Magic Ammunition Costs

[Pax]

The Telekinesis example ALMOST worked, but here is an example that DOES work. CHAIN OF CHAOS. You touch a creature, the creature is infected with insanity. That creature can then pass on the insantiy. Here is the key, though: "Each person the subject touches during the spell's duration (including by successful melee attack) must make a Will save at the spell's DC or suffer the insanity effect. The weapon wasn't effected directly by the Chain of Chaos spell, but somehow it manages to pass it along with a melee attack? WRONG. The fact is that *at the time of the casting*, anything carriedby the creature was effected by the spell as well, just not directly. As such, the weapon is effectively hit by the spell. Dispel Magic works exactly the same way!

In other words, although it doesn't "directly" effect the equipment, it still has an effect on it, and in this case, the effect is that all spells ON the equipment may be dispelled because the equipment is part of the creature! To put it more simply, Dispel Magic targets a creature, and equipment within the locale of the creature is considered part of the creature for determining localization of the Dispel Magic effect!

I have to differ.

Here's the problem with your example: IF, as you posit, the Chain of Chaos spell indeed affects the target's equipment, too ... then that longsword, if dropped on the side of the road, should trigger a saving throw for the first poor sap to try and pick iit up.

The truth is, the sword isn't affected by the spell inany way -- it's just a sword. It merely acts as a conductor for the spell on it's weilder.

The same canbe said for the fact that, if the subject should pick up a weapon that was outside the area of effect, that weapon can still convey the effects of the Chain of Chaos spell. Why? After all, the weapon wasn't ever subjected to the effects of the spell -- and no,not even when the fellow picked it up, because the weapon would have to recieve a saving throw to be a later subject of the effects, now, wouldn't it?

The Chain of Chaos spell is about as valid as the Telekinesis spell was, for providing an example like this.

 

[Anubis]

I have to differ.

Here's the problem with your example: IF, as you posit, the Chain of Chaos spell indeed affects the target's equipment, too ... then that longsword, if dropped on the side of the road, should trigger a saving throw for the first poor sap to try and pick iit up.

The truth is, the sword isn't affected by the spell inany way -- it's just a sword. It merely acts as a conductor for the spell on it's weilder.

The same canbe said for the fact that, if the subject should pick up a weapon that was outside the area of effect, that weapon can still convey the effects of the Chain of Chaos spell. Why? After all, the weapon wasn't ever subjected to the effects of the spell -- and no,not even when the fellow picked it up, because the weapon would have to recieve a saving throw to be a later subject of the effects, now, wouldn't it?

The Chain of Chaos spell is about as valid as the Telekinesis spell was, for providing an example like this.

Some people just don't get it . . . You just gave more proof!

The "conductor" thing is exactly why the equipment is effected! In this case, however, the creature is a conductor that transfers the Dispel Magic to his or her equipment!

Look, that is the argument, it is UNDENIABLE proof, and you also have the books, the developers, and everyone else saying that it works the way I said. On top of that, the books supports what I said and does NOT support what you are saying. What more do you want?

 

[KarinsDad]

If you cast a magic missile at someone who's carrying someone else, it wouldn't affect both of them, likewise charm person or anything else.

Of course not.

Just like Targeted Dispel Magic, a Magic Missile ONLY affects the targeted creature, not anything he is carrying.

That is what I am trying to say and you are attempting to use the same type of statement to disagree. How can it be both?

Either targeted spells only affect the targeted creature, or it affects objects that they are carrying. It cannot be both depending on which spell is cast without the spell calling that out. It cannot be one way for Magic Missile and another way for Dispel Magic unless the spell explicitly calls out that touched or carried items are affected (like Teleport).

Teleport still affects both characters as long as both characters are within the weight limit because Teleport explicitly calls that out.

If the spell does not state that it affects carried objects (even if those objects are creatures or items with spells cast on them), it will not.

 

[KarinsDad]

The "conductor" thing is exactly why the equipment is effected! In this case, however, the creature is a conductor that transfers the Dispel Magic to his or her equipment!

And that's ok that it works that way for that spell.

That spell, but not other spells, calls out that it conducts the effect.

Look, that is the argument, it is UNDENIABLE proof, and you also have the books, the developers, and everyone else saying that it works the way I said. On top of that, the books supports what I said and does NOT support what you are saying. What more do you want?

Proof?

Where?

Where has your side quoted the rules once?

Your side merely quotes the Sage.

I have posted the rule several times.

Bottom line.

If the spell says it affects carried items, then it does.

If the spell does not say that it affects carried items, then it does not.

The one exception to this is when a damaging spell affects the character and he rolls a one on his saving throw, then his items may get affected.

Those are the rules.

If you want to pretend that you are following the rules, fine. Play those mind games all you want.

But, if you actually want to quote rules, please indicate a page number since so far, your side is just blowing smoke.

No doubt about it. There is a fair balance argument for your side. But, there are no rules arguments listed at all for your side of the discussion.

 

[Pax]

Some people just don't get it . . . You just gave more proof!

The "conductor" thing is exactly why the equipment is effected! In this case, however, the creature is a conductor that transfers the Dispel Magic to his or her equipment!

Look, that is the argument, it is UNDENIABLE proof, and you also have the books, the developers, and everyone else saying that it works the way I said. On top of that, the books supports what I said and does NOT support what you are saying. What more do you want?

No.

The sword in the Chain of Chaos example conducts the energy from the original target to the new target. The spell never stops in the sword along the way; the sword is never directly affected by the Chain of Chaos spell itself!.

On top of which, as Karinsdad pointed out: Chain of Chaos includes a specific, case-exclusive "this spell only" rule about the conductive effects. For THAT spell alone, skin, claw, boot-leather, or handheld weapon ... a touch is a touch, the Chain can forge a new link.

I'll point out again: if the sword is affected by the spell, because it was in the target's hands ... then, if that person were to drop the sword and wander away, the very next person to touch the sword during the Chain of Chaos's duration, would have to make a save. Unlike Dispel Magic, you see, Chain of Chaos has a duration longer than "instant."

So; does, in fact, the sword carry it's OWN contagion of madness? Does touching the sword after it is dropped to the ground, but before the Chain's duration expires, cause a saving throw?

If your answer is no -- then you lose, your example won't hold water.

It your answer is yes -- cite me a page in the rules that says so.

Either way -- as the saying goes, "put up or shut up" ... 'cause if it's not in the rules, it doesn't hold water in a discussion OF the rules. And, yes ... quickie answers by The Sage are also not rules just because The Sage says them ... they'd at least have to find their way into the current official Errata to be rules in and of themselves.

 

[Zhure]

Summon Monster X is not cast directly on the target either. Dispel Magic is.

An area Dispel isn't.

 

[KarinsDad]

- attacks aren't about intent, otherwise Summon Monster X would make you visible.

Summon Monster X is not cast directly on the target either. Dispel Magic is.

An area Dispel isn't.

I’m not sure where you are going with this.

Let me ask you two questions.

If an Invisible caster casts Targeted Dispel Magic, does he become visible?

If an Invisible caster casts Area Effect Dispel Magic with a creature in the area, does he become visible?

The official answer to both of these is yes according to description of attack within the Invisibility spell.

That spell also states that you will not become visible if you cause harm indirectly. But, that is a peculiar aspect of the Invisibility spell which is not mirrored anywhere else in the game.

So, I think your Summon Monster when Invisible example is irrelevant to the rest of the game and only relevant to the question of invisibility because invisibility itself has a special caveat about it.

Again, you cannot use a specific spell which has specific rules embedded in it to say that those are the rules for all spells.

That doesn’t work.

 

[Zhure]

Yes, my example was merely to point out the absurdity of your position on intent and invisibility. It isn't about intent.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, my example was merely to point out the absurdity of your position on intent and invisibility. It isn't about intent.

It's not my position. It's the definition of attack in the book.

The writers apparently wanted to distinguish between things like casting spells on allies (not an attack) and casting a spell on an enemy (an attack).

Everywhere in the game, if I cast a spell directly at you or an area effect spell around you, I am attacking you if my intent is to harm you, disable you, neutralize you, etc. Dispel Magic is not an exception to this.

If I cast a spell that eventually harms or hinders you (e.g. Summon Monster), then I am not directly attacking you.

So yes, I understand that intent with regard to attacking is only pertinent to spells cast directly at or around targets. This includes Dispel Magic which is what we were discussing.

So yes, if you cast a Summon Monster spell, you are not attacking. The creature is attacking if you order it to do that. If you cast Transmute Rock to Mud at the ceiling above an opponent while Invisible, you will not become visible due to casting that spell.

In both of these cases, you are not attacking. You are indirectly harming an opponent which is not considered an attack according to the rules of the game. Intent with regard to attacking is only pertinent to whether you are actually attacking according to the attack definition.

 

[Anubis]

How many rules do I have to wuote/point out to satisfy you?

Forget about the "examples" for a moment, if you will, and just look at the facts I pointed out regardless of examples, good or bad as they are. (You see, ANY example would be only marginal because Dispel Magic does something nothing else does.) Take a look at the rules I quoted and pointed out, forgetting about my examples.

Those themselves are proof. If that is not good enough for you, then it. If exact rules can't convince you, nothing can. Arguing with you fools is like arguing with a brick wall; pointless and silly.

I pointed out exact things, and you don't listen.

Multi-year VETERANS of this game have pointed things out to you, and you don't listen.

The Sage has pointed things out to you, and although he isn't perfect, he's right this time. (It's obvious when he screws up because when he does, he screws up BIG. The Sage don't know how to make small errors.) Yet you don't listen.

We're trying to tell you the world's round, and you still think it's flat. Do you happen to have the "Thick-Headed" feat?