D&D 5E Worldbuilding: destruction and siege via Mold Earth?

[overgeeked]

I can see it right there... no one can with out serius magic see all 8 sides of a 5ft cube, so your ruling is it can't do what it says it does,

The what now?

I am not cheesing I am littarly asking for what it says.

If you want to get to do the cool thing from the spell but simultaneously ignore the listed limitations, that's cheese.

Again, the limitations are 1) loose earth, and; 2) that you can see, and; 3) no more than two lasting effects. This is not me adding things to the spell, this is directly from the spell.

The trouble is people are defining "loose earth", "that you can see", and "no more than two lasting effects" differently.

What's loose earth? There's a couple of definitions here already. Loose as in not compact. Loose as in particulate. Loose as in freshly dug. Which loose is the right one? Depends on what the designers meant and how the referee rules in the moment. It's not clear from the spell which definition should be used. "Natural language" causing confusion again.

What can you see? Can you see the opposite edge of the cube, clearly not. But, does that matter? Depends on the referee. A purely simulationist reading might argue that no, you cannot see the far edge of the cube. A more lenient reading might be that you only need to see a few particles of dirt to effect the whole cube. Again, which is the right one? It's not clear from the spell. It depends on the designers' intent and the referee's ruling at the table. The crux of this is: do you have to see the whole volume to effect the whole volume?

The really puzzling one is how people read "no more than two lasting effects" and somehow come away thinking that means three lasting effects. A tortured reading could be that you could have two lasting effects plus the one you're currently manipulating. But that is quite tortured.

which you did regarding your "zero effect" assertion which I disputed.

Not really, no. You made an assertion that ignores the limitations of the spell and relies entirely on the ruling of the referee at the table at the time of use.

 

[Oofta]

Certainly. Sand directly beneath a building would be effectively clamped in position. However, if you removed sand to the side, a sand slip might potentially result.

I probably wouldn't do that, but even if it did work that way the caster has to be within 30 feet. Having someone standing within 30 feet of the wall casting the spell often enough to cause a wall to fall is a good way to have an ex-caster.

 

[Oofta]

Just to add to the above, if move earth could damage a wall, I imagine that there would be a few simple fixes. It would simple to dig up the earth around the castle wall and pave it, or just add a layer of rubble. If the surface isn't loose earth, move earth is ineffective.

Part of this is just plain an issue with our lack of imagination. In a world with magic and dragons, there will be counters to magic and dragons we potentially don't think of. Especially when the spells are cantrip level, I just can't see it being a threat to a fortress.

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

If you want to get to do the cool thing from the spell but simultaneously ignore the listed limitations, that's cheese.

I only want to do exactly what it says
If you target an area of loose earth, you can instantaneously excavate it, move it along the ground, and deposit it up to 5 feet away.

your ruleing that I can't see the bottom of the 5ft cube is pure spite... I am not gaming the cantrip, I am useing it exactly for what it says it can do... If you target an area of loose earth, you can instantaneously excavate it, move it along the ground, and deposit it up to 5 feet away.

Again, the limitations are 1) loose earth, and; 2) that you can see, and; 3) no more than two lasting effects. This is not me adding things to the spell, this is directly from the spell.

yes it is, I can see part of the 5ft of loose earth so I can effect it, if not then when CAN you effect this 5ft that you can see every bit of it?

The trouble is people are defining "loose earth", "that you can see", and "no more than two lasting effects" differently.

I'm not arguing anything about loose earth. I can see the earth, end period, anything else is something you are adding.

What's loose earth? There's a couple of definitions here already.

don't care because I am targeting loose earth what ever you consider it.

What can you see? Can you see the opposite edge of the cube, clearly not. But, does that matter? Depends on the referee.

no it doesn't matter it says I can move 5ft of it.

A purely simulationist reading might argue that no, you cannot see the far edge of the cube.

that is not a ruleing that is a house rule changing the cantrip, and one that is only being done to annoy the player.

A more lenient reading might be that you only need to see a few particles of dirt to effect the whole cube. Again, which is the right one? It's not clear from the spell.

yes it is... it says I can move 5ft of dirt without saying I need x ray vision to do it.

It depends on the designers' intent and the referee's ruling at the table. The crux of this is: do you have to see the whole volume to effect the whole volume?

you can NEVER see the whole volume, even if you can see the top and bottom one side is the opposite of you and the part in the middle you can't see... your "I'm just reading the spell simulations" is not reading the spell

The really puzzling one is how people read "no more than two lasting effects" and somehow come away thinking that means three lasting effects. A tortured reading could be that you could have two lasting effects plus the one you're currently manipulating. But that is quite tortured.

again nothing to do with me I am not using a lasting effect just an instant one.

Not really, no. You made an assertion that ignores the limitations of the spell and relies entirely on the ruling of the referee at the table at the time of use.

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

Just to add to the above, if move earth could damage a wall, I imagine that there would be a few simple fixes. It would simple to dig up the earth around the castle wall and pave it, or just add a layer of rubble. If the surface isn't loose earth, move earth is ineffective.

Part of this is just plain an issue with our lack of imagination. In a world with magic and dragons, there will be counters to magic and dragons we potentially don't think of. Especially when the spells are cantrip level, I just can't see it being a threat to a fortress.

I assume the trick only works if the building is already on shaky ground (lol)

 

[greg kaye]

... if move earth could damage a wall, ...

If the earth surrounding a wall was loose, removing that earth could effectively remove the buffer that might otherwise prevent gravity from damaging the foundation of the wall and the wall itself. Whereas the wall's weight would have been its strength, it could have become its undoing.

...
Part of this is just plain an issue with our lack of imagination. In a world with magic and dragons, there will be counters to magic and dragons we potentially don't think of. Especially when the spells are cantrip level, I just can't see it being a threat to a fortress.

don't set up structures on ~sand.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The sands remain rigid under downward pressure but, in my understanding, minimal upward pressure could cause them to move due to a lack of bonding between the generally loose ground.

With enough casting you could undermine the walls, faster than with nonmagical sappers. But not instantly (or even in six seconds), and the dudes in the walls are going to try to stop you.

Which is a pretty good dnd encounter setup, now that I write it out.

 

[greg kaye]

With enough casting you could undermine the walls, faster than with nonmagical sappers. But not instantly (or even in six seconds), and the dudes in the walls are going to try to stop you.

Which is a pretty good dnd encounter setup, now that I write it out.

It would be very circumstantial but, if creatures lacked the cautions that arcane knowledge might have given them, they might have built on ground that could be magically undermined.

 

[overgeeked]

I only want to do exactly what it says
If you target an area of loose earth, you can instantaneously excavate it, move it along the ground, and deposit it up to 5 feet away.

your ruleing that I can't see the bottom of the 5ft cube is pure spite... I am not gaming the cantrip, I am useing it exactly for what it says it can do... If you target an area of loose earth, you can instantaneously excavate it, move it along the ground, and deposit it up to 5 feet away.


yes it is, I can see part of the 5ft of loose earth so I can effect it, if not then when CAN you effect this 5ft that you can see every bit of it?

I'm not arguing anything about loose earth. I can see the earth, end period, anything else is something you are adding.

don't care because I am targeting loose earth what ever you consider it.

no it doesn't matter it says I can move 5ft of it.

that is not a ruleing that is a house rule changing the cantrip, and one that is only being done to annoy the player.

yes it is... it says I can move 5ft of dirt without saying I need x ray vision to do it.

you can NEVER see the whole volume, even if you can see the top and bottom one side is the opposite of you and the part in the middle you can't see... your "I'm just reading the spell simulations" is not reading the spell

again nothing to do with me I am not using a lasting effect just an instant one.

“You choose a portion of dirt or stone that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube. You manipulate it in one of the following ways…”

Figuring out how that limitation works seems pretty important. Your stance is that you only need to see a tiny fraction of the effected cube. Got it. Now the trouble is you seem to think your reading is the only possible reading that’s valid. Other readings are equally valid.

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

“You choose a portion of dirt or stone that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube. You manipulate it in one of the following ways…”

Figuring out how that limitation works seems pretty important.

except you haven't... if the idea that I can see part of the 5ft isn't enough YOU in YOUR interpretation have to show how someone can see all 5ft at once for the casting