Campaign Conundrum 1 - Silence

[Scion]

How about his: Let's say a wand is destroyed in the same fashion as the arrow is destroyed. Can the wand still be used to cast spells? If not, why not? You still have part of the wand. Why not use it to cast the spell?

I would say that since the wand is destroyed, it is useless. I look at arrows in the same fashion.

Well of course, destroyed arrows are useless as arrows.

That isnt the question however.

 

[reveal]

Well of course, destroyed arrows are useless as arrows.

That isnt the question however.

The question was if the arrow is destroyed, does the spell continue. My example was that a wand stores spell just as the arrow is storing a spell when it is cast into it. When the wand breaks, no spells can be cast from it. When the arrow breaks, I think it's the same principle and the spell no longer eminates from it.

 

[Scion]

The question was if the arrow is destroyed, does the spell continue. My example was that a wand stores spell just as the arrow is storing a spell when it is cast into it. When the wand breaks, no spells can be cast from it. When the arrow breaks, I think it's the same principle and the spell no longer eminates from it.

But the arrow is 'not' storing a spell, it has been the target of one.

The wand can no longer be activated, but that is a completely seperate issue.

The arguement above was that it was no longer an object, but according to those two spells I posted it 'is' still an object.

Of course, even if it wasnt still an object all that would do is make it an illegal target initially.. which doesnt do anything to the spell either.

 

[Starglim]

The arguement above was that it was no longer an object, but according to those two spells I posted it 'is' still an object.

Of course, even if it wasnt still an object all that would do is make it an illegal target initially.. which doesnt do anything to the spell either.

Not so - the splinters of a destroyed arrow are one or more objects. They are just not the same object that was the target of the spell. That object no longer exists, because it has been destroyed.


edit: It's very much like what people were telling me a couple of weeks ago, that a creature ceases to be a creature and becomes an object when it gains a condition (dead).

 

[Scion]

Not so - the splinters of a destroyed arrow are one or more objects. They are just not the same object that was the target of the spell. That object no longer exists, because it has been destroyed.

This is your opinion, but the spell I quoted earlier feels differently. It treats a broken object (even one with several breaks) as a single object that is broken.

edit: It's very much like what people were telling me a couple of weeks ago, that a creature ceases to be a creature and becomes an object when it gains a condition (dead).

Sure, but just because the target would be illegal for the spell to be cast 'now' does nothing to the spell that is already cast.

See Shillelagh.

 

[IcyCool]

This is your opinion, but the spell I quoted earlier feels differently. It treats a broken object (even one with several breaks) as a single object that is broken.

Ummm, you seem to be thinking that "several breaks" means the same thing as multiple pieces. It does not (not always anyway). You can have a ceramic vase that has several breaks in it, but is still one piece. And by the text of the spell you quoted, it would seem to imply that the object must be in one piece:

Mending repairs small breaks or tears in objects (but not warps, such as might be caused by a warp wood spell). It will weld broken metallic objects such as a ring, a chain link, a medallion, or a slender dagger, providing but one break exists.

Emphasis mine. A ring with two breaks would be two pieces, and mending won't work on it.

Make Whole does not suffer this distinction.

 

[Scion]

Ummm, you seem to be thinking that "several breaks" means the same thing as multiple pieces.

Destroyed does not make this clear what they mean. I will assume that a broken arrow is simply broken in a place or two but not necissarily in multiple pieces. Given the nature of arrows I have broken in the past they only rarely completely broke, usually they still had pieces attached to one another.

But still, who is to say that if you have an arrow, snap it into 3 completely seperate pieces, that this does not qualify as 'breaks'? They look like breaks to me.

Also, by the text:

Ceramic or wooden objects with multiple breaks can be invisibly rejoined to be as strong as new. A hole in a leather sack or a wineskin is completely healed over by mending.

Emphasis mine.

 

[IcyCool]

Also, by the text:


Emphasis mine.

Yes, and? You can have a ceramic vase with cracks all over it. It has multiple breaks, but is a single piece.

Also, why would it go to the trouble of stating that you couldn't Mend a ring if it is broken in two places?

It just isn't as clear-cut to me as it is to you.

At any rate, if you didn't think that breaking an item into two pieces ended the spell, then could I do the following in your campaign and expect it to work?

I cast continual flame on a 10' pole. I cut said pole into 10 1' lengths. I now have what?

1. 10 1' continual flame torches that I can sell for 110gp apiece.
2. 1 1' continual flame torches and 9 1' pieces of a pole.
3. 10 1' pieces of a pole that have continual flame on them, but it isn't active.
4. 10 1' pieces of non-continual flame firewood.
5. Something else (please specify).

 

[Scion]

You can have a ceramic vase with cracks all over it. It has multiple breaks, but is a single piece.

A ceramic vase which is shattered has many breaks as well, they are just slightly farther apart.

Also, why would it go to the trouble of stating that you couldn't Mend a ring if it is broken in two places?

You cant mend any metal item with two breaks in it. If that vase had been made of metal instead and was cracked all over then you couldnt fix it.

I guess it is harder for the magic to fix metal objects.

Why is it that to you 'breaks' must mean 'cracks'?

At any rate, if you didn't think that breaking an item into two pieces ended the spell, then could I do the following in your campaign and expect it to work?

How it works in my campaign isnt an issue. Although I already stated earlier that I have it cast on a point on the object in question. Otherwise you have issues like, 'what if the object is 20' in radius, hollow, and I cast silence on it? Does it do nothing? Is some area in the center of the object silenced but no actual part of the object is?

There are places that the rules simply do not cover.

As another question, say one of your players has an everburning torch.

Now, most people play that it looks like it is burning just like a normal torch. Lets say it is 1' long.

Now someone comes along and sands the opposite end a milimeter down. Does this end the spell?

Someone comes along and chips off a piece of the torch, does this end the spell?

We cut off an inch from the opposite side, set it on fire, and dance around the ashes. Does this end the spell?


I put up the mending type of spells because they still treat the broken object as a single object unless it is completely annihilated. Note that broken into several pieces is certainly not any of the limiting conditions, 'warped, burned, disintegrated, ground to powder, melted, or vaporized, nor does it affect creatures'.

There are holes in the rules unfortunately, and those places are dm's call territory. If there is a rule which states specifically what happens here I would love to hear it however.

 

[IcyCool]

You cant mend any metal item with two breaks in it. If that vase had been made of metal instead and was cracked all over then you couldnt fix it.

I guess it is harder for the magic to fix metal objects.

I take it to mean that you can't Mend a destroyed object. But I see your point.

Why is it that to you 'breaks' must mean 'cracks'?

Why is it that to you 'cracks' must mean 'breaks'?

There are places that the rules simply do not cover.

Agreed.

As another question, say one of your players has an everburning torch.

Now, most people play that it looks like it is burning just like a normal torch. Lets say it is 1' long.

Now someone comes along and sands the opposite end a milimeter down. Does this end the spell?

No, because the object is not destroyed. And, in my house rule, the spell effect stays on the largest portion.

Someone comes along and chips off a piece of the torch, does this end the spell?

Provided the chipping doesn't destroy the object, no.

We cut off an inch from the opposite side, set it on fire, and dance around the ashes. Does this end the spell?

Provided the chipping doesn't destroy the object, no.

I put up the mending type of spells because they still treat the broken object as a single object unless it is completely annihilated. Note that broken into several pieces is certainly not any of the limiting conditions, 'warped, burned, disintegrated, ground to powder, melted, or vaporized, nor does it affect creatures'.

Actually, as I pointed out, and you pointed out, broken into several pieces is potentially a limiting condition, with regards to metal objects. But otherwise, yes, the spell treats the pieces of a single object as a single object.

There are holes in the rules unfortunately, and those places are dm's call territory. If there is a rule which states specifically what happens here I would love to hear it however.

As I'm sure you are aware, there isn't a rule covering this nor is there a clarification in the FAQ (at least that I'm aware of).