RIng of Spell Turning

[zlorf]

Hi,

Probably been asked before, but when you cast a spell at someone with a ring of spell
turning and the spell then effects the caster, can the caster of the spell dismiss it if the spell is normally dismissable (D)?

TIA
Zlorf

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Probably been asked before, but when you cast a spell at someone with a ring of spell turning and the spell then effects the caster, can the caster of the spell dismiss it if the spell is normally dismissable (D)?

I don't see anything in the spell description to suggest you couldn't. I'd say yes, with the caveat that you must still be able to perform purely mental actions. i.e. you couldn't, if you were stunned or dazed.

 

[shilsen]

I don't see anything in the spell description to suggest you couldn't. I'd say yes, with the caveat that you must still be able to perform purely mental actions. i.e. you couldn't, if you were stunned or dazed.

What he said. Since you still remain the caster of the spell, you can dismiss it if capable of taking the standard action to do so.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Probably been asked before, but when you cast a spell at someone with a ring of spell turning and the spell then effects the caster, can the caster of the spell dismiss it if the spell is normally dismissable (D)?

This depends on who you decide is the "caster" of the spell, as opposed to the "original caster" of the spell. If the original caster is always the caster, then the answers given above are correct. Keep in mind, though, that in such cases some spells have a totally different function that might normally be assumed (e.g. charm person has no real effect because you are effectively charming yourself). If, however, you rule that the caster is the person with the ring (or with the spell), for purposes of of adjudicating the spell (and not for caster level, etc.), then you can't dismiss it, but spells like charm person, etc. have what I would call the normal effect.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This depends on who you decide is the "caster" of the spell, as opposed to the "original caster" of the spell.

... a distinction which does not actually appear anywhere in the rules.

It's why the example of someone making themselves friendly to someone else via a turned Charm Person is wrong.

 

[Infiniti2000]

... a distinction which does not actually appear anywhere in the rules.

Sure it's mentioned. Spell Turning mentions "original caster." I apply significances to the word "original" in that, making the (admitted) assumption that there must be a non-original caster as well. So, if you caster charm person on someone with spell turning and it comes back to you, then you may becomed charmed by that person. I think that's logical (i.e. normal) and supported in the rules via the given assumption.

Without that assumption, then you make another series of assumptions where (1) "original" is superfluous and has no meaning, (2) anywhere you see "original caster" you can replace it with "caster" or vice versa, and (3) the designers provided the extra verbage without the additional intent that "original caster" is somehow different than "caster."

That's my take, and perhaps the opposite interpretation has more weight. I'm merely expressing an alternative viewpoint.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sure it's mentioned. Spell Turning mentions "original caster."

Well, I'll be darned, it is mentioned. I'll leave my gaffe up anyway.

The real problem I see is that if the "original caster" is no longer the "current caster" in the case of a turned spell, how do you determine the damage done / other caster level-dependent effects?

After all:

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, I'll be darned, it is mentioned. I'll leave my gaffe up anyway.

Yeah, well, I read spell turning pedantically, so that little adjective is important.

The real problem I see is that if the "original caster" is no longer the "current caster" in the case of a turned spell, how do you determine the damage done / other caster level-dependent effects?

Yes, that is indeed a problem and I handle it like I mentioned earlier (though I probably wasn't clear). Basically, I use the original caster for all purposes except for targetting because the spell turning only modifies the target. In other words, for spell resistance, damage dice, DC, etc. the original caster (and his caster level) is used. The person with spell turning, however, becomes the "caster" (even if a fighter for example) for purposes of targeting, e.g. dispel magic is no longer automatic, but the CL for dispel magic checks uses the original caster level (not the ring caster level for instance), etc.

Please note that I admittedly make an assumption and I agree that the opposite interpretation has more weight, but I don't like some of the oddities it creates, particularly how badly it screws someone over a dispel magic, and since my interpretation is defensible and I think plays better, I go with it and defend it.

 

[Nail]

Honesty is the best policy.....it's more convincing, at any rate! I think I'm gonna "yoink" I2K's interp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Honesty is the best policy.....it's more convincing, at any rate! I think I'm gonna "yoink" I2K's interp.

I am very close to convinced, myself...