Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9442715" data-attributes="member: 7635">One of my favorite stories like this was in an old issue of Dragon and was debated in the letters page for months.In second edition's Tome of Magic, there was a spell called Frisky Chest. (You could never get away with that name today!) I will include the text of the spell here as its absolutely an obscure lost gem[spoiler=Frisky Chest]Frisky Chest (Enchantment/Charm)Level: 2Sphere: WardsRange: TouchComponents: V, S, MDuration: PermanentCasting Time: 2Area of Effect: 10-foot cubeSaving Throw: NoneWith this spell, the caster can enchant a chest, book, or any other nonliving object no larger than a 10'x10'x10' cube. When any creature other than the caster comes within three feet of the enchanted object, it instantly sprouts appendages and moves away from the creature as quickly as possible. The enchanted object continues to move until it is at least 10 feet away from the nearest creatures in the area.After the enchanted object has moved a satisfactory distance from the nearest creature, the appendages disappear. When a creature again comes within three feet of the enchanted object, the enchanted object sprouts appendages and flees. This process continues until the enchantment is negated (through a dispel magic or similar spell) or the enchanted object is subdued or destroyed.The enchanted object can sprout feet (MV 24), wings (Fl 24, maneuverability class B), or fins (Sw 24), whichever is most advantageous. Thus, a book on a shelf might sprout wings and fly away, while a table might gallop around a room. The enchanted object can freely and instantly trade appendages as necessary.The enchanted object will move only through open spaces. It will not crash through windows, shatter a closed door, or dig through the earth. It cannot attack or take any actions other than movement. If surrounded or cornered, the enchanted object moves in random directions until it is restrained or destroyed.The enchantment ends if the caster voluntarily negates it, if the enchanted object is destroyed (the object has the same vulnerabilities as it has in its normal state), or if the enchanted object is restrained for 2-5 (1d4+1) consecutive rounds. Restraint means that the object is prevented from fleeing; if a creature is able to grapple, lift, or sit on the object, it is considered restrained. A creature capable of lifting the object in its normal state is considered strong enough to restrain it (for instance, a person capable of lifting a 50-pound box is also capable of restraining such a box enchanted by frisky chest). The object may also be restrained by tossing a net or heavy blanket over it or by surrounding it with several characters.The material components are a dried frog's leg, a feather, and a fish scale.[/spoiler]That's a horribly niche spell designed to frustrate PCs trying to open a chest or occasionally PCs trying to guard their stuff. However, a clever cleric used it once on a solid gold statue that was hundreds of pounds in weight but less than 10 ft in cubic size, and then they and the party played red-rover with the statue, chasing it out of the dungeon where they could later haul it back and melt it down into thousands of GP worth of gold.Not bad for a couple of low-level adventurers using a 2nd level spell?The debate, of course, was whether the PCs abused the spell in a way it was not intended to be used (treating it as spirited game version of Tenser's Floating Disc with no weight limit) or if it was just a "creative" use of the spell to obtain an object the DM didn't intend them to have by abusing the fact the designers obviously forgot to place a weight limit on the object. Moreover, the spell was intentionally put in the Ward sphere to be used as a defensive measure, not as a method of object movement. It was clearly against the RAI, but not RAW. So none of this debate is exactly new; we were having it in the 90s. The issue of whether a spell should do only what its designed to do vs. using the effect in ways that the spell was not intended absolutely feels like the Command debate in a more egregious form.</blockquote>

Verification