Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Permanent Emanation and Extraordinary Spell Aim
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 2455551" data-attributes="member: 141"><p>I think the word "spell" is ambiguous here. From more abstract to more concrete it can mean something that is on a character's spell list, or that's among a character's spells known, or that a character has prepared, or that a character has cast. Only when a spell is cast can it be interacted with.</p><p></p><p>Rkhet's interpretation seems to be that it is the abstract spell that is modified by the Permanent Emanation feat, and that for it to have tangible effect the spell must be cast. Thanee's interpretation is that the Permanent Emanation feat directly produces a concrete effect.</p><p></p><p>Say that I am an epic level cleric. <em>Antilife shell</em> is on my spell list, and there are no restrictions (like alignment subtypes) preventing me from casting it. In fact I have never cast it, but it is a spell I can cast, and so when I take the Permanent Emanation feat I can designate <em>antilife shell</em> as the spell modified by the feat.</p><p></p><p>Suppose I have done that. Do I now have an <em>antilife shell</em> radiating from me? Rkhet argues that no, I don't. The feat has modified the abstract spell for me (making it permanent and tenacious) but that doesn't do me any good unless I cast it. It is as if I researched a permanent form of <em>antilife shell</em> that I can dismiss and restart at will. My research modifies the spell on my list so that it has different properties, but it won't do me any good if I don't cast it. Rkhet's interpretation of the feat is that it modifies an emanation spell so that it has different properties; it is permanent, tenacious, and it can be dismissed or restarted at will. However, like the researched spell it doesn't do me any good until I cast it. I have to cast the spell first. Later on I can dismiss it and then cast it again. His question is whether I can then modify the AoE, at these subsequent castings, with Extraordinary Spell Aim.</p><p></p><p>Thanee's position is that the Permanent Emanation feat gives you a permanent emanation based on one of the spells you know. What emanation it is depends on the kinds of spells you can cast; you choose one spell you can cast that produces a permanent emanation when you choose the feat; the effect of the feat is that it comes into effect around you. You don't have to cast it; rather, taking the feat makes a instance of the spell come into being around you.</p><p></p><p>The key phrase is "This spell’s effect is permanent". One reading is that this applies to the abstract spell, which still has to be cast in order to have any effects. The other reading is that the feat brings into being a permanent spell effect. It is a concrete reading of the spell effect, not an abstract reading.</p><p></p><p>The problem is, what sense of spell does the previous sentence employ? "Designate any one of the character’s spells whose area is an emanation from the character. " </p><p></p><p>Read in a concrete way, it means that the spell has to be in effect when the feat is taken. There has to be an actual <em>antilife shell</em> currently emanating from the character in order to take the feat. Does anyone think that? Or is the abstract reading the correct one, that says that you look for a spell that the character can cast (even if he has never cast that spell) and see if it would make an emanation centered on that character?</p><p></p><p>There are equally valid rules of interpretation that can be applied here. One says that you should stick with an interpretation; if a spell is abstract in one sentence, it should be abstract in the second. I think that's Rkhet's rule. Another rule is that if something can be interpreted as concrete, that's what you should do. And since a concrete reading of the first sentence is impossible (it would require the choice of a feat to be taken at a particular moment in time, which isn't how feat choices are understood to take place), the first sentence has to be interpreted abstractly. But the second sentence can be interpreted concretely, so that is what you should do.</p><p></p><p>I wouldn't be inclined to grant Rkhet the combo he's asking for (with spell aim) so I'm inclined to agree with Thanee in this case. But Rkhet's case is certainly defensible.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cheiromancer, post: 2455551, member: 141"] I think the word "spell" is ambiguous here. From more abstract to more concrete it can mean something that is on a character's spell list, or that's among a character's spells known, or that a character has prepared, or that a character has cast. Only when a spell is cast can it be interacted with. Rkhet's interpretation seems to be that it is the abstract spell that is modified by the Permanent Emanation feat, and that for it to have tangible effect the spell must be cast. Thanee's interpretation is that the Permanent Emanation feat directly produces a concrete effect. Say that I am an epic level cleric. [i]Antilife shell[/i] is on my spell list, and there are no restrictions (like alignment subtypes) preventing me from casting it. In fact I have never cast it, but it is a spell I can cast, and so when I take the Permanent Emanation feat I can designate [i]antilife shell[/i] as the spell modified by the feat. Suppose I have done that. Do I now have an [i]antilife shell[/i] radiating from me? Rkhet argues that no, I don't. The feat has modified the abstract spell for me (making it permanent and tenacious) but that doesn't do me any good unless I cast it. It is as if I researched a permanent form of [i]antilife shell[/i] that I can dismiss and restart at will. My research modifies the spell on my list so that it has different properties, but it won't do me any good if I don't cast it. Rkhet's interpretation of the feat is that it modifies an emanation spell so that it has different properties; it is permanent, tenacious, and it can be dismissed or restarted at will. However, like the researched spell it doesn't do me any good until I cast it. I have to cast the spell first. Later on I can dismiss it and then cast it again. His question is whether I can then modify the AoE, at these subsequent castings, with Extraordinary Spell Aim. Thanee's position is that the Permanent Emanation feat gives you a permanent emanation based on one of the spells you know. What emanation it is depends on the kinds of spells you can cast; you choose one spell you can cast that produces a permanent emanation when you choose the feat; the effect of the feat is that it comes into effect around you. You don't have to cast it; rather, taking the feat makes a instance of the spell come into being around you. The key phrase is "This spell’s effect is permanent". One reading is that this applies to the abstract spell, which still has to be cast in order to have any effects. The other reading is that the feat brings into being a permanent spell effect. It is a concrete reading of the spell effect, not an abstract reading. The problem is, what sense of spell does the previous sentence employ? "Designate any one of the character’s spells whose area is an emanation from the character. " Read in a concrete way, it means that the spell has to be in effect when the feat is taken. There has to be an actual [i]antilife shell[/i] currently emanating from the character in order to take the feat. Does anyone think that? Or is the abstract reading the correct one, that says that you look for a spell that the character can cast (even if he has never cast that spell) and see if it would make an emanation centered on that character? There are equally valid rules of interpretation that can be applied here. One says that you should stick with an interpretation; if a spell is abstract in one sentence, it should be abstract in the second. I think that's Rkhet's rule. Another rule is that if something can be interpreted as concrete, that's what you should do. And since a concrete reading of the first sentence is impossible (it would require the choice of a feat to be taken at a particular moment in time, which isn't how feat choices are understood to take place), the first sentence has to be interpreted abstractly. But the second sentence can be interpreted concretely, so that is what you should do. I wouldn't be inclined to grant Rkhet the combo he's asking for (with spell aim) so I'm inclined to agree with Thanee in this case. But Rkhet's case is certainly defensible. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Permanent Emanation and Extraordinary Spell Aim
Top