No spell resistance vs. Orb spells? Why?

[James McMurray]

Here is what was said.

The truth is that in a reasonable encounter the CR 15 Red Dragon also destroys the mages.​

Now of course, it's within the bounds of possibility that your games generally feature lone mages traipsing into monster lairs. However, for most people I'd hazard to guess (terrible, I know) that a "reasonable encounter" will involve other party members besides the mages as well.

I took the "reasonable" to mean a monster not twinked out or horribly neutered. Like I said, it's possible he meant an entire party would be there.

 

[KarinsDad]

It would require a house rule for the AMF to negate the orbs, as they're instantaneous creations.

This instantaneous creation rule explicitly only applies to objects and creatures.

DND objects have hardness and hit points. The Orbs do not.

DND creatures have hit points and a lot of other attributes that the Orbs do not.

Hence, the instantaneous creation rule does not apply.

That's what happens when WotC breaks the rules and puts an Evocation spell into a Conjuration school of magic. It doesn't fit in more ways than one.

 

[Felix]

I took the "reasonable" to mean a monster not twinked out or horribly neutered. Like I said, it's possible he meant an entire party would be there.

There has been dithering over the presence or absence of a party with said mage since page 6. Notmousse was unclear as to this point until not too long ago, and it seems the confusion may have crept back in.

I suspect that he believes that a CR 15 encounter, appropriate for a CL 15 party, would easily gak a lone CL 15 Evoker, as well as gak a lone CL 15 Conjurer.

All in all, the unclarity of meaning is impressive.

 

[KarinsDad]

The rules are very clear that the orbs are nonmagical attacks, just like all other instantaneous conjurations.

Really? Very Clear?

Quote the rule because TMK, there is no such rule.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This instantaneous creation rule explicitly only applies to objects and creatures.

That's what happens when WotC breaks the rules and puts an Evocation spell into a Conjuration school of magic. It doesn't fit in more ways than one.

Well, the description of the Conjuration school states:
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation).

If we are to judge intent, let's look at the 32 creation spells in the PHB.

Three of them create things which might be considered creatures:
Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound
Phantom Steed
Shambler

(Phantom Steed is explicitly a creature, and Shambling Mounds I've got no problem with; the Hound is debatable, but let's call it a creature.)

Eleven I'll grant the status of objects:
Create Food and Water
Create Water
Fire Seeds
Heroes' Feast
Leomund's Secure Shelter
Major Creation
Minor Creation
Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion
Wall of Iron
Wall of Stone
Wall of Thorns
Web

(Is 'water' an object? Does changing acorns into bombs count as creating an object? Does Web have a hardness or hit points?)

Which leaves 18 creation spells that create effects that are neither creatures nor objects:
Acid Arrow
Acid Fog
Acid Splash
Evard's Black Tentacles
Cloudkill
Fog Cloud
Gate
Glitterdust
Grease
Incendiary Cloud
Mage Armor
Obscuring Mist
Phase Door
Sepia Snake Sigil
Sleet Storm
Solid Fog
Stinking Cloud
Unseen Servant

So when we look at the subschool description:
A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates...

... what is the more reasonable deduction? That over half - the majority! - of the creation spells in the PHB are in the wrong subschool? Or that the word "creature" was erroneously substituted in the subschool description for the earlier-stated "effect" from the school description?

Where should those 18 spells from the PHB be placed, if we decide that if it's not an object or a creature, it's not Creation?

-Hyp.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

The instantaneous creation effect text is on p. 173:
"If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence."

This applies to Create Water, Wall of Iron, Wall of Stone, and Acid Splash. The first three are very clear. They don't go away in an antimagic field, but they could also not be created so that they partly extend into one.

The last spell is the camel's nose in the tent that allows the orb spells. It is "instantaneous", but has a certain duration -- the time for the acid to be assembled and "thrown" so it can pass from point A (the caster) to point B (the target). A duration short enough to be considered instantaneous, but is there no magic holding the orb of acid together? Or propelling it such a distance?

 

[hong]

Maybe the acid just fizzles after a short enough time to be considered instantaneous. Even real-world chemical concoctions don't always last indefinitely.

 

[KarinsDad]

If we are to judge intent, let's look at the 32 creation spells in the PHB.

Three of them create things which might be considered creatures:
Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound
Phantom Steed
Shambler

(Phantom Steed is explicitly a creature, and Shambling Mounds I've got no problem with; the Hound is debatable, but let's call it a creature.)

Eleven I'll grant the status of objects:
Create Food and Water
Create Water
Fire Seeds
Heroes' Feast
Leomund's Secure Shelter
Major Creation
Minor Creation
Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion
Wall of Iron
Wall of Stone
Wall of Thorns
Web

(Is 'water' an object? Does changing acorns into bombs count as creating an object? Does Web have a hardness or hit points?)

Which leaves 18 creation spells that create effects that are neither creatures nor objects:
Acid Arrow
Acid Fog
Acid Splash
Evard's Black Tentacles
Cloudkill
Fog Cloud
Gate
Glitterdust
Grease
Incendiary Cloud
Mage Armor
Obscuring Mist
Phase Door
Sepia Snake Sigil
Sleet Storm
Solid Fog
Stinking Cloud
Unseen Servant

So when we look at the subschool description:
A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates...

... what is the more reasonable deduction? That over half - the majority! - of the creation spells in the PHB are in the wrong subschool? Or that the word "creature" was erroneously substituted in the subschool description for the earlier-stated "effect" from the school description?

Intent? Deduction?

OMG, Hyp just stepped out of the world of rules and into the world of intent.

I think I'm going to have a heart attack!

Where should those 18 spells from the PHB be placed, if we decide that if it's not an object or a creature, it's not Creation?

I did not state that they were not creation. I stated that we have no such explicit rule for instantaneous conjuration creation energy spells.

Out of that entire list Hyp, only two spells are instantaneous conjuration creation spells.

Only 2 (Acid Splash and Create Water) out of 33 (not 32) Conjuration Creations spells are applicable to the discussion.

Hence, using your exact same (appeal to probability) logic:

... what is the more reasonable deduction? That 7% - a small minority! - of the conjuration creation spells in the PHB should last indefinitely and avoid AMFs? Or that the general instantaneous spell rule (an explicit rule) that we do have applies?

Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

Of these two spells, one does damage and the other does not (shy of drowning). One is an Energy Attack (acid) and one is not (water). There is no Water Energy Resistance.

So we have 1 instantaneous energy spell out of 33 conjuration creation subschool spells in the PHB.

And it is your position that this one spell should allow the energy to last indefinitely and that it should blow through AMFs because it seems reasonable that Create Water should last indefinitely and should blow through AMFs (even though water is not energy)?

And we should then extrapolate this that Fire and Force and Cold and Lightning Orbs should last indefinitely and blow through AMFs?

And it is your contention that this is designer intent? WotC wants Orbs to do this, even though they have not written an explicit rule anywhere (FAQ, errata, Rules of the Game, anywhere) that Orbs have these properties?


Or should we state that energy/force Instantaneous Conjuration Creation spells are not objects (instead are energy) and hence, do not follow the Instantaneous Conjuraction Creation spell rules and instead follow the normal instantaneous rules? And water, which is not energy, can follow the conjuration creation rules because it makes sense for it to do so (i.e. be considered an object in this case because it can be put in a bag and has some properties of objects such as weight).

Which makes more sense and follows the rules closer? Do you really think that having an Orb of Force that lasts indefinitely is designer intent?

And what is RAW? Is Energy an Object in RAW?

 

[James McMurray]

This instantaneous creation rule explicitly only applies to objects and creatures.

True. That slipped my mind. So it's up to the GM to decide whether the energy orbs ignore AMFs or not.

 

[James McMurray]

Tangent question: what are water and air? They have neither hardness nor hit points, but are also not an energy type.