For starters, I have two questions... I don't think they are too easy to answer, and I might wish to discuss the answers, which is why I don't put them in the simple questions, simple answers thread.
1) Astral Projection
The defenders of this spell often do say that there are only a few specific things able to damage the silvery cord. I don't know why. It is stated in the spell description that it is incorporeal, and that very few things can destroy a silver cord, as stated in the DMG. Now, the DMG has indeed information about what can destroy incorporeal things:
An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead, but a hit with holy water has a 50% chance of not affecting an incorporeal creature.
In the monster manual, Hardness and Hit points of the cord are stated. (10 and 20, respectively)
The entry for the Ghost Template seems to imply that the same descriptions that are used for creatures are to be used for objects:
SRD wrote:
Could you pull up the page numbers from the rules on that?
So if you want to play using core rules only, and ignore all other information to the contrary on the subject, you could argue what you're saying. Otherwise, it's clear it doesn't work like that.
Edit: I'd forgotten that the githyanki were actually in the MM1. So yeah, even in a strict core only (as in, we're ignoring every other book like it doesn't exist) game, it's still fairly clear that you can't just chop a silver cord in half with your +1 ghost touch sword.
If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + points of damage + the level of the spell you’re casting. If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell’s saving throw DC + the level of the spell you’re casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it’s the DC that the spell’s saving throw would have if a save were allowed.
Thus, you are not affected by your own illusions (since you know them to be figments), and persons who are under the influence of a True Seeing spell would not be affected by an illusion that is (in whole or part) based on visual senses.
If you had a spell that made only phantasmal sounds and no image, it would not give the character/creature w/ True Seeing the ability to disbelieve it automatically, but if they make their will save vs the illusionary sound, it would not affect their concentration.
Monster Manual[/b]]
The normally insubstantial cord is treated as a tangible object with the owner's AC, hardness 10, and 20 hit points.
That's from the githyanki silver swords section in the MM. There it gives actual stats for attacking an astral traveler's cord, because the swords have a special ability allowing them to do so. The fact that those stats don't show up in the spell description (where they would logically be if the cord could be attacked by anything) pretty clearly implies that the cord can't be attacked without a special ability that says otherwise.
That's from the githyanki silver swords section in the MM. There it gives actual stats for attacking an astral traveler's cord, because the swords have a special ability allowing them to do so. The fact that those stats don't show up in the spell description (where they would logically be if the cord could be attacked by anything) pretty clearly implies that the cord can't be attacked without a special ability that says otherwise.
+1
You can't create a Figment without a visual part exept with Permanent Image, all the other Image-Spells state that it has to be a visual figment.
The area is smaller than I thought, anyway - to cover a 40ft. radius spread, you would need a caster level of 260. In the Spell Compendium, there is a spell (Creaking Cacaphony), that has exactly the effect I was looking for at 40ft. spread, and it grants no saving throw. Only drawback is it's limited to Druid and Bard.
New question:
How does Metamagic work?
The description of metamagic spells says
Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.
So a sanctumed twinned maximized Vampiric Touch would still be a 2nd level spell?
Could you then recall this spell with a pearl of power for second level spells?
Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast. The spell must be of a particular level, depending on the pearl.
Note that it doesn't say that the spell must have been cast from a particular spell slot.
The same trick - if it is legit - works for spell storing weapons, Contingencys, and Imbue Familiar with Spell ability / Imbue with spell ability, as well as with the feat that lets you give spells to your familiar from PHBII.
Also note the following:
Magic Items and Metamagic Spells
With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.
Only the level limits apply to the higher spell level (which doesn't exist anyway, the correct text would have been "apply to the spell's higher spell slot"). So a Wand of empowered scorching ray costs the same as a Wand of scorching ray - the cost doesn't apply the higher spell level.
Was that already noted, and ignored, because it is absolutely obvious that this is not Rules as Intended? Or am I the first to point this out (I doubt it, though it would be cool.).
@Secret Page
There floats something about the Secret Page trick. I'm not sure I understand how it works? The spell states
Secret page alters the contents of a page so that they appear to be something entirely different. The text of a spell can be changed to show even another spell.
. Was it interpreted as "even pages not showing spells can be altered to show spells?"
@Silver Cord People:
Please answer my questions:
1. Does the spell-description (PHB pg. 201/SRD) state that the cord is incorporeal? Yes/no. Hint:
Show
When a second body is formed on a different plane, the incorporeal silvery cord remains invisibly attached to the new body.
Addendum: I think that many of you might still be influenced by 2nd edition rules. In these rules, it was more clearly stated in the spell description that only a psychic wind (whatever that is) or the Swords of Githyanki could harm the cord. It may even have been the intention of the designers to copy this trait. But the way they worded the rules, they weren’t successful in doing so. A silver cord is incorporeal. The effects incorporeal objects can be harmed by are clearly stated. That’s the gist of it.
Someone once told me a long time ago that when interpreting rules there's a big difference between "it says you can" and "doesn't say you can't".
I don't know how much weight it holds, but our group has always gone by "Always assume it can't be done unless the printed material states otherwise."
The only time the printed material ever talks about being able to attack the silver cord is in your spoiler box above regarding the silver swords and the astral dreadnought.
Thus anything that's not covered by the rules is the DM's call (well everything is the DM's call but you know what I mean).
That might be the best way to address the cord issue in your game.
Though from a logical perspective, I wouldn't see the need for some big scary monster (Astral Dreadnought) to have a special extraordinary ability for destroying silver cords to exist if any arcane caster with a maximized magic missile could accomplish the same thing.
;)
At the same time
The normally insubstantial cord is treated as a tangible object with the owner’s AC, hardness 10 and 20 hit points
That doesn't say the hardness and hit points for cords are those defined stats. It says that under those circumstances the user of those abilities/weapons can treat a cord as though it had those stats
So in other words, if you aren't X (X = Sever Silver Cord(Ex), a githyanki sword), then you don't get Y (Y = treating the cord as an oject with owner AC, hardness, etc).
Thus by the printed rules, the only logical conclusion you can reach is that in any instance other than what is described above the cord is an attended incorporeal object with an arbitrary amount of hardness/hit points
So a sanctumed twinned maximized Vampiric Touch would still be a 2nd level spell?
A Vampiric Touch is a 3rd level spell! In this case it's treated a a 4th level spell, using a 11th level spellslot. I think you misunderstood Sanctum Spell!
Hm, I understand what you're trying to say. It is indeed not covered directly, so if one assumes the reading that is most beneficial for the players, nothing but these two things can destroy the cord. I have to admit that I didn't have this discussion (only) because of my game (- there, I try to stay within the RAW, wether I like them or not, or I subject myself to the rules of the one who's the DM), but also because of the discussions on these boards, where total superiority of wizards is assumed. I like taking the contrary posisition for the sake of it, sometimes. I hope this isn't perceived as trolling, as I tried to bring up arguments I hadn't seen formulated this way before
.@Winternacht:
I took this line "...but if not cast in the sanctum, the spell has an effective spell level 1 lower than normal." to mean that outside your sanctum, you can prepare it as a Spell of a level lower.
But it doesn't really matter, I just wanted to make the example as overpowered as possible. Be it a Maximized, Twinned Scorching ray. Could you indeed recall that with a 2nd level Pearl of Power, by RAW? That would be great for my players, but totally destroy WBL.
if one assumes the reading that is most beneficial for the players
It's not even about that. If you take the stuff written in the most literal sense, then only the things specifically mentioned can destroy an astral cord, and maybe a few things which aren't mentioned (i.e. the DM can make up stuff, or WotC could release a new monster that can do it). That's it. I think you've actually realized this, and are just refusing to admit it at this point.
I agree. You're right, I was wrong, Astral Projection is very, very strong.
It would be nice if you also gave input for the metamagic thing, as that is something that actually interests me, too.
@Phaedrus
I agree. You're right, I was wrong, Astral Projection is very, very strong.
Well, you don't see that too often. :D Credit to you for thoroughly investigating something, rather than just taking peoples' word on it, and also for admitting you were incorrect.
It would be nice if you also gave input for the metamagic thing, as that is something that actually interests me, too.
I know that for crafting magic items, metamagic feats do raise the effective level of the spell for calculating costs. I don't see anywhere that the same thing is stated for putting metamagicked spells into spell storing items, retrieving them with Pearls of Power, etc. So I guess per the RAW, you could retrieve a Maximized, Twinned, Vampiric Touch with a Pearl of Power 3 (ignoring the Sanctum Spell stuff). I very much doubt any DM would let you do that, though. :D
A better argument might be able to be made about a spell that was modified in a way so that you didn't "pay" for the Metamagic spell slot increase, like a Divine Metamagic: Maximized spell.
Another thing that was pointed out recently on another board as being extremely biased/overpowered towards casters is using divination type spells, specifically Contact Other Plane and/or Commune, to prepare for an upcoming battle. You should technically be able to figure out your opponents strengths and weaknesses, and prepare the exact spells you need to defeat them, by cleverly wording your questions for these spells.
Another thing that was pointed out recently on another board as being extremely biased/overpowered towards casters is using divination type spells, specifically Contact Other Plane and/or Commune, to prepare for an upcoming battle. You should technically be able to figure out your opponents strengths and weaknesses, and prepare the exact spells you need to defeat them, by cleverly wording your questions for these spells.
That strategy also works RIDICULOUSLY well with Binders. There biggest weakness is not knowing what vestiges to wear.
You either get imprecise answers or risk losing your spellcasting ability, that doesn't seem to be a good deal to me?
Hm, I understand that at the levels we're talking about, the 100XP for Commune aren't considered a great expenditure anymore, but Contact other Plane isn't really safe when you get it, is it?
You either get imprecise answers or risk losing your spellcasting ability, that doesn't seem to be a good deal to me?
Contact Other Plane forces ability checks, which you can take 10 on. By the time you get the spell, you should never even have to roll. And you get the right answer 88% of the time. Combine it with other divination magic (augury, perhaps) and you can figure out whether your answer was correct or not.
Thanks for the explanation.
Taking 10 on any ability check is iffy... Most of my DMs wouldn't allow it when there was a serious consequence if failed... Are there rules to the contrary?
As long as you're not in combat or "distracted", you can take 10. You can't take 20 if there is a consequence for failure, as you fail repeatedly until you get it right by taking 20, but that does not apply to taking 10. There was just a multi-page argument about this on brilliantgameologists, and pretty much everyone agreed at the end that you could take 10 on it.