses a keyword that actually has a D&D definition (like effect), I tend to use that keyword in my thoughts (like above).

Frankly, I don't see why there would be a D&D definition if we were menat to use the English one.

The listing of "effect" is probably just a simplication so those skimming the book to see what spell X does don't need to waste everyone's time by reading the page and a half long explaination.

Lysander
2010-05-29, 12:27 AM
Maybe it's just too much M:tG, but when something (like a spell) uses a keyword that actually has a D&D definition (like effect), I tend to use that keyword in my thoughts (like above).

Frankly, I don't see why there would be a D&D definition if we were menat to use the English one.

Lots of spells without an "effect" use the word effect in their descriptions. For example:


Irresistible Dance
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: 1d4+1 rounds
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

The subject feels an undeniable urge to dance and begins doing so, complete with foot shuffling and tapping. The spell effect makes it impossible for the subject to do anything other than caper and prance in place. The effect imposes a -4 penalty to Armor Class and a -10 penalty on Reflex saves, and it negates any AC bonus granted by a shield the target holds. The dancing subject provokes attacks of opportunity each round on its turn.

sofawall
2010-05-29, 12:29 AM
Nicely defining the effect for us. Thanks for the aid on my side, Lysander.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-05-29, 01:18 AM
Duration: Instantaneous

That means the spell effect (or at least the magical part) happens instantaneously, does it not? After that instant of magic, the wall is just stone.

Durations, from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration):


Duration
A spellís Duration entry tells you how long the magical energy of the spell lasts.

[...]

Instantaneous
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

[...]
Subjects, Effects, and Areas

If the spell affects creatures directly the result travels with the subjects for the spellís duration. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration.(edit: added last part + emphasis)

Even if I'm reading it wrong there, isn't this the most contrived scenario ever? You have to create a wall of stone in your sanctum (or using acorn cheese or whatever) and then somehow move the wall (which has to be supported by stone) into a globe so that it can be suppressed for the duration of the globe spell.

I mean, there's RAWtardation that allows you to actually do something, like heal from drowning, and then there's this.

dextercorvia
2010-05-29, 01:21 AM
You have to cast it outside your sanctum actually. He wants the effective level one lower.

sofawall
2010-05-29, 01:22 AM
Say this wall decides to fall on you. It quickly becomes relevant whether or not you are paste or laughing at disappearing blocks.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-05-29, 01:27 AM
Say this wall decides to fall on you. It quickly becomes relevant whether or not you are paste or laughing at disappearing blocks.So... Someone spends one action casting Sanctum Spell Wall of Stone above you (why sanctum spell?), hopes you don't move, then spends another action removing the foundations (disintegrate, maybe?), so you can take some damage, as a best case scenario.

dextercorvia
2010-05-29, 01:29 AM
(why sanctum spell?) Lowers the effective level, making it eligible for the Globe to suppress (maybe).

olentu
2010-05-29, 01:31 AM
So how does one move that wall during its instantaneous duration existence.

dextercorvia
2010-05-29, 01:33 AM
Well timed orb of force.

olentu
2010-05-29, 01:41 AM
Well timed orb of force.

I suppose one could try to split the instant but I would not be optimistic as to their success.

dextercorvia
2010-05-29, 01:45 AM
Cast from the same Greater Arcane Fusion?

olentu
2010-05-29, 01:52 AM
Cast from the same Greater Arcane Fusion?

The spells take effect in the order that you choose so probably not.

Philistine
2010-05-29, 07:38 AM
So, would a casting of (Lesser) Globe of Invulnerability cure all the HP damage a character had taken from a Fireball or Magic Missile spell in the previous round, then?

Or perhaps the argument will be that those spells don't have an "Effect" line in their description, thus the Globe spells don't interact with them at all - which makes even less sense.

Another_Poet
2010-05-29, 04:34 PM
The reason that the Wall of Stone is not affected is because it is a Conjuration (Creation) effect with a duration of Instantaneous.

A spell effect is over when the spell's duration is over. An instantaneous spell leaves no lingering spell effect.

Spells from the Creation subschool of Conjuration, however, leave behind mundane substances (mundane acid, mundane iron, mundane stone, etc.) after the effect is over. The effect is to Create them out of nothing.

This is the same reason why you can fire an Acid Splash into an Antimagic Field and it works like normal (as long as you cast it outside the field, of course.)

Sorry sofawall but your arguments are pretty far from a close reading of RAW.