Question about the Globes of Invulnerability.

[Krafen]

Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser
Abjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 10 ft.
Area: 10-ft.-radius spherical emanation, centered on you
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
An immobile, faintly shimmering magical sphere surrounds you and excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower. The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability. Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe. Excluded effects include spell-like abilities and spells or spell-like effects from items. However, any type of spell can be cast through or out of the magical globe. Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast. The globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell, but not by an area dispel magic. You can leave and return to the globe without penalty.
Note that spell effects are not disrupted unless their effects enter the globe, and even then they are merely suppressed, not dispelled.
If a given spell has more than one level depending on which character class is casting it, use the level appropriate to the caster to determine whether lesser globe of invulnerability stops it.
Material Component: A glass or crystal bead that shatters at the expiration of the spell.

Well, the mirror image example does not appear in the SRD. Without that example, the description seems clear.

 

[Camarath]

So, it seems that most people tend to play it like an antimagic field that only works for L0-L3 spells; ie: play it as written. Really removes the spell from the list of "no-brainer" combat buff spells, eh? I don't know about everyone else, but most every wizard I play has a horrid AC unless he's got his shield/haste/mage-armor/etc up and going.

Has anyone had any experience with house ruling the spell to behave as it does in pretty much every computer-based RPG? ie: it only stops new spells from being cast into the globe, but doesn't suppress existing spells. If so, how did it turn out for you?

-Eraslin

I would like to point out that in 3.5 the spell as written does not suppress spells already in effect when the globe is cast.

I mistakenly assumed you were using 3.5 but I can see now that you are most likely playing 3.0 because you referred to the spell as Minor Globe of Invulnerability (i3.0 name) rather than Lesser Globe of Invulnerability (3.5 name). In 3.0 the spell does suppress spells already in effect when the globe is cast as you said.

As to your question I have not had any problem using the spell in its 3.5 from.

 

[allenw]

"Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast."

I'm virtually certain that the authors were thinking of, and meant, "spells already in effect inside the globe's area" (which could include an unwanted Silence, but would also include all of the caster's buffs), rather than "spells already in effect outside the globe's area which are subsequently brought into the globe."

 

[Hypersmurf]

BUT the example they give in 3.5e contradicts their new text about it not affecting pre-existing spells (since it has the same text about mirror images winking out if they enter the area).

I'm away from the PHB, but does it specify that the Mirror Image in question was cast before the GoI?

If the GoI was cast, then someone outside the GoI casts Mirror Image and enters the globe, then since the Mirror Image was not in effect when the GoI was cast, it is affected and the images wink out.

If the Mirror Image was cast first, then the images would not wink out upon entering the GoI.

Unless the example specifies that the MI was cast first, there's no contradiction.

-Hyp.

 

[shilsen]

I'm away from the PHB, but does it specify that the Mirror Image in question was cast before the GoI?

If the GoI was cast, then someone outside the GoI casts Mirror Image and enters the globe, then since the Mirror Image was not in effect when the GoI was cast, it is affected and the images wink out.

If the Mirror Image was cast first, then the images would not wink out upon entering the GoI.

Unless the example specifies that the MI was cast first, there's no contradiction.

-Hyp.

You're right. The text actually refers to a "mirror image created by a caster outside the globe", which implies someone casting it after the GoI is already up.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm away from the PHB, but does it specify that the Mirror Image in question was cast before the GoI?

If the GoI was cast, then someone outside the GoI casts Mirror Image and enters the globe, then since the Mirror Image was not in effect when the GoI was cast, it is affected and the images wink out.

If the Mirror Image was cast first, then the images would not wink out upon entering the GoI.

It doesn't specify whether it was cast first or not, and that causes a problem - because how does the GoI know *when* the spell was cast? Do all spells come with a little magical timer attached which other spells can interrogate to find out whether they are newer or not? I don't think so.

I imagine that they thought that adding that line would make it more useful by not removing the casters low level buffs, but instead they opened up a can of worms which didn't previously exist with this spell.

Unless the example specifies that the MI was cast first, there's no contradiction.

I disagree. Only if the example specifies that the MI was cast second is there no contradiction. In the absence of any specification of when MI was cast the time of its casting is unknown and it cannot be used to prove "no contradiction", it leaves the possibility of contradiction wide open.

Cheers

 

[Hypersmurf]

It doesn't specify whether it was cast first or not, and that causes a problem - because how does the GoI know *when* the spell was cast?

Easy. If the Mirror Image winks out, the GoI knows that it was cast before the Mirror Image. If it doesn't, the GoI knows the Mirror Image was cast first.

I disagree. Only if the example specifies that the MI was cast second is there no contradiction. In the absence of any specification of when MI was cast the time of its casting is unknown and it cannot be used to prove "no contradiction", it leaves the possibility of contradiction wide open.

Except we know that a Mirror Image cast before the GoI would not wink out, therefore the MI in the example must, by inference, have been cast after. And the contradiction is averted.

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

That is a fatuous reply, doing a handwave without explaining how it can work. Please try harder. You are normally very good at getting to the logic of the situation but you are avoiding the issue here (probably because you are wrong)

 

[Hypersmurf]

That is a fatuous reply, doing a handwave without explaining how it can work. Please try harder. You are normally very good at getting to the logic of the situation but you are avoiding the issue here (probably because you are wrong)

It works because it's magic. It works because the spell description states "Spells already in effect when the globe is cast are not affected."

The spell description is not at all unclear.

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It works because it's magic. It works because the spell description states "Spells already in effect when the globe is cast are not affected."

The spell description is not at all unclear.

Every other time I've seen you express an opinion you are very hot on the clarity of the language being used. Why are you abandoning that position in this case where the example given in the PHB undermines the text.

There is contradiction here far greater than some of the other gnats that I've watched you strain over. Why swallow a camel now?