Hi all,
With respect to the spectator's spell reflection ability: is it reflecting the whole spell or just the damage from the spell? I ask because it's unclear (to me) how the ability works in relation to area spells. If a wizard casts fireball on a spectator, and the spectator makes its Dex save, does the fireball still explode in the spectator's area but some other creature takes the damage that the spectator would've taken, or does the fireball instead explode in an area centered on the other creature chosen by the spectator?
Thanks,
Jonathan
You could be right. I just thought it was worth asking as I would've thought the ability would explicitly state that it only works on single target spells if that were the case.
There is no distinction made between types of spells in the Reaction description on MM30. The spectator just needs to save against the fireball spell, in this case, and it will be reflected back onto the target within 30 ft. (the spellcaster, in all likelihood).
It's a bit messy, though, because it would still need to survive the half damage of the fireball to be able to reflect it.
I would apply the reaction like this:
- The fireball explodes as normal and all in its area of effect take damage as normal.
- To reflect the spell, the spectator must have saved, so it takes 1/2 damage as per the spell.
- The fireball spell (not the fireball itself because it has already exploded) is then reflected to a target within 30 ft.
- All in its area of effect save and take damage as per normal. I would use the original casters spell DC, rather than the spectator's as it is a reflection.
Messy but fun.
[Edit]: That approach doesn't work because it says "the spell targets the chosen creature instead of the spectator", so it's more like the spectator saves, takes no damage because it has redirected the spell.
El_Condoro wrote:
I think the "instead of the spectator" means it is free of effect and that the spell gets re-targeted, if it saves against the spell. Looking at the description of targets on PHB204, a point of origin is the target for an area of effect spell. I don't think the spell would fire twice (despite my half-baked idea above) - just once, with the new target being within 30 ft. of the spectator.
I'm with Aaron here. Basically a Fireball explodes in an area the Spectator is in, and everything in it erupts in flame, but the Reflection is active, so he dodges most of it, and a weird reflecting bubble-thing pushes back the spell onto a target he chooses within 30ft (who then has to save against the entire spell!).
Or maybe a Beholder eats some lightning, takes half damage, and burps it out at a single target (but not as a line) against someone within 30ft of him.
Heck, maybe they have an Eyestalk that does all the reflecting! Pew pew!
Regardless, it mimics that spell but makes one target save against it (and ONLY one) as if that person was in the fireball, in the path of the lightning, etc.
pukunui wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
pukunui wrote:
It's those little details that are sadly lacking from this edition's MM.
Anyway, I just tweeted "Medical Bills Mearls" ( 
) and he replied that he'd rule it has to be a spell that specifically targets the spectator so AOEs are out. That works for me.
pukunui wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Area spells don't actually target a creature. They target a point. So the spectator never can be targeted with the fireball even though he can be damaged with one. Cheers!
Dear OP,
It's R-E-F-L-E-C-T-I-O-N.
Hope that helps!
... wait, what?
Please see post #12.
pukunui wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
pukunui wrote:
You should care what he says, not because it indicates that his interpretation is right, but because it indicates that it is not a rules/errata question but rather one that is discretionary. Besides telling you how he would rule, he is also saying "it is incorrect to interpret the rules in such a way that the rules would allow for one and only one correct interpretation." As a DM, his opinion about how he would rule is as valid as any other DMs (so you should care with what he says at least as much as you care what any poster on these forums says); as a lead designer of the rules, his opinion about whether the rules are sufficiently ambiguous in a given context to necessitate a DM opinion should matter a great deal.
You might notice that sometimes he answers definitely about what the rules allow and don't allow. By not answering that way in certain situations, he is telling us something very important about how the rules work, regardless of what else he says in that answer.
Someone is spending to much time trying to find some kind of hidden an important meaning behind mike mearls responses...
It isn't really hidden...
paulstrait wrote: