Is there errata for the Nightmare spell PHB p.232

[JacktheRabbit]

Two problems:

I looked at the average time requirement for creating items other than scrolls. Yeah right. I am lucky to have two days free and you want me to get an entire month off?


The other problem is my Pr Class. As a shadow adept my magic items use the shadow weave. Unless I am remembering the rules wrong that does not mix well with regular magic. So items I create are not useable by others and I doubt I can collaborate with a regular spellcaster.

Naturally, this straying off-topic at this point, but you party really ought to consider the advantages of making magic items if your DM ever gives you a breather.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

So is everyone really just ignoring the fact that the rules say you have to have line of effect between you and your target?

--Surprised Spikey

 

[Forrester]

Well, it *is* extraordinarily stupid. You can only give people Nightmares if they are sleeping outside? Um, yeah. That's clearly what they were thinking when they came up with the spell.

A retarded chimp DM would Rule 0 that Nightmare doesn't need traditional line-of-effect. I'm not sure that the subject is really worth more discussion.

--Obvious Forrester

 

[SpikeyFreak]

A retarded chimp DM would Rule 0 that Nightmare doesn't need traditional line-of-effect.

Did you just call your self a retarded chimp?

--Smart Alec Spikey

 

[Uller]

So is everyone really just ignoring the fact that the rules say you have to have line of effect between you and your target?

--Surprised Spikey

That's what I thought at first, but the first line of the spell description clears that up:

"The character sends a hideous and unsettling phantasmal vision to a specific creature whom the character names or otherwise specifically designates. "

Specific rules always override general rules. The general rule is that to aim a targeted spell, you must be able to see him. But the specific rule for this spell is that you need only name or otherwise specifically designate him(So the liche says "I send a nightmare to that wizard guy in the party that is roving around my dungeon.")

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Which means you don't even have to know someone's name. You just need to be able to specifically designate them. So one could cast a nightmare spell on the mayor of so and so town. If that town has a single mayor then you have specifically designated him.

That's what I thought at first, but the first line of the spell description clears that up:

"The character sends a hideous and unsettling phantasmal vision to a specific creature whom the character names or otherwise specifically designates. "

Specific rules always override general rules. The general rule is that to aim a targeted spell, you must be able to see him. But the specific rule for this spell is that you need only name or otherwise specifically designate him(So the liche says "I send a nightmare to that wizard guy in the party that is roving around my dungeon.")

 

[Uller]

Yep. An interesting house rule might be to require a "personal" item from your target be used as a focus or material component rather than naming or "specifically designating" them. That would be fun...the liche sends a minion in to steal a lock of your hair or some such...that night you get these terrible nightmares...

 

[Xarlen]

How do you cooperate in creating items?

Can a wizard, frex, create a scroll and have a cleric cast a spell onto it? Or a cleric brew a potion and a wizard cast the spell?

If so, who gets the xp loss?

 

[CRGreathouse]

If so, who gets the xp loss?

The one with the item creation feat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"The character sends a hideous and unsettling phantasmal vision to a specific creature whom the character names or otherwise specifically designates. "

Specific rules always override general rules. The general rule is that to aim a targeted spell, you must be able to see him. But the specific rule for this spell is that you need only name or otherwise specifically designate him(So the liche says "I send a nightmare to that wizard guy in the party that is roving around my dungeon.")

We could point out that "only" is your addition to the written rules

Let's rephrase it, removing the "only", to be consistent with the book :

"The specific rule for this spell is that you need name or otherwise specifically designate him".

This sentence no longer trumps line of effect. You must name or designate him, and you must have line of effect. This is now consistent with both the general and specific rules.

Is it what was intended? I don't know But I didn't need to add a word

-Hyp.