Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wolfman1987 07-25-06, 05:55 PM	Forgiv me if this has already been done befoe, but I did a site search and did not find anything that seemed to be in this area of use of the spell. The combination is simply a 12th level sorcerer or wizard with the wild talent feat. Casting the contingency spell (dweomer of transference) with the condition "if an enemy appears" means that if an enemy shows up, you enjoy the effects of dweomer of transference. The RAW of the spell is that "For the duration of the spell, any spells cast at the subject don’t have their usual effect, instead converting themselves harmlessly into psionic energy that the subject can use as energy for psionic powers". The spell description does not in any place bar this spell being effective against spells of any kind cast on you by enemy casters. Even a meteor swarm cast aginst you should dissipate harmlessly into power points rendering you completely immune to any spell that targets you or your area for the next 12 rounds.
Necromas 07-25-06, 06:06 PM	Can you tell me the book that dweomer of transference is in so I can read the actual entry instead of just having you tell me how you "interpret" it to work?
LogicNinja 07-25-06, 06:13 PM	http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/dweomerOfTransference.htm Dweomer of Transference.
psly4mne 07-25-06, 06:15 PM	With this spell, you form a radiating corona around the head of a psionic ally, then convert some of your spells into psionic power points. When you finish casting dweomer of transference, a red-orange glow surrounds the psionic creature’s head. For the duration of the spell, any spells cast at the subject don’t have their usual effect, instead converting themselves harmlessly into psionic energy that the subject can use as energy for psionic powers. You can cast any spell you like at the subject, even area spells, effect spells, and spells for whom the subject would ordinarily not be a legitimate target. The spells don’t do anything other than provide the subject with power points, but you must still cast them normally, obeying the component and range requirements listed in the description of each spell. For each spell you cast into the dweomer of transference, the psionic creature gets temporary power points, according to the following table. The transference isn’t perfectly efficient. The temporary power points acquired through a dweomer of transference dissipate after 1 hour if they haven’t already been spent. I think Dweomer of Transference protects only against targeted spells ("spells cast at the subject" in the bolded portion above). It then makes an exception for the caster of DoT only, allowing him to cast area spells as though they targeted the subject of DoT, but other casters' area spells are unaffected. Still, DoT is a good defensive buff. I would suggest making good use of all those PP. Either have a psion in the party and refill his cognizance crystals for him, or apply Mental Pinnacle liberally. Note also that DoT is evocation. That means that a Shadowcraft Mage can cast it spontaneously with a standard-action casting time instead of the usual minute.
Kresalak 07-25-06, 06:15 PM	It's in the SRD, under Psionic Races, Classes, Skills, and Spells. It doesn't work like he thinks it does-it allows you to turn your spells into power points for one willing psionic ally by casting them on him.
kilroo 07-25-06, 08:36 PM	It's in the SRD, under Psionic Races, Classes, Skills, and Spells. It doesn't work like he thinks it does-it allows you to turn your spells into power points for one willing psionic ally by casting them on him. Even interpreted that way, I suddenly find myself highly amused by the notion of a mage using up several of his leftover spells at the end of the day to help his psionic adventuring partner refill his cognizance crystals. "You know, you really need to learn some restraint. Then again if you had restraint you wouldn't need those rocks."
Wolfman1987 07-25-06, 10:13 PM	It's in the SRD, under Psionic Races, Classes, Skills, and Spells. It doesn't work like he thinks it does-it allows you to turn your spells into power points for one willing psionic ally by casting them on him. While that was obviously the intent of the spell, it seems relatively obvious that "any spells cast at the subject don't have their usual effect" means any spell cast at you doesn't have it's usual effect. Psly4mne may have a point about the area effect spells of other casters, but I can't see how the RAW of the spell doesn't work on any targeted spell.
wolfie-kun 07-25-06, 10:33 PM	While that was obviously the intent of the spell, it seems relatively obvious that "any spells cast at the subject don't have their usual effect" means any spell cast at you doesn't have it's usual effect. Psly4mne may have a point about the area effect spells of other casters, but I can't see how the RAW of the spell doesn't work on any targeted spell. I hate to disagree (though it would have to be much higher level to work the way we wish it did) here's the part that matters in the spell (because of course authors just love to confuse fluff and crunch): For each spell you cast into the dweomer of transference, the psionic creature gets temporary power points. Not every spell targeting, only the ones you cast. That...sucks.
PhaedrusXY 07-25-06, 11:32 PM	Depending on the DM, this might work: 1) Cast Mental Pinnacle on your familiar via share spells 2) Cast Dweomer of Transferrance on your familiar. 3) Buff the crap out of yourself, and share every spell with your familiar. You'll get the buffs and give your familiar more power points with no "lost" spell levels. This would work better if you could persist Mental Pinnacle (as an Incantatrix, etc).
Caelic 07-26-06, 12:22 AM	Just a point, folks: the "Hypertext d20 SRD" is NOT an official WotC site nor source. Unless "Dweomer of Transference" actually turns up in the official SRD or another official source, it's a third-party spell.
thorian 07-26-06, 12:37 AM	Just a point, folks: the "Hypertext d20 SRD" is NOT an official WotC site nor source. Unless "Dweomer of Transference" actually turns up in the official SRD or another official source, it's a third-party spell. It IS in the XPH and the WotC SRD.
FeceMan 07-26-06, 12:50 AM	Just a point, folks: the "Hypertext d20 SRD" is NOT an official WotC site nor source. Unless "Dweomer of Transference" actually turns up in the official SRD or another official source, it's a third-party spell. Like abominations? I like those. Wait, that's in the Epic Level Handbook...or something...
Wolfman1987 07-26-06, 06:35 PM	I hate to disagree (though it would have to be much higher level to work the way we wish it did) here's the part that matters in the spell (because of course authors just love to confuse fluff and crunch): For each spell you cast into the dweomer of transference, the psionic creature gets temporary power points. That sentence does not overrule the earlier sentence I qouted. The rogue can sneak attack flat footed opponents. I guess that means they can't sneak attack people if they are invisible. Mentioning a specific instance of an ability does not affect general uses of the ability. I have yet to see any supported contradiciton to my interpretation of the spell.
thorian 07-26-06, 06:45 PM	Let's look at sentence #1 of the spell:With this spell, you form a radiating corona around the head of a psionic ally, then convert some of your spells into psionic power points.The bold portions emphasized by me. You form a corona around an ally's head which allows you to convert some of your spells into power points. Pretty clear from the first sentence the intention of the spell is to allow you (the caster of the spell) to do this, and that the recipient of the Dweomer of Transference treats your spells differently, by absorbing them.
wolfie-kun 07-26-06, 07:57 PM	That sentence does not overrule the earlier sentence I qouted. The rogue can sneak attack flat footed opponents. I guess that means they can't sneak attack people if they are invisible. Mentioning a specific instance of an ability does not affect general uses of the ability. I have yet to see any supported contradiciton to my interpretation of the spell. The problem here is that you're going with an interpretation that is clearly against the intent of the spell. Either way, there are multiple sentences that contradict you (pretty much any of them that use the 2nd person pronoun), not just one.
Wolfman1987 07-26-06, 08:15 PM	Is the char ops board really arguing intent here? Did the game designers intend hulking hurlers to do 1000's of d6 of damage? Did the game designers intend manipulate form to create an infinitely powerful kobold? I already admitted that the intent of the soell is something else. However, I still don't see anything RAW that contradicts the 3rd sentence of the spell.
Shaggy_Shaggs 07-26-06, 08:25 PM	I think you've mistaken the point of CO, Wolfman. When all the other lines in a spell demonstrate clearly enough that you can't do something, and one line (with loose interpretation, and only if you eliminate all the other lines) implies you might be able to, you can't. You seem to imply that CO completely ignores anything they don't want to hear, looking for that one little piece that's taken out of context, breaking the spirit and letter of the rules to reach their goals. Not so. These are optimizers, not cheaters, and the rules are as necessary for their activities as air is for you to remain alive. It seems a little bit insulting that you're trying to sell obvious snake oil and acting surprised when they don't buy it.
thorian 07-26-06, 08:27 PM	The problem is, Wolfman, our arguments against your interpretation are based upon English and grammar, not solely upon designer intent.
SigmaJargon 07-26-06, 09:07 PM	As an interesting side note, LoP tried to use Dweomer of Transference in his Twice-Betrayer of Shar build as a sort of uber-AMF. The discussion of Dweomer of Transference began on the 7th page.
Wolfman1987 07-27-06, 12:55 PM	I think you've mistaken the point of CO, Wolfman. When all the other lines in a spell demonstrate clearly enough that you can't do something, and one line (with loose interpretation, and only if you eliminate all the other lines) implies you might be able to, you can't. You seem to imply that CO completely ignores anything they don't want to hear, looking for that one little piece that's taken out of context, breaking the spirit and letter of the rules to reach their goals. Not so. These are optimizers, not cheaters, and the rules are as necessary for their activities as air is for you to remain alive. It seems a little bit insulting that you're trying to sell obvious snake oil and acting surprised when they don't buy it. No, I implied that the CO tries to look at the RAW. By the way, thanks for calling me a cheater for sugesting that a spell that I would never use anyway is worded so that it is too poweful. I'm not telling anyone this is how they should play the spell, I'm not telling anyone this should ever be allowed into any game. I'm telling you that I don't see any RAW sentence against the third sentence. I have seen nothing in the spell that says I can't do this. I have seen sentences that say I can do something else. If we just want to follow the most restrictive sentence in a rule set I point you to sneak attack. Sneak attack says that a rogue can hit an oppoent for extra damge if she can catch him unaware. However "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target." There is no "can" in that snetence. If we just go off the most restrictive sentence, rogues cannot choose not to deal sneak attack damage if they don't want to, despite the first sentence obviously implying that rogues do not have to. "Any spell" is not a loose interpretation, it does not imply that it works on other spells. It it very specifcally referring to any targeted spell.
Daffydd ap Hywell 07-27-06, 01:42 PM	The way the spell is written, it specifically states it effects spells 'you' (the caster) cast at the target four individual times. Now, if those three mentions were blacked out and only the line of, "For the duration of the spell...," was left, then I would agree with the original poster's interpretation. As it is, even the munchkin in me cannot agree.
Kirby179 07-27-06, 04:28 PM	With this spell, you form a radiating corona around the head of a psionic ally, then convert some of your spells into psionic power points. When you finish casting dweomer of transference, a red-orange glow surrounds the psionic creature’s head. For the duration of the spell, any spells cast at the subject don’t have their usual effect, instead converting themselves harmlessly into psionic energy that the subject can use as energy for psionic powers. You can cast any spell you like at the subject, even area spells, effect spells, and spells for whom the subject would ordinarily not be a legitimate target. The spells don’t do anything other than provide the subject with power points, but you must still cast them normally, obeying the component and range requirements listed in the description of each spell. For each spell you cast into the dweomer of transference, the psionic creature gets temporary power points, according to the following table. The transference isn’t perfectly efficient. The temporary power points acquired through a dweomer of transference dissipate after 1 hour if they haven’t already been spent. Emphasis mine. Owing from the last portion, only spells that 'you' (meaning the caster of the spell) cast into the dweomer of transferance (a specific targetting, like casting into a spell matrix, which this is the psionic version of) are converted into psionic energy, as represented by the sentance, "For each spell you cast into the dweomer of transference, the psionic creature gets temporary power points, according to the following table." Being that the assertion you are making is that the spells do not normally affect you because they are being transmuted into power points, as the sentance "For the duration of the spell, any spells cast at the subject don’t have their usual effect, instead converting themselves harmlessly into psionic energy that the subject can use as energy for psionic powers." one would assume that for a spell not to affect the target of Dweomer of Transferance, that spell must be turned into Power Points not to affect the creature normally. Tautology: 1. Only spells cast by the caster of Dweomer of Transferrence are turned into power points (as evidenced above). (A implies B, or A=>B) 2. Only spells turned into power points do not affect normally the target of Dweomer of Tranferrence (as evidenced from the sentance you are clinging to as your proof). (B implies C or B=>C) Hypothesis: 3. Only spells cast by the caster of Dweomer of Transferrence do not 'affect normally' the target of Dweomer of Transferrence (A implies C or A=>C) Proof: Biconditional introduction. If A=>B and B=>C then A=>C. If X+Y=Y+Z then it also equals X+Z, for those who haven't taken inferencial logic. Tautology: A=>B=>C (and by logical extension, A=>C) - If "only spells cast by the caster of Dweomer of Transferrence are turned into powerpoints" and "only spells turned into power points do not affect normally the target of Dweomer of Transferrence", then "only spells cast by the caster of Dweomer of Transferrence do not 'affect normally' the target of Dweomer of Transferrence" -- There you go, a simplified logical proof that only the caster's spells (by the statements set forth in the spell itself, using in-game terms, not flavor) do not affect the target, not 'any spell' as you have stated. If you can logically prove me wrong, do so. By both RAW, and Logic, however, you are currently wrong. Additionally, your sneak attack arguement doesn't hold water, and is an unrelated strawman. Please don't bring it up again, it burns us.
Daffydd ap Hywell 07-28-06, 02:17 PM	Very eloquent. A much better refutation than I was trying to make.
Wolfman1987 07-28-06, 03:24 PM	With this spell, you form a radiating corona around the head of a psionic ally, then convert some of your spells into psionic power points. When you finish casting dweomer of transference, a red-orange glow surrounds the psionic creature’s head. For the duration of the spell, any spells cast at the subject don’t have their usual effect, instead converting themselves harmlessly into psionic energy that the subject can use as energy for psionic powers. You can cast any spell you like at the subject, even area spells, effect spells, and spells for whom the subject would ordinarily not be a legitimate target. The spells don’t do anything other than provide the subject with power points, but you must still cast them normally, obeying the component and range requirements listed in the description of each spell. For each spell you cast into the dweomer of transference, the psionic creature gets temporary power points, according to the following table. The transference isn’t perfectly efficient. The temporary power points acquired through a dweomer of transference dissipate after 1 hour if they haven’t already been spent. Emphasis mine. Owing from the last portion, only spells that 'you' (meaning the caster of the spell) cast into the dweomer of transferance (a specific targetting, like casting into a spell matrix, which this is the psionic version of) are converted into psionic energy, as represented by the sentance, "For each spell you cast into the dweomer of transference, the psionic creature gets temporary power points, according to the following table." Being that the assertion you are making is that the spells do not normally affect you because they are being transmuted into power points, as the sentance "For the duration of the spell, any spells cast at the subject don’t have their usual effect, instead converting themselves harmlessly into psionic energy that the subject can use as energy for psionic powers." one would assume that for a spell not to affect the target of Dweomer of Transferance, that spell must be turned into Power Points not to affect the creature normally. Tautology: 1. Only spells cast by the caster of Dweomer of Transferrence are turned into power points (as evidenced above). (A implies B, or A=>B) 2. Only spells turned into power points do not affect normally the target of Dweomer of Tranferrence (as evidenced from the sentance you are clinging to as your proof). (B implies C or B=>C) Hypothesis: 3. Only spells cast by the caster of Dweomer of Transferrence do not 'affect normally' the target of Dweomer of Transferrence (A implies C or A=>C) Proof: Biconditional introduction. If A=>B and B=>C then A=>C. If X+Y=Y+Z then it also equals X+Z, for those who haven't taken inferencial logic. Tautology: A=>B=>C (and by logical extension, A=>C) - If "only spells cast by the caster of Dweomer of Transferrence are turned into powerpoints" and "only spells turned into power points do not affect normally the target of Dweomer of Transferrence", then "only spells cast by the caster of Dweomer of Transferrence do not 'affect normally' the target of Dweomer of Transferrence" -- There you go, a simplified logical proof that only the caster's spells (by the statements set forth in the spell itself, using in-game terms, not flavor) do not affect the target, not 'any spell' as you have stated. If you can logically prove me wrong, do so. By both RAW, and Logic, however, you are currently wrong. Additionally, your sneak attack arguement doesn't hold water, and is an unrelated strawman. Please don't bring it up again, it burns us. I can logically prove that wrong easily. Logic only works if all the premises are accepted as givens. I do not accept #1 as a given. You are inserting the word only into the spell desription. "Only" does not ever appear in the spell description. You are also using another premise that is not proved to be true: the premise that "you" refers to the original caster of the spell. Seeing as I have used the word you in this argument to refer to a poster on this thread, the ambigous nature of the pronoun is already proven. All a character has to do is look at whatever enemy caster is targeting him with a spell and they magically transform into "you" Finally, I am getting quite sick of you guys saying I am referring to flavor text and you are referring to in-game rules. Do you know what part of the description sounds like flavor text to me? "With this spell, you form a radiating corona around the head of a psionic ally, then convert some of your spells into psionic power points. When you finish casting dweomer of transference, a red-orange glow surrounds the psionic creature’s head." You seem to refer to flavor text a lot in you refutations. My sentence sounds alot more like in-game rules to me. Final side note: As I have not exactly been wowed by you logic skills, perhaps you could come up with a reason my sneak attack argument is wrong, as opposed to just making blanket unsupported statements.
Elderich 07-28-06, 03:55 PM	While I applaud the use of a logical proof in a RAW discussion, Kirby179 logic is very flawed, as Wolfman1987 pointed out. The simple fact is that the text is not exclusive in limiting the spell effect to the caster. Infact the text is specific in EXPANDING the spell to effecting ANY spell, including area effect spells. For the spell to be exclusive the "Any spell..." line should say, "Any spell you cast...", but it does not. In fact the text draws a distinction between spells cast by the caster and other spells cast at the subject of the spell. The caster may use area effect spells, however this ability is not extended to other casters targeting the subject. But has anyone chected the FAQ? Anyone contacted custserv?
Daffydd ap Hywell 07-28-06, 06:51 PM	In going over this again, I come to a simple conclusion: 1) As it is written (and 'interpreted' the original poster) it should be level 8 or 9, given it's effects. Certainly not level 4. Now, if it works as a "only the caster can give the spells/pp to the recipient," then it would be spot-on. For each spell you cast into the dweomer of transference, the psionic creature gets temporary power points, according to the following table. That is pretty darn specific. I do not believe the writer was using the informal "you," but rather the "you" meaning the caster. In that aspect, I believe it is poorly written, it should say "the caster." Remember this is written to aim at the reader (caster) of the spell, not every Tim, Dave and Larry on the battlefield. I certainly do not agree with the original poster, I doubt I ever will. I cannot agree with the defining of every caster as "you," rather than the original one only in this case. SRD spells, as far as I can tell, have NO flavor text, just the text of the spell.
Esponer 07-28-06, 07:58 PM	As written, the dweomer of transference protects against all spells. I'll show this by two main methods, the former which is rather unconventional but should be seriously considered here. I used guinea pigs. As we should all know, when you're familiar with a system you tend to read what you expect, and this is extremely difficult to break. Those unfamiliar to D&D take a true reading away from it. "Perhaps because they see what it actually says, and not what would be appropriate in the game", one of my guinea pigs told me. So, here's what I did. I took a group of well-educated folk, some of whom played D&D a lot, and others who had never played D&D in their life. Inbetween were people who had played D&D a little, and people who were gamers, but did not play D&D. Here are my findings. Every single one who had never played D&D supported the conclusion that it protects against all spells. Every single one who had played D&D only a little supported this conclusion. Every single one who was a gamer, but had not played D&D, supported this conclusion. And one person other than me who plays D&D lots who I asked on AIM supported this conclusion. The rest, who play D&D lots, disagree. This is all about interpretation of text: understanding of the rules is fairly trivial here. From an unbiased perspective, the majority opinion seems to be (as far as I can tell from this quick study), that it protects against all spells. I made sure to implant no bias, asking most of them simply to explain to me what it did. "I think any spells directed at the person turn into energy stuff" was one of the answers. We have to be careful here not to let our assumptions blind us. Let's look at the spell again, and see why so many nonplayers came to this conclusion. Furthermore, I'm actually going to come to a totally different conclusion. As written, this spell borders on being completely contradictory, so the conclusion I'd come to is a horrible mix of the two. With this spell, you form a radiating corona around the head of a psionic ally, then convert some of your spells into psionic power points. Can we all see that the last bit of this sentence is actually blatantly false? It implies that you actually do convert some of your spells into power points. You don't. You certainly can, but this sentence is already a messed up one. Nonetheless, it doesn't rule out that all spells are converted, and a later sentence (see below) explicitly says it. When you finish casting dweomer of transference, a red-orange glow surrounds the psionic creature’s head. Unrelated. For the duration of the spell, any spells cast at the subject don’t have their usual effect, instead converting themselves harmlessly into psionic energy that the subject can use as energy for psionic powers. This, unfortunately to us all, is the key sentence. "Any spells" is the key phrase. Unless directly contradicted, this is undisputed, and it's sufficiently clear in this sentence that a direct contradiction elsewhere would just make this spell unusable, not make this sentence automatically totally false. You can cast any spell you like at the subject, even area spells, effect spells, and spells for whom the subject would ordinarily not be a legitimate target. This doesn't contradict the previous sentence. It tells you what you can do. It's probably not talking about a general "you", but that doesn't matter. It simply implies (although it's poor English) that you in particular can even use area spells. The last sentence was about any spells, and this sentence is about your spells. By a strict reading, the caster's spells can be absorbed even if they're area spells, but everyone else's spells can't because this is never said (note this: no protection from antimagic fields even by a strict reading). The spells don’t do anything other than provide the subject with power points, but you must still cast them normally, obeying the component and range requirements listed in the description of each spell. This again doesn't contradict the key sentence. Painfully, it could suggest that others don't have to cast them normally, allowing thankfully casting them normally is the default situation so it doesn't change anything. The first part of the sentence, before the comma, could apply to all spells by a strict reading, but even if it doesn't, it doesn't add anything. For each spell you cast into the dweomer of transference, the psionic creature gets temporary power points, according to the following table. Here's the interesting bit. It's stated outright that any spells cast are harmlessly turned into energy. Only now does it say how, and it says it under the blanket of spells you cast. For that reason, a strict reading means that all spells are harmlessly changed, but only yours are changed into power points. Ridiculous as written? Yes. So ridiculous that we're itching to just add two extra words in the key sentence? Definitely. As it is though, the spell is awfully reading and a strict reading of the rules comes to a ridiculous conclusion. A layperson's common reading of the rules comes to the usual powergamed conclusion, including protection from area effects and all spells converting to PP. Happy gaming. Note: This is clearly against the intent. The writer screwed up one sentence and ruined the entire spell, and unfortunately the other sentences don't actually contradict it. I'd only ever use this by intent.
HotSake 07-28-06, 09:43 PM	I'd just like to throw my support behind Esponer's conclusions. I came to them myself after reading Kirby's flawed assumptions and checking them against the spell text. The references to "you" merely expand upon the reference to "all spells". The conversion to power points is limited to spells cast by the caster of DoT, but the rendering harmless of all spells is not so limited. It's obviously not designer intent, but it is the logical consequence of a simple, unbiased reading of the spell description. Usable in most games? No.
Caelic 07-29-06, 10:26 AM	Point: strictly as written, the effect of Dweomer of Transference on spells cast by creatures other than the original caster is undefined. None of the text describing the specific effects applies to them, as all of that text very clearly specifies "spells you cast." Thus, we're stuck with a spell that, as written, does something against enemy spells...but that something is not quantified beyond a vague "converting themselves harmlessly into psionic energy that the subject can use as energy for psionic powers." We don't know how it does this, or how many power points it grants, because those mechanisms are covered in the "spells you cast" portion of the spell. The spell is left in limbo, unable to be fully resolved, which is clearly unacceptable. We have two possible choices to rectify this, and both of them are intent/interpretation: 1. "Clearly, the designers meant for the text describing the specifics of power point conversion to apply to spells cast by other casters as well! The use of "you" in sentences one, two, four, five, and six was a mistake on their part." 2. "Clearly, the designers meant for this spell to only apply to spells cast by the original caster. The lack of "you" in the third sentence of the spell was an error on their part." Neither one of these options is purely RAW; practical optimization, therefore, stipulates that we go with the more reasonable interpretation. While I'm sure some will argue with me, I'm going to say that the second interpretation is by far the more reasonable on two grounds: 1. It only requires us to accept that one sentence contains an oversight, rather than most of the sentences in the spell. 2. The effect of the spell is much more in keeping with the power level of a fourth level spell by this interpretation.
Esponer 07-29-06, 10:36 AM	On the contrary, just barely enough is said to suggest that targeted spells from anyone are converted harmlessly, and so can't do harm, essentially. We don't know what it's converted into, but by the RAW all targeted spells have no harmful effect. The spell is clearly a mess in how it's written, and adding the slightest bit of "rules as intended" solves the entire issue. Now for me, I'm not one to do optimising whilst ignoring RAI, so I'm very much against LoP's attempt and Wolfman's suggestion. It's obvious to someone used to D&D what was intended.
Caelic 07-29-06, 10:40 AM	That's just it, though, Esponer--you have to stop in the middle of the sentence to make this work as a super-defensive spell. You have to pretend that the second half of that sentence (the part about conversion) doesn't exist, because as soon as you acknowledge that it DOES exist, you have to ask "How does it do this?" As soon as you ask that, you have to start engaging in interpretation. Ignoring part of the spell because it's problematic is interpretation in and of itself; I maintain that there is no way to use this spell without engaging in interpretation, and that there is no "RAW use" of the spell.
Wolfman1987 07-29-06, 01:10 PM	Practically everything in the game requires some amount of interpretation, no matter how clear the RAW is. You cannot say the spell has no RAW ruling because it needs to be interpreted. The designers obviously mean "he or she" in almost any instance where they say "she", but that requires interpretation on our part. You are, as we speak, interpreting this spell to work differently than I think it does. If we say interpretation negates any RAW, then I could just say to any point that you make that "I interpret it dfferently" and the entire D&D game has no RAW anymore.
Caelic 07-29-06, 01:53 PM	My point, Wolfman, is that you're portraying your interpretation as the "right" interpretation--and it's not, any more than mine is the "right" interpretation. I'm sure you'll claim that it's obvious that we should interpret the spell your way, and therefore your way is RAW; I think there's a much stronger case for interpreting it the OTHER way. Every blessed sentence in the spell refers specifically to spells cast by the original caster except one. On the basis of that one sentence not explicitly reiterating "by the caster," you've determined that every other sentence is irrelevant. What we have here are two interpretations, neither of them official, neither of them "RAW." One of them results in a fourth level spell more powerful than most ninth level spells; the other results in a fourth level spell that's useful, but not overpowered. Which interpretation should we go with?
Esponer 07-29-06, 01:59 PM	I'm sorry Caelic, but I don't really agree. RAW use of this spell is definitely extremely messed up and I'd never support using it, but RAW use of this spell does protect against all spells, no matter how badly worded it is. The RAW interpretation I'm suggesting doesn't rely on one sentence and ignore all the others: it reads every sentence and accepts every single one, and discovers that there is no contradiction against the third sentnece. Nonetheless, since we've both laid down our arguments, shall we agree to disagree? Since I'm not suggesting actually using it to protect against everything, there's no point in me discussing further.
Wolfman1987 07-29-06, 06:17 PM	I agree. No sane DM would ever allow this use of the spell, and I do not think we are ever going to convince each other. I doubt further discussion would yield any new conclusion.