spell turning questions

[shilsen]

But thanks for the post - what are others thoughts on it?

I agree with Auraseer that non-rules reasons really don't work, since one can create a dozen creative (and probably erroneous) explanations. Maybe part of the reason for the rule is for visualization purposes. Maybe the design team figured that it would look a little silly if a wizard hit someone with a disintegrate spell and then the wizard was disintegrated. Or someone casts Melf's Acid Arrow on a target with spell turning and takes acid damage himself. Just a conjecture.

 

[AuraSeer]

I don't buy that you can just "take cover" from a spell - not very realistic as someone's casting...

Of course not as they're casting. But on your action you can move to give yourself cover-- around a corner, through an arrow slit, behind another character-- or you can have magical cover bonuses to AC, from Shield or a Bigby's Hand for example.

The point is that there are ways to improve your defense against rays. There is no equivalent defense against Targeted spells, because they always manage to find the target.

Long story short, this is how the base rules work. If you don't like it, you can let Spell Turning affect rays in your campaign, but you should be aware that you'd be using a house rule.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

An attempt.

Other spells target via magic, and the magic sees to it that those spells hit home. Spell turning changes the spell so that it will return to sender. Ray spells, on the other hand, aren't targeted via magic, but need you to point to the target. And the turning effect cannot change that. Or, the reason is somethign completely different

 

[Andion Isurand]

If in fact, Spell Turning does not work against spells requiring ranged touch attacks.....

Why not make a new spell named "Reflect Spells" that works like "Reverse Arrows" & "Spell Turning" except that it only works with spells requiring a ranged touch attack?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If in fact, Spell Turning does not work against spells requiring ranged touch attacks.....

AFAIK, no one said it would

Why not make a new spell named "Reflect Spells" that works like "Reverse Arrows" & "Spell Turning" except that it only works with spells requiring a ranged touch attack?

I thought about that, too. We have to come up with a good mechanic to determine whether the ray has been reversed, though.

 

[Destil]

I don't buy that you can just "take cover" from a spell - not very realistic as someone's casting...

And I don't think it's very likely that a typical PC's defenses against ranged touch spells can properly compete with a typical ranged touch caster's bonuses.

But thanks for the post - what are others thoughts on it?

In general I agree, attack roll spells have other ways to defend against them: AC. How would spell turning work if it reflected attack roll spells? Would you use the original attack roll? The protected person's BAB? Some hybred? Would make the spell a hassle to deal with, to some degree.

My problem is more that I don't like spells that create attack effects and don't require an attack roll, the consistancy problem is more from the fact that magic missles is turned, than the fact that acid arrow isn't. But sacred cows and all.

 

[Bhaal]

Trying to put it into non-rules sense...

Ranged touch spells are activated and then sent; targeted spells skip that step and activate on the person unerringly. In other words: Ranged/touch attack spells target physically while 'target' spells target magically. Spell turning takes advantage of the 'magical targeting' by somehow messing up its parameters, so that it instead activates unerringly on the caster. However once a spell has been manifested and is physically travelling to the victim (such as rays, etc), spell turning is powerless to reprogram the recipient or otherwise redirect the targetting because magic isn't dictating who it affects anymore--physics is.

In the same sense, if you enchant an arrow to have a flaming burst, spell turning won't let the victim take the arrow damage and then somehow convey the magical damage back onto the caster/shooter, because the spell has been already activated. And I agree that MM should be a ranged touch given this way of looking at it. Sacred cows indeed.