D&D 5E List of Ambiguous Spells

[MNblockhead]

Although simple sounding, each spells does nothing more and nothing less than written. Although I'm AFB, I'll take a stab at a few of these.

Rope Trick: Does the spell say a creature can leave the space of Rope Trick? If so, then a creature can leave the zone and grab something. Can a portion of a PC leave the zone and grab something? I believe that is up to the DM.

Word of Recall: If the sanctuary must be linked to the casters deity and the caster does not have a deity then the spell cannot be cast or completed.

In some instances, such as Time Stop, it does not say if the d4 is known. However, I would find it unusual for a player to have a character cast a spell and not know what dice were rolled and the result.

Other spells such as Wall of Force refer to rules at the beginning of the chapter on spells. In this particular case, a spell must have a clear path to the target or it completes (explodes, forms, etc.) once it's path is blocked. There may be some discussion on the term "clear" between a DM and a player since the Wall of Force is transparent.

Great approach, overall, but the more you dig into the Wall of Force, the more strange things get. The ambiguity is arise from the attempt to apply it. So light, despite being a physical force can pass through it, but not light cast from a spell. Can you use large lenses to focus a burning beam of non-magical light to damage a caster behind a WoF. It is fun to see what other spells cause DMs to struggle making judgement on without simple hand waiving and appeals to their own authority. Don't get me wrong, DURING the game I am ALL FOR the DM making the best judgement he or she can and moving the game forward. I save my rules lawyering for the forums.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's not like twitter comments carry the same weight as rules, nor even as rulings at the table. They're made off the cuff and out of context. A ruling, at least, has the latter going for it.

Errata's a different story, I suppose.

Yeah, but if the author's are coming back and saying that the natural language actually meant something incredibly specific and counter intuitive, it kind of puts paid to the theory that everything is straightforward and easy to read and therefore no discussion of ambiguous spells needs occur.

 

[jaelis]

Personally I don't think simulacrum should be on this list: it's not ambiguous in the least, it's simply completely bonkers overpowered as written. I would recommend using the 3.5 wording for the spell instead, which creates a final creature that has half the levels of the original, completely doing away with most of the issues of the 5.0 spell.

Agreed its not really ambiguous, but it is a spell to talk to your dm about, because I don't think too many dms would allow it as written.

Your suggestions for contagion and weird/pk sound good to me

If the twitter responses are mixed on raising undead, I can change my comment. I just saw the one from Crawford; Mearls said different but I was deferring to Crawford on things.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Errata's a different story, I suppose.

I would hope so, since all future printings of that book will have the errata incorporated into the text on the proper pages. If you do not accept errata, then as soon as someone shows up to play with a newer printing, you could have people arguing over differing text printed in their respective copies of the PHB, DMG, etc.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

If the twitter responses are mixed on raising undead, I can change my comment. I just saw the one from Crawford; Mearls said different but I was deferring to Crawford on things.

Mearls and Crawford have both said before that Crawford's replies are the only official ones. Mearls answers as a DM, Crawford answers as the lead game designer.

 

[cooperjer]

Great approach, overall, but the more you dig into the Wall of Force, the more strange things get. The ambiguity is arise from the attempt to apply it. So light, despite being a physical force can pass through it, but not light cast from a spell. Can you use large lenses to focus a burning beam of non-magical light to damage a caster behind a WoF. It is fun to see what other spells cause DMs to struggle making judgement on without simple hand waiving and appeals to their own authority. Don't get me wrong, DURING the game I am ALL FOR the DM making the best judgement he or she can and moving the game forward. I save my rules lawyering for the forums.

Bringing physics into the game always makes for interesting conversation. For instance, the physics of movement in the game can become comical, once you say a character stops moving at the end of the players turn. With the case of light, and light from the Light spell, I do not see any indication that the light from the spell is treated any differently than light from a torch with respect to the Wall of Force spell. believe most authors and readers of spells would agree that light can pass through an invisible object, primarily because the term "invisible" in the spell text is linked with the term transparent in the readers mind. I suspect we both can conceive of ways in which an object can become invisible and not also transparent. Most walls are opaque. Since the spell Wall of Force does not clarify if it is transparent, translucent, or opaque, then it's up to the DM to decide.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

For Word of Recall, it seems to me that since you have to designate a sanctuary at some point, that the DM should rule at that point if the place is a sanctuary or not, so a cleric who doesn't like what the DM says can chose not to prepare that spell (it is a little more a problem for the bard who gets it via magic secrets, but that is kind of a corner case).

 

[jaelis]

For Word of Recall, it seems to me that since you have to designate a sanctuary at some point, that the DM should rule at that point if the place is a sanctuary or not, so a cleric who doesn't like what the DM says can chose not to prepare that spell (it is a little more a problem for the bard who gets it via magic secrets, but that is kind of a corner case).

Or a rogue using a scroll

My own ruling would be: choose a location associated with your deity, your ideal, or your bond.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Or a rogue using a scroll

My own ruling would be: choose a location associated with your deity, your ideal, or your bond.

I would buy that. I think the RAI on this is basically a special place, as opposed to the treasure room in dungeon X, so that the PC's can 5 minute work day, retreat, and come back skipping everything the next day.

I have never been that generous to the rogue, but my settings usually have a god/goddess of thieves (I like the unspoken but pretty obvious if you look at their pantheon Pathfinder idea that just about every class [or at least the ones in core plus 1st three splat books] should have a god associated with the class) , so it would work out pretty well for them (the head priest will probably try to get some gp's out of them when they show up, though).