Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aharon
@Vael
That would probably be the wise thing to do, but I actually would like this to be resolved in a way that doesn't feel like I'm wrong even after conceding :smallwink:
@Phoenix
Then let's just forget about Savage Species. It isn't relevant in any way to our discussion, and I will again reformulate my last sentence:
But as the spellblade doesn't explicitly refer to a kind of spell immunity that includes immunity to spells that don't allow spell resistance, I conceed.
That should convey what I meant, and we don't have to discuss that pile of mental poop :smallsmile:
Or do you still spot any incorrectness?
Mostly accurate.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Before I begin, let me clarify the position I am arguing:
-"Spell Immunity" is a property.
-"Immune to Spell" is a description, and one which does not automatically invoke the "Spell Immunity" property.
-Hence "Immune to Spell" does not automatically infer a limitation to SR:yes spells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
"Spell Immunity" and "Immune to a Spell" are functionally identical.
No they are not. Here is a list on how they are different:
-"the spell doesn’t affect the creature": This term is used by Spell Resistance/Immunity. Spellblades on the other hand does not say this because the spell DOES have an effect on the creature: It either powers his spellblade if he is targetted. Or it has normal effect if an area version is used.
-"Immune to Spells": This term is ONLY used by Spellblades. It does NOT actually appear in the Spell Immunity entry. Also see my note on golem magic immunity below.
-Targetted: Both Spell Resistance/Immunity and Spell Immunity (the cleric spell) also work against area spells that do not target the creature. Whereas Spellblades can only work against spells that specifically target the creature.
-Spell Like Abilities: Again, both Spell Resistance/Immunity and Spell Immunity (the cleric spell) work against Spell Like Abilities. Spellblades do not. (Witness the fact that golems explcitly state that their magic immunity works against SLAs, whereas spellblades do not).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
All instances of Spell immunity (or immunity to spells) apply to SR: Yes spells only. Check the Golem's Immunity to Magic entries, or any other, as well as the base text for immunity to spells.
This can actually be taken as evidence that "Immune to Spell" description does not equal "Spell Immunity" property.
1) Golems which say thay are "Immune to ... Spells" also always state that it only applies to stuff with SR.
2) It can be therefore inferred that being "Immune to... Spells" in the description DOES NOT automatically invoke the "Spell Immunity" property (and the associated limit to SR:yes spells).
3) Because if it did, the designers would not have needed to add the limitation of "SR:Yes spells only" to EVERY SINGLE golem entry.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vael
More on topic, I like this exploit. I think the next thought should be, what happens if you get two Intelligent Item spellblades. Could they maintain it on their own? :smallbiggrin:
(In fact, could an intelligent spellblade and its wielder maintain a loop on their own?)
Don't think an intelligent blade and wielder could do this by themselves. Even if it IS a greater intelligent item with the ability to cast the spell in question at will. Partly because the DM would throw a book at you. But you're trying to have a spell get redirected out of a weapon. And instantly the spell rebounds and goes back into the weapon.
(I view it like this. Someone launches Shivering touch at me, and I interpose my blade in front of the ray at the last second. Rather than the burning a hole in the metal, the spell hits my sword and gets absorbed. I smirk at the wizard. Next round, I launch his own spell back at him. Then charge as he lays there flopping from the effects of his own spell.)
At best, you and an ally have intelligent spellblades. Every turn those blades cast the spell at the other wielder, AND launch the redirected spell. This could work even if the weapons don't have the ability to cast spell X every round.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeminiZero
Before I begin, let me clarify the position I am arguing:
-"Spell Immunity" is a property.
-"Immune to Spell" is a description, and one which does not automatically invoke the "Spell Immunity" property.
-Hence "Immune to Spell" does not automatically infer a limitation to SR:yes spells.
Synonyms for your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spell Immunity
The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks.
Look! Immune to the effects of one spell = effectively has unbeatable Spell Resistance.
This is the DEFAULT method that 3.5 uses to process immunity to a spell. That means that for anything to deviate from that default, it must explicitly state it.
Immunity to a spell's effects = Unbeatable SR to that spell.
You can argue all you like for a Spellblade that can store greater dispel magic.
But it does not work that way.
You have no text supporting your stance. Nothing to state that Spell Immunity and Immunity to spells is different. No text showing that immunity to a spell's effects is NOT unbeatable spell resistance. Nothing other than your desire to make a 6000gp enhancement able to absorb any spell you want.
If desire and want were enough, believe me, you'd have a gold star right now. But it's not. You need actual honest-to-goodness rules to support your position. And you haven't brought any. You haven't brought anything more than a slightly more verbose version of "Nuh uh!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeminiZero
No they are not. Here is a list on how they are different:
-"the spell doesn’t affect the creature": This term is used by Spell Resistance/Immunity. Spellblades on the other hand does not say this because the spell DOES have an effect on the creature: It either powers his spellblade if he is targetted. Or it has normal effect if an area version is used.
-"Immune to Spells": This term is ONLY used by Spellblades. It does NOT actually appear in the Spell Immunity entry. Also see my note on golem magic immunity below.
See above on Hairsplitting.
Your argument is akin to saying "a claustrophobic is NOT the same as someone who is afraid of enclosed spaces". The standard rules disagree with you, and the only defense you've brought is that "A doesn't equal A".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeminiZero
-Targetted: Both Spell Resistance/Immunity and Spell Immunity (the cleric spell) also work against area spells that do not target the creature. Whereas Spellblades can only work against spells that specifically target the creature.
Irrelevant. The mechanic it uses is immunity to a spell. That it applies other restrictions as well does not obviate it from following the standard restrictions common to ALL spell immunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeminiZero
-Spell Like Abilities: Again, both Spell Resistance/Immunity and Spell Immunity (the cleric spell) work against Spell Like Abilities. Spellblades do not. (Witness the fact that golems explcitly state that their magic immunity works against SLAs, whereas spellblades do not).
Again, additional restrictions do not obviate an immunity's need to follow restrictions already in place.
To demonstrate:
Say I have a group of people from shadowdale. Some of them are butchers. Your argument is like saying "No, the butchers aren't from shadowdale, because all these other people from shadowdale don't have to deal with meat". Most spell immunities have differences. That does not mean that they do not need to follow the things they do have in common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeminiZero
This can actually be taken as evidence that "Immune to Spell" description does not equal "Spell Immunity" property.
1) Golems which say thay are "Immune to ... Spells" also always state that it only applies to stuff with SR.
2) It can be therefore inferred that being "Immune to... Spells" in the description DOES NOT automatically invoke the "Spell Immunity" property (and the associated limit to SR:yes spells).
Unfortunately, the rules DIRECTLY contradict you, unless you buy into the concept that milkmen are not men who deliver milk, and bookbinders are not people who bind books. If you believe that, sure, you may have a point. If you don't? The rules explicitly contradict you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeminiZero
3) Because if it did, the designers would not have needed to add the limitation of "SR:Yes spells only" to EVERY SINGLE golem entry.
Hm. Guess what? Let's apply your argument to ability damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRD, Undead Type
Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.
Why, by this, you could infer that undead can have their mental ability scores damaged, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRD, nonabilities
Constitution
Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution has no body or no metabolism. It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. The creature is also immune to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain, and automatically fails Constitution checks. A creature with no Constitution cannot tire and thus can run indefinitely without tiring (unless the creature’s description says it cannot run).
...but wait. I'm confused. Why did the designers need to put in that all undead were immune to physical ability damage... if they were already immune to ALL ability damage? Surely they wouldn't put something in that's redundant, would they?
And that's why "it's written here, so if it's not there, it must not be true" holds no weight. Because there are many cases where it's not there, and it's STILL true.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
I disagree. And I would note that you had to excerpt that text from Spell Immunity (the Cleric Spell) rather than from Spell Immunity (the Property), hence supporting my point that "Immmune to Spells" does not automatically invoke the "Spell Immunity" property. And the fact that there are 2 things called "Spell Immunity" in the game (within core alone) that requires such careful disambiguation in a debate such as this, also shows that differentiating "Spell Immunity" (the property) and "Immune to Spells", in a debate which brings in things outside of core isn't hair-splitting by any means.
Fact of the matter is that so many things in D&D have the similiar name with differing effects (Golem vs Demilich "Magic Immunity", multiple differing versions of the Incantatrix, Mettle etc) that the disambiguation you call hairsplitting is in fact a vital necessity.
Edit: one other thing of note. Spell Immunity is a Special Ability, much lke Spell Resistance, Regeneration, Fast Healing, Darkvision, etc.
Whenever the text of a monster gives it a certain special ability, it always refers to it by its exact name. They don't give similiar sounding abilities or descriptions e.g. calling "Fast Healing" as "Rapid Healing", or calling "Blindsight" as "Radar" etc. This further supports the intepretation that saying "Spell Immunity" the property/special ability is NOT the same as "Immune to Spells" the description. Or they would use the exact name e.g. "Gives Spell Immunity to X".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
Look! Immune to the effects of one spell = effectively has unbeatable Spell Resistance.
Yes, but your logic extends it beyond merely that. You are essentially saying:
1) Spell Immunity (the spell) makes you immune to the effects of one (or more) spell
2) Spellblades (the weapon) makes you immune to one specified spell
3) Therefore Spellblades must be based on Spell Immunity (the Spell).
Thats like saying
1) An apple is a fruit
2) An orange is a fruit
3) Therefore an apple must be an orange.
Similiar description does not mean same basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
This is the DEFAULT method that 3.5 uses to process immunity to a spell. That means that for anything to deviate from that default, it must explicitly state it.
No it isn't, and you have not shown it to be the case in any way so far. All you've done is state that things with "immune to spells" also specify that they only apply to "SR:yes" spells. Which as I mentioned previously supports the point that the 2 are not automatically linked such that former infers the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
You have no text supporting your stance. Nothing to state that Spell Immunity and Immunity to spells is different.
You are twisting words here. I never referred to the ability as "Immunity to Spells" (and for good reason, because that term is not used, not by golems, nor by spellblades). I have been using the term "Immune to Spells", the exact wording used by all the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
Nothing other than your desire to make a 6000gp enhancement able to absorb any spell you want.
Now this is a personal attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
You haven't brought anything more than a slightly more verbose version of "Nuh uh!"
And for that matter, neither have you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
Your argument is akin to saying "a claustrophobic is NOT the same as someone who is afraid of enclosed spaces". The standard rules disagree with you, and the only defense you've brought is that "A doesn't equal A".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
Unfortunately, the rules DIRECTLY contradict you, unless you buy into the concept that milkmen are not men who deliver milk, and bookbinders are not people who bind books. If you believe that, sure, you may have a point. If you don't? The rules explicitly contradict you.
See above. D&D, many things with similiar names, etc
To paraphrase my argument a little, Immune to Magic might be taken as the descriptive end result, and Spell Immunity is the title of a property. In this case lets say that "Kills People for a Living" is the descriptive end result, and "Assassin" is the title of an occupation. You are arging that because "Assassins" are people who "Kill People for a Living", ALL people who "Kills People for a Living" MUST be "Assassins". But that is not the case, some are called "Executioners"... or sometimes "Soldiers" (which has an entirely different job scope and requirement).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
Irrelevant. The mechanic it uses is immunity to a spell. That it applies other restrictions as well does not obviate it from following the standard restrictions common to ALL spell immunity.
Again, additional restrictions do not obviate an immunity's need to follow restrictions already in place.
Wrong Intepretation. I am citing the above as an example on how "Spell Immunity" the property is different from "Immune to Spells" the description. You simply assume they are the same and argue based on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
To demonstrate:
Say I have a group of people from shadowdale. Some of them are butchers. Your argument is like saying "No, the butchers aren't from shadowdale, because all these other people from shadowdale don't have to deal with meat". Most spell immunities have differences. That does not mean that they do not need to follow the things they do have in common.
Inccidentally thats a terrible argument. Firstly my analogy is nothing like that. You are saying that a person who deals in meat must be a butcher (i.e. an effect that makes you "Immune to a Spell" the description must invoke "Spell Immunity" the property). I'm saying thats not the case
Incidentally, butchers are not the only professionals who deal in meat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRivers
Hm. Guess what? Let's apply your argument to ability damage.
Why, by this, you could infer that undead can have their mental ability scores damaged, right?
...but wait. I'm confused. Why did the designers need to put in that all undead were immune to physical ability damage... if they were already immune to ALL ability damage? Surely they wouldn't put something in that's redundant, would they?
I always intepreted this particular segment as follows:
1) Undead are non living
2) They should automatically inherit the "immune to ability damage" property of non living creatures.
3) However the SRD specifies that they are *only* immune to physical ability damage.
4) Therefore it is stating that Undead are specific exception to the "immune to ability damage" property of non-living creatures (i.e. they are only immune to physical ability score damage, but not mental ability score damage.
5) However because almost everything that causes ability score damage is poison, disease or mind-affecting, this limitation hardly comes up.
6) Compare this to the ToS houserule where undead lose their immune to mind-affecting, and it has been ruled that Ego Whip does cause them charisma damage
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
You know how you can use a metamagic version of a spell to counter a non meta version, and vice versa.
Does it work the same way with the spellblade? I can get a spellblade for ray of enfeeblement, which is also good for a maximized twinned ray of enfeeblement, right?
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
This made me laugh. I love the mental image. It seems like a lot of work though compared to just turning into/finding some other way to abuse Immoths who also can be manipulated for the ability to cast free action spells.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
herrhauptmann
You know how you can use a metamagic version of a spell to counter a non meta version, and vice versa.
Does it work the same way with the spellblade? I can get a spellblade for ray of enfeeblement, which is also good for a maximized twinned ray of enfeeblement, right?
As you say, the only precedent we seem to have is Counterspelling. My brief search turned up this Rules of the Game Article
Quote:
because a spell altered with a metamagic feat doesn't change a spell into a different spell.
Based on this I would think that RAI is that unless the metamagic changes the spell's parameters such that spellblades can no longer be used at all (e.g. changing a target spell into an area spell), it can still be absorbed by Spellblades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wings of Peace
This made me laugh. I love the mental image. It seems like a lot of work though compared to just turning into/finding some other way to abuse Immoths who also can be manipulated for the ability to cast free action spells.
Mainly, because its easier to add a 6,000 gp enchantment to a bunch of weapons than gating/dominating a bunch of Ice Giants. :smalltongue:
Also, Immoths can't seem to actually use their own abilities. Ice Runes specifically only works on spells that they prepare, whereas they cast spells naturally as sorcerers. Which means that an Immoth can't naturally use his own Ice Runes without either the Arcane Preperation feat, or by taking class levels of one of the prepared casters (Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Archivist). So simply gating/dominating an Immoth doesn't work unless you somehow specifically get one with either of the above.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
I'm trying to figure out what the fastest way of getting NI spells stored is.
Suppose we have eleven creatures with Spellblades absorbing Twinned Magic Missiles. One of the creatures call it A, with a caster level at least 9, casts this spell, targeting each of the other creatures. Now assuming that being hit by part of a multi-target spell allows the wielder to cast the spell at full effect, then the next round each of those ten creatures will launch a Twinned Magic Missile at each of the other creatures. Now A has ten Twinned Magic Missiles stored, while each of the other creatures has nine, for a total of 100 Twinned Magic Missiles at the end of round two.
Every round, each missile will essentially "generate" nine more as the ten missiles from each casting each create a whole new Twinned Magic Missile stored.
So on round 3, 900 Twinned Magic Missiles
On round 4, 8100 Twinned Magic Missiles
.
.
.
On round N, 9^(N-2)*100 Magic Missiles
In one minute (10 rounds), the eleven creatures will have 4,304,672,100 Twinned Magic Missiles prepared, for an average damage (vs a 0 SR creature) of about 150 billion. Every minute they keep this up multiplies the average damage by about 3.5 billion.
After one hour, the average damage is 6.6 x 10^583. This is enough to deal over 10^496 damage to every particle in the universe.
Add Repeating or Echoing for even more silliness.
PO Note: Your DM may enforce the limit on the number of free action a round if you try this trick (or most of the other ones in this thread). In this case "enforcement" will most likely involve the brachial aerial projection of reading material.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
Yeah, my DM gives us a total of about 1-2 free actions per round. So this trick wouldn't work in our game.
If we tried this, once we tried to put a 3rd spell into the spellblade, it would probably dissapate or hit us instead, depending on what our DM said.
Re: [D&D 3.5] Blowing up the Action Economy with Spellblade Tennis
The Red Towel: Thread necromancy.
