Conjuration spell 'Cloud of Knives' in conjunction with a Magic Weapon Spell [Archive] - Wizards Community

Conjuration spell 'Cloud of Knives' in conjunction with a Magic Weapon Spell [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
GnomishSubmarine
08-07-07, 08:03 AM In earnest, I entertained a player who asked the following:

"Can I use magic weapon (he originally asked to apply magic vestments as he is a new player to the DnD system and is taking time to adjust) with my spell 'Cloud of Knives' PHB II to make it more powerful?"

I began explaining to him that it is a spell and cannot be augmented in this fashion. Even once the spell is cast, it is not considered an enhanceable weapon. He continued to explain to me that "It's a conjuration spell, it makes knives." Even so I persisted in telling him, it was merely a spell effect, and doesn't create an actual knife or dagger that remains outside the duration of the spell.

I explained again that it would be the same as augmenting a ray spell in the same fashion, but again he argued it's conjuration and creates a knife to fling at the enemy per round. I explained further that spells of that nature (conjuration, creation like fabricate and so forth) which make a knife or object that can be enhanced by said spell are higher in level, but he is determined that he has a good idea. He feels impeded that I am trying to restrict his creativity.

Am I getting this explanation wrong? Have I missed a critical point? Is he right in thinking he can enhance the spell in this fashion?

Thank you for your time involved.
jaelis
08-07-07, 08:06 AM Am I getting this explanation wrong? Have I missed a critical point? Is he right in thinking he can enhance the spell in this fashion?

No, you are right.

If you wanted, you could houserule that if he uses a magic dagger as the material component, the conjured blades get that enhancement. That would be fairly powerful, but at a noticable cost.
strenoth
08-07-07, 10:38 AM and even if he was right... magic weapon would only effect the knives one at a time anyway.
tarkin
08-07-07, 01:01 PM Anything that Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon (can affect multiple weapons) can enchant should always have the following:

1. Need to roll exactly one d20 to hit, adding in your BAB etc.

2. Need to counter DR

3. Total Cover will stop it completely

4. Weapon Proficiency is required (i.e. -4 if you don't have it).

5. Weapon Focus, Specialization etc are allowable.

Do all of these happen?
Mechanical_Pear
08-07-07, 01:17 PM Anything that Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon (can affect multiple weapons) can enchant should always have the following:

1. Need to roll exactly one d20 to hit, adding in your BAB etc.

2. Need to counter DR

3. Total Cover will stop it completely

4. Weapon Proficiency is required (i.e. -4 if you don't have it).

5. Weapon Focus, Specialization etc are allowable.

Do all of these happen?

Is this a house rule, or a previous publication Wizards put out that I missed?
Lafing Cat
08-07-07, 01:18 PM Anything that Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon (can affect multiple weapons) can enchant should always have the following:

1. Need to roll exactly one d20 to hit, adding in your BAB etc.

2. Need to counter DR

3. Total Cover will stop it completely

4. Weapon Proficiency is required (i.e. -4 if you don't have it).

5. Weapon Focus, Specialization etc are allowable.

Do all of these happen?

At the very least, this one is not true. A bow enchanted with the Force quality (MIC) Fires force arrows that are not subject to DR, and yet it is still a completely valid target for Greater Magic weapon. The Seeking Arrow Fired by an Arcane Archer also invalidates your point 3.

Honestly, I don't see what the problem with letting this work. Each dagger is only good for one shot, so if he *really* wants to burn a 3rd level spell slot for (a maximum of) +5 to hit, +5 to damage for a single attack... let him.
qwerty1
08-07-07, 01:25 PM "Can I use magic weapon with my spell 'Cloud of Knives' PHB II to make it more powerful?"

What Spell Level is Cloud of Knifes?

How about trying to have the PC Research a spell like it with the bonuses of Magic Weapon or Magic Weapon, Greater? This assumes the Spell Level of Cloud of Knives is under 5th.
tarkin
08-07-07, 02:11 PM Some people do not understand the word should.

Should: "ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency)"

As in the president of the United States should enforce the laws of the country, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, even if he disagrees with them (yes, I mean you President Andrew Jackson)

or:

People should not kill their friends.

I repeat, everything I wrote is what things SHOULD have before you let them be affected by Greater Magic Weapon.

This does not change the fact that WoTC has made at least one exception (as noted above). Similarly, Andrew Jackson totally ignored the Supreme Court when they told him he could not steal the Indians land and not allow them to even bid on the auction to buy them.

This is not a rule by WoTC, so no there is no raw I can point at.

Instead, you have to ask yourself, if the above did not work then what makes you think it is appropriate to get the magic weapon bonus

P.S. I disagree with WoTC's decision on the Force bow. Why should an arrow fired by it ignore DR? I can not see a werewolf taking full damage from it, it is not silver. If it is a weapon, then it should need to beat the silver DR, if it is a spell, then it should not be affected by Magic Weapon spell.

This is not a balance question (at least not in this issue) , it is a consistency question
Kouk
08-07-07, 03:05 PM You can tell him he can only cast those spells on a "permanent" magic item, that he can hold in his hand.

But really it probably wouldn't be too overpowered to allow him to enchant a single dagger at a time.
SephDragoon
08-07-07, 04:27 PM I don't know if this is raw or not, but spells like spiritual weapon and moonblade are imo viable targets for greater magic weapon, and other weapon enhancement spells. But... the cloud of knives spell creates a new dagger each round, it doesn't reuse the same one. While I would allow him to use greater magic weapon on it, I wouldn't allow him to grant that bonus every round that he attacks unless he could also somehow grant returning.

Here is how you deal with it though if you don't agree with me. Ask him if he can reach out and grab the dagger. If he can find anything that allows him to, the spell is a valid target. If he can't, too bad for him.
NobodyRemembersThis
08-07-07, 06:22 PM I don't know if this is raw or not, but spells like spiritual weapon and moonblade are imo viable targets for greater magic weapon, and other weapon enhancement spells. No they are not, and neither is flameblade. They are magical effects that mimic weapon attacks - they are not an actual weapon.
SephDragoon
08-07-07, 09:13 PM No they are not, and neither is flameblade. They are magical effects that mimic weapon attacks - they are not an actual weapon.

Magic Weapon, Greater
Transmutation
Level: Clr 4, Pal 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One weapon or fifty projectiles (all
of which must be in contact with each
other at the time of casting)
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless,
object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)

Spiritual Weapon
Evocation [Force]
Level: Clr 2, War 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Magic weapon of force
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

Flame Blade
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Drd 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 0 ft.
Effect: Sword-like beam
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

While flame blade (which I didn't really mention before anyways) may be debatable, the effect line under spiruitual weapon specifies a magic weapon, not just some spell effect. The target for magic weapon and the greater version is a weapon. While it may be debatable for flame blade, spiritual weapon is specified as a weapon. Magic Weapon only specifies it cannot be used on natural weapons, but says nothing about spell effects that are weapons.

If you have some information I don't though, please share.
NobodyRemembersThis
08-08-07, 12:06 AM Effect: Magic weapon of forceIt strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so, for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction.as a real weapon of its form.All the above are taken from the spell itself. It implies that it is not a real weapon. It also states that it damages as a spell. There is also this final, definitive proof:
Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect.End of Discussion. Magic Weapon cannot affect Spiritual Weapon, or any weapon that mimics a real weapon, because it does not specifically state it can. And by RAW, the spell must explicitly state if it can affect another spell.
jaelis
08-08-07, 12:28 AM I agree with all that, but there is some room for discussion.

Could you cast magic weapon on a sword created using major creation?
What about true creation?
What about a sword crafted using fabricate?

Those are all spell effects too, in one way or another.
NobodyRemembersThis
08-08-07, 01:10 AM False, Jaelis, in fabricate's case. If the spell has a duration of instantaneous, then the item left behind is not a magical effect, but a real object. Spells with a duration are still a magical effect.

Minor Creation (and all of the creation line of spells) differ in that they specifically create a real, non-magical object. Although, a strict reading of RAW would indicate that teh creation spells still could not be enchanted. In the creation line of spells, RAW is not 100% clear, but it is obvious the RAI for those spells specifically should create objects that magic weapon could be applied to.

For all other spells, there is no argument. :)
SephDragoon
08-08-07, 04:54 PM False, Jaelis, in fabricate's case. If the spell has a duration of instantaneous, then the item left behind is not a magical effect, but a real object. Spells with a duration are still a magical effect.

Minor Creation (and all of the creation line of spells) differ in that they specifically create a real, non-magical object. Although, a strict reading of RAW would indicate that teh creation spells still could not be enchanted. In the creation line of spells, RAW is not 100% clear, but it is obvious the RAI for those spells specifically should create objects that magic weapon could be applied to.

For all other spells, there is no argument. :)

The arguement is the line... does it extend that far or not? And spells effecting other spells can be used in many many situations, and may not even apply here.

What about the Flame Arrow - Telekinesis trick? You are using a spell with another spell there, does the line extend that far?

"It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon" strikes.. not is. And a weapon made of force is just the material... weapon made of wood or weapon made of iron are just descriptors, they are still weapons.
NobodyRemembersThis
08-09-07, 09:05 AM By RAW, items create by the creation spells could not be enchanted because you would be enchanting another effect. It sucks, but there ya go.

Flame Arrow is cast on an object. The object is then affected by telekenesis. You are not directly throwing just the flameing damage of iflame arrow, you are throwing the whole object. ;)

No, weapons created by a duration spell are a magical effect, regardless of the damage or the way they are used. As such, they cannot be affected by another spell, unless the spell specifically says it can affect that spell/group of spells.

RAW is surprisingly clear on this.
jaelis
08-09-07, 12:40 PM So you can't use a disintegrate spell to punch through a wall of iron, huh? That's good to know.

I think you're being hyperliteral here.
NobodyRemembersThis
08-12-07, 06:48 PM So you can't use a disintegrate spell to punch through a wall of iron, huh? That's good to know.

I think you're being hyperliteral here.Wall of ron is an instant spell, not a duration spell. The wall is real after the spell is created, it does not fade after a duration. Allow me to explain, with example walls from the PHB:

Wind Wall - duration, does not specify disintegrate can affect it. Disintegrate cannot affect it.
Wall of Fire/Ice - duration, does not specify disintegrate can affect it. Disintegrate cannot affect it.
Wall of Stone - Instant spell. Can be affected be disintegrate, as it creates a real object that exists after the spell is complete.
Wall of Iron - Instant spell. Can be affected be disintegrate, as it creates a real object that exists after the spell is complete.
Wall of Force - Duration, but does specify what happens with disintegrate. Per the spell description, Disintegrate affects it because it is explicitly explained.

Does that explain it a little better? As you can see, I am not being hyperliteral at all. I am using the RAI that so happens to be 1000% RAW.
jaelis
08-12-07, 09:38 PM So what exactly is your position? It sounds something like "Some spells create magical effects, and others create real objects. Only real objects can be affected by other spells unless specified otherwise."

Isn't that just begging the question though? If someone was set on letting GMW affect their spiritual weapon, how do you establish that SW is a magical effect an not a real object? (Who says a real object can't be made of force, or strike as a spell? Though I have to admit that's a tough sell... the original cloud of knives question is more reasonable.)

For another example, what about a web? Would you say that you couldn't set it on fire with a burning hands spell? And by your logic, why can you cast spells on summoned creatures?

I think it all boils down to a DM call, myself. Trying to make it more than that is just asking for trouble. The SRD quote you cited should be considered more of a guideline than a rule, just because it requires massive interpretation to be used at all.
NobodyRemembersThis
08-12-07, 11:12 PM So what exactly is your position? It sounds something like "Some spells create magical effects, and others create real objects. Only real objects can be affected by other spells unless specified otherwise."Wrong. My position is this: By RAW, spells with a duration other than Instantaneous CAN NOT be affected by any spell except under the following conditions:

a.) The spell with the duration specifically mentions interaction with a specific spell or spell type (disintegrate, etc.).
b.) The spell being cast on another spell is specifically designed to interact with a/the spell (dispel magic, lucubration, etc.).

Isn't that just begging the question though? If someone was set on letting GMW affect their spiritual weapon, how do you establish that SW is a magical effect an not a real object? (Who says a real object can't be made of force, or strike as a spell? Though I have to admit that's a tough sell... the original cloud of knives question is more reasonable.)It is a magical effect because it is a spell with a duration. Spells with a duration, as I have already stated and proved, are a magical effect that even when creating real objects cannot be affected by magic unless it explicitly states that one spell affects the other.

For another example, what about a web? Would you say that you couldn't set it on fire with a burning hands spell? And by your logic, why can you cast spells on summoned creatures?Web indicates that any source of fire sets it ablaze (and they also specifically indicate a magic sword can do so). Summon Monsters are tricky, because it creates a creature, not an object. This a place where the rules, quite frankly, suck. Any interpretation you find for the SM series will also apply to the creation series, but not to all spells and effects.

By RAW though, they cannot be affected by any spell other than dispel magic (and its variants) and protection from evil (and its variants). Very convoluted here. Good catch - it is a gap in the rules.

I think it all boils down to a DM call, myself. Trying to make it more than that is just asking for trouble. The SRD quote you cited should be considered more of a guideline than a rule, just because it requires massive interpretation to be used at all. No, it is just as much a rule as the rest. It sucks, because they could simply have included "Spells interact Conjuration [Summoning] spells as if they are real creatures, not spell effects." to fix all of the problem with it. Buuuuut, this is a houserule (although, one I employ).
bigbythewise
08-13-07, 03:47 PM It is a magical effect because it is a spell with a duration. Spells with a duration, as I have already stated and proved, are a magical effect that even when creating real objects cannot be affected by magic unless it explicitly states that one spell affects the other.
Timed duration doesn't mean that the object or creature is magical effect itself. Non-instantaneous conjured objects and creatures *are* real and non-magical but their existance is "kept together" by magic. (see Acid Fog or Incendiary Cloud spell)
Instantaneous conjurations don't need magic working anymore and they exist and work without it as real, permanent and non-magical.

Otherwise, i agree that you can't apply spells to created effects, unless the effect description would be saying "Effect: Creature or (magical or non-magical) object". Something like "Sword-shaped rift of plane of Force" isn't valid, indeed.

Web indicates that any source of fire sets it ablaze (and they also specifically indicate a magic sword can do so). Summon Monsters are tricky, because it creates a creature, not an object. This a place where the rules, quite frankly, suck. Any interpretation you find for the SM series will also apply to the creation series, but not to all spells and effects.

Again. Summoned creatures are real and actually manifesting in the material plane and the *timed* magical effect is just a force that let's them to do it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GnomishSubmarine 08-07-07, 08:03 AM	In earnest, I entertained a player who asked the following: "Can I use magic weapon (he originally asked to apply magic vestments as he is a new player to the DnD system and is taking time to adjust) with my spell 'Cloud of Knives' PHB II to make it more powerful?" I began explaining to him that it is a spell and cannot be augmented in this fashion. Even once the spell is cast, it is not considered an enhanceable weapon. He continued to explain to me that "It's a conjuration spell, it makes knives." Even so I persisted in telling him, it was merely a spell effect, and doesn't create an actual knife or dagger that remains outside the duration of the spell. I explained again that it would be the same as augmenting a ray spell in the same fashion, but again he argued it's conjuration and creates a knife to fling at the enemy per round. I explained further that spells of that nature (conjuration, creation like fabricate and so forth) which make a knife or object that can be enhanced by said spell are higher in level, but he is determined that he has a good idea. He feels impeded that I am trying to restrict his creativity. Am I getting this explanation wrong? Have I missed a critical point? Is he right in thinking he can enhance the spell in this fashion? Thank you for your time involved.
jaelis 08-07-07, 08:06 AM	Am I getting this explanation wrong? Have I missed a critical point? Is he right in thinking he can enhance the spell in this fashion? No, you are right. If you wanted, you could houserule that if he uses a magic dagger as the material component, the conjured blades get that enhancement. That would be fairly powerful, but at a noticable cost.
strenoth 08-07-07, 10:38 AM	and even if he was right... magic weapon would only effect the knives one at a time anyway.
tarkin 08-07-07, 01:01 PM	Anything that Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon (can affect multiple weapons) can enchant should always have the following: 1. Need to roll exactly one d20 to hit, adding in your BAB etc. 2. Need to counter DR 3. Total Cover will stop it completely 4. Weapon Proficiency is required (i.e. -4 if you don't have it). 5. Weapon Focus, Specialization etc are allowable. Do all of these happen?
Mechanical_Pear 08-07-07, 01:17 PM	Anything that Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon (can affect multiple weapons) can enchant should always have the following: 1. Need to roll exactly one d20 to hit, adding in your BAB etc. 2. Need to counter DR 3. Total Cover will stop it completely 4. Weapon Proficiency is required (i.e. -4 if you don't have it). 5. Weapon Focus, Specialization etc are allowable. Do all of these happen? Is this a house rule, or a previous publication Wizards put out that I missed?
Lafing Cat 08-07-07, 01:18 PM	Anything that Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon (can affect multiple weapons) can enchant should always have the following: 1. Need to roll exactly one d20 to hit, adding in your BAB etc. 2. Need to counter DR 3. Total Cover will stop it completely 4. Weapon Proficiency is required (i.e. -4 if you don't have it). 5. Weapon Focus, Specialization etc are allowable. Do all of these happen? At the very least, this one is not true. A bow enchanted with the Force quality (MIC) Fires force arrows that are not subject to DR, and yet it is still a completely valid target for Greater Magic weapon. The Seeking Arrow Fired by an Arcane Archer also invalidates your point 3. Honestly, I don't see what the problem with letting this work. Each dagger is only good for one shot, so if he really wants to burn a 3rd level spell slot for (a maximum of) +5 to hit, +5 to damage for a single attack... let him.
qwerty1 08-07-07, 01:25 PM	"Can I use magic weapon with my spell 'Cloud of Knives' PHB II to make it more powerful?" What Spell Level is Cloud of Knifes? How about trying to have the PC Research a spell like it with the bonuses of Magic Weapon or Magic Weapon, Greater? This assumes the Spell Level of Cloud of Knives is under 5th.
tarkin 08-07-07, 02:11 PM	Some people do not understand the word should. Should: "ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency)" As in the president of the United States should enforce the laws of the country, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, even if he disagrees with them (yes, I mean you President Andrew Jackson) or: People should not kill their friends. I repeat, everything I wrote is what things SHOULD have before you let them be affected by Greater Magic Weapon. This does not change the fact that WoTC has made at least one exception (as noted above). Similarly, Andrew Jackson totally ignored the Supreme Court when they told him he could not steal the Indians land and not allow them to even bid on the auction to buy them. This is not a rule by WoTC, so no there is no raw I can point at. Instead, you have to ask yourself, if the above did not work then what makes you think it is appropriate to get the magic weapon bonus P.S. I disagree with WoTC's decision on the Force bow. Why should an arrow fired by it ignore DR? I can not see a werewolf taking full damage from it, it is not silver. If it is a weapon, then it should need to beat the silver DR, if it is a spell, then it should not be affected by Magic Weapon spell. This is not a balance question (at least not in this issue) , it is a consistency question
Kouk 08-07-07, 03:05 PM	You can tell him he can only cast those spells on a "permanent" magic item, that he can hold in his hand. But really it probably wouldn't be too overpowered to allow him to enchant a single dagger at a time.
SephDragoon 08-07-07, 04:27 PM	I don't know if this is raw or not, but spells like spiritual weapon and moonblade are imo viable targets for greater magic weapon, and other weapon enhancement spells. But... the cloud of knives spell creates a new dagger each round, it doesn't reuse the same one. While I would allow him to use greater magic weapon on it, I wouldn't allow him to grant that bonus every round that he attacks unless he could also somehow grant returning. Here is how you deal with it though if you don't agree with me. Ask him if he can reach out and grab the dagger. If he can find anything that allows him to, the spell is a valid target. If he can't, too bad for him.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-07-07, 06:22 PM	I don't know if this is raw or not, but spells like spiritual weapon and moonblade are imo viable targets for greater magic weapon, and other weapon enhancement spells. No they are not, and neither is flameblade. They are magical effects that mimic weapon attacks - they are not an actual weapon.
SephDragoon 08-07-07, 09:13 PM	No they are not, and neither is flameblade. They are magical effects that mimic weapon attacks - they are not an actual weapon. Magic Weapon, Greater Transmutation Level: Clr 4, Pal 3, Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S, M/DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: One weapon or fifty projectiles (all of which must be in contact with each other at the time of casting) Duration: 1 hour/level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object) Spiritual Weapon Evocation [Force] Level: Clr 2, War 2 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Effect: Magic weapon of force Duration: 1 round/level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes Flame Blade Evocation [Fire] Level: Drd 2 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 0 ft. Effect: Sword-like beam Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes While flame blade (which I didn't really mention before anyways) may be debatable, the effect line under spiruitual weapon specifies a magic weapon, not just some spell effect. The target for magic weapon and the greater version is a weapon. While it may be debatable for flame blade, spiritual weapon is specified as a weapon. Magic Weapon only specifies it cannot be used on natural weapons, but says nothing about spell effects that are weapons. If you have some information I don't though, please share.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-08-07, 12:06 AM	Effect: Magic weapon of forceIt strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so, for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction.as a real weapon of its form.All the above are taken from the spell itself. It implies that it is not a real weapon. It also states that it damages as a spell. There is also this final, definitive proof: Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect.End of Discussion. Magic Weapon cannot affect Spiritual Weapon, or any weapon that mimics a real weapon, because it does not specifically state it can. And by RAW, the spell must explicitly state if it can affect another spell.
jaelis 08-08-07, 12:28 AM	I agree with all that, but there is some room for discussion. Could you cast magic weapon on a sword created using major creation? What about true creation? What about a sword crafted using fabricate? Those are all spell effects too, in one way or another.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-08-07, 01:10 AM	False, Jaelis, in fabricate's case. If the spell has a duration of instantaneous, then the item left behind is not a magical effect, but a real object. Spells with a duration are still a magical effect. Minor Creation (and all of the creation line of spells) differ in that they specifically create a real, non-magical object. Although, a strict reading of RAW would indicate that teh creation spells still could not be enchanted. In the creation line of spells, RAW is not 100% clear, but it is obvious the RAI for those spells specifically should create objects that magic weapon could be applied to. For all other spells, there is no argument. :)
SephDragoon 08-08-07, 04:54 PM	False, Jaelis, in fabricate's case. If the spell has a duration of instantaneous, then the item left behind is not a magical effect, but a real object. Spells with a duration are still a magical effect. Minor Creation (and all of the creation line of spells) differ in that they specifically create a real, non-magical object. Although, a strict reading of RAW would indicate that teh creation spells still could not be enchanted. In the creation line of spells, RAW is not 100% clear, but it is obvious the RAI for those spells specifically should create objects that magic weapon could be applied to. For all other spells, there is no argument. :) The arguement is the line... does it extend that far or not? And spells effecting other spells can be used in many many situations, and may not even apply here. What about the Flame Arrow - Telekinesis trick? You are using a spell with another spell there, does the line extend that far? "It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon" strikes.. not is. And a weapon made of force is just the material... weapon made of wood or weapon made of iron are just descriptors, they are still weapons.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-09-07, 09:05 AM	By RAW, items create by the creation spells could not be enchanted because you would be enchanting another effect. It sucks, but there ya go. Flame Arrow is cast on an object. The object is then affected by telekenesis. You are not directly throwing just the flameing damage of iflame arrow, you are throwing the whole object. ;) No, weapons created by a duration spell are a magical effect, regardless of the damage or the way they are used. As such, they cannot be affected by another spell, unless the spell specifically says it can affect that spell/group of spells. RAW is surprisingly clear on this.
jaelis 08-09-07, 12:40 PM	So you can't use a disintegrate spell to punch through a wall of iron, huh? That's good to know. I think you're being hyperliteral here.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-12-07, 06:48 PM	So you can't use a disintegrate spell to punch through a wall of iron, huh? That's good to know. I think you're being hyperliteral here.Wall of ron is an instant spell, not a duration spell. The wall is real after the spell is created, it does not fade after a duration. Allow me to explain, with example walls from the PHB: Wind Wall - duration, does not specify disintegrate can affect it. Disintegrate cannot affect it. Wall of Fire/Ice - duration, does not specify disintegrate can affect it. Disintegrate cannot affect it. Wall of Stone - Instant spell. Can be affected be disintegrate, as it creates a real object that exists after the spell is complete. Wall of Iron - Instant spell. Can be affected be disintegrate, as it creates a real object that exists after the spell is complete. Wall of Force - Duration, but does specify what happens with disintegrate. Per the spell description, Disintegrate affects it because it is explicitly explained. Does that explain it a little better? As you can see, I am not being hyperliteral at all. I am using the RAI that so happens to be 1000% RAW.
jaelis 08-12-07, 09:38 PM	So what exactly is your position? It sounds something like "Some spells create magical effects, and others create real objects. Only real objects can be affected by other spells unless specified otherwise." Isn't that just begging the question though? If someone was set on letting GMW affect their spiritual weapon, how do you establish that SW is a magical effect an not a real object? (Who says a real object can't be made of force, or strike as a spell? Though I have to admit that's a tough sell... the original cloud of knives question is more reasonable.) For another example, what about a web? Would you say that you couldn't set it on fire with a burning hands spell? And by your logic, why can you cast spells on summoned creatures? I think it all boils down to a DM call, myself. Trying to make it more than that is just asking for trouble. The SRD quote you cited should be considered more of a guideline than a rule, just because it requires massive interpretation to be used at all.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-12-07, 11:12 PM	So what exactly is your position? It sounds something like "Some spells create magical effects, and others create real objects. Only real objects can be affected by other spells unless specified otherwise."Wrong. My position is this: By RAW, spells with a duration other than Instantaneous CAN NOT be affected by any spell except under the following conditions: a.) The spell with the duration specifically mentions interaction with a specific spell or spell type (disintegrate, etc.). b.) The spell being cast on another spell is specifically designed to interact with a/the spell (dispel magic, lucubration, etc.). Isn't that just begging the question though? If someone was set on letting GMW affect their spiritual weapon, how do you establish that SW is a magical effect an not a real object? (Who says a real object can't be made of force, or strike as a spell? Though I have to admit that's a tough sell... the original cloud of knives question is more reasonable.)It is a magical effect because it is a spell with a duration. Spells with a duration, as I have already stated and proved, are a magical effect that even when creating real objects cannot be affected by magic unless it explicitly states that one spell affects the other. For another example, what about a web? Would you say that you couldn't set it on fire with a burning hands spell? And by your logic, why can you cast spells on summoned creatures?Web indicates that any source of fire sets it ablaze (and they also specifically indicate a magic sword can do so). Summon Monsters are tricky, because it creates a creature, not an object. This a place where the rules, quite frankly, suck. Any interpretation you find for the SM series will also apply to the creation series, but not to all spells and effects. By RAW though, they cannot be affected by any spell other than dispel magic (and its variants) and protection from evil (and its variants). Very convoluted here. Good catch - it is a gap in the rules. I think it all boils down to a DM call, myself. Trying to make it more than that is just asking for trouble. The SRD quote you cited should be considered more of a guideline than a rule, just because it requires massive interpretation to be used at all. No, it is just as much a rule as the rest. It sucks, because they could simply have included "Spells interact Conjuration [Summoning] spells as if they are real creatures, not spell effects." to fix all of the problem with it. Buuuuut, this is a houserule (although, one I employ).
bigbythewise 08-13-07, 03:47 PM	It is a magical effect because it is a spell with a duration. Spells with a duration, as I have already stated and proved, are a magical effect that even when creating real objects cannot be affected by magic unless it explicitly states that one spell affects the other. Timed duration doesn't mean that the object or creature is magical effect itself. Non-instantaneous conjured objects and creatures are real and non-magical but their existance is "kept together" by magic. (see Acid Fog or Incendiary Cloud spell) Instantaneous conjurations don't need magic working anymore and they exist and work without it as real, permanent and non-magical. Otherwise, i agree that you can't apply spells to created effects, unless the effect description would be saying "Effect: Creature or (magical or non-magical) object". Something like "Sword-shaped rift of plane of Force" isn't valid, indeed. Web indicates that any source of fire sets it ablaze (and they also specifically indicate a magic sword can do so). Summon Monsters are tricky, because it creates a creature, not an object. This a place where the rules, quite frankly, suck. Any interpretation you find for the SM series will also apply to the creation series, but not to all spells and effects. Again. Summoned creatures are real and actually manifesting in the material plane and the timed magical effect is just a force that let's them to do it.