Sculpt Spell: possibly problematic

[pawsplay]

Meteor Swarm does that, too.

The point is, that if a spell or power specifically says so, then - of course - it works that way.

But in general, it does not.

Bye
Thanee

Why not?

 

[Vegepygmy]

Sorry, guys, I have yet to see anything in the rules that says cubes can not overlap.

I don't think anyone is claiming the cubes can't overlap; they are just saying the damage doesn't stack. Specifically, because it isn't the cubes that deal the damage, but rather the spell.

And the rules do not actually state what the answer is...

It seems like there are three possible choices:
- Reword the feat so that the cubes have to be contiguous, that is, they are sculpted into a 3D shape
- Accept that the spell creates four cube "spell warheads" and allow them to work cumulatively as though they were separate spells.
- Allow that the spell creates four cubical spell warheads, but arbitrarily rule that they do not work cumulatively as though they were separate spells even if they are instantaneous and the "overlap" rules do not adequately cover the situation.

Why do you include "arbitrarily" in the third option, but not the second, when the second option is clearly just as arbitrary? As you note, the rules don't specify which option is correct.

You yourself began this thread by noting that the feat would be broken if it worked like option two. You have asserted that the rules don't explicitly state which way it works. So it baffles me that you would suggest the broken interpretation is more likely to be the correct one.

 

[pawsplay]

Why do you include "arbitrarily" in the third option, but not the second, when the second option is clearly just as arbitrary? As you note, the rules don't specify which option is correct.

Arbitrarily, because it's the option that does not appear to be supported by any actual rule.

You yourself began this thread by noting that the feat would be broken if it worked like option two. You have asserted that the rules don't explicitly state which way it works. So it baffles me that you would suggest the broken interpretation is more likely to be the correct one.

The third solution has two strikes against it:
- It does not work like other situations where characters are caught in the area of more than one effect, such as instantaneous spells that overlap.
- It implies that getting hit with two fireballs is no worse than one.

So if the feat is broken, that's a definite problem. But having a spell that doesn't work as expected is also a problem.

So to answer your question, while the broken result is undesirable, the non-broken result is illogical. The problem, then, most likely resides in the feat itself.

 

[pawsplay]

Let me observe, also, that all other cube spells are either shapeable three-dimensional spells or multiple area effects (like meteor swam). Turning the spell into four spell warheads kind of falls into the realm of "one of these things is not like the other" compared to the other shaping options. Turn the spell into a cone, turn the spell into a cylinder, or... have the spell affect four different three dimensional spaces within range. Hmm. So it actually appears to me a strong possibility that it was intended by the author to have a three-dimensional shapeable spell option, which it otherwise lacks, in which cases the cubes should be touching and non-overlapping.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Arbitrarily, because it's the option that does not appear to be supported by any actual rule.

That's no different than the second option. You said so yourself. Thus, your description seems biased to me.

The third solution has two strikes against it:
- It does not work like other situations where characters are caught in the area of more than one effect, such as instantaneous spells that overlap.

Actually, it works exactly like those other situations, if you apply the rule literally. As I pointed out above, the "instantaneous effect" rule explicitly states that two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively. It's only when you treat a single spell with more than one area of effect as if it were two spells instead of one that the result becomes inconsistent.

In other words, the only "problem" is the one you create by treating the sculpted spell as if it were more than one spell.

- It implies that getting hit with two fireballs is no worse than one.

No. It implies that the four areas are all one "fireball."

If I use Sculpt Spell on a sleep spell to create four cubes, and I overlap them on a single target, I see no reason why that target would have to make four saving throws. It's the same spell. It just has the ability to affect targets in a non-contiguous area (an ability that I chose not to take advantage of when I overlapped the cubes). That doesn't imply that getting hit with two sleep spells is no worse than one.

So if the feat is broken, that's a definite problem. But having a spell that doesn't work as expected is also a problem.

What I'm suggesting is that it's your expectation that is flawed, rather than the non-broken interpretation. If you simply read and apply the rules literally, and stop trying to treat a sculpted spell as more than one spell, the inconsistent result doesn't occur.

So to answer your question, while the broken result is undesirable, the non-broken result is illogical. The problem, then, most likely resides in the feat itself.

The feat is not written as clearly as it could be. That's a common problem with supplemental rules. But you have a choice: you can interpret the feat as sculpting the area of a single spell, or as dividing a single spell into multiple spells. Given that the name of the feat is Sculpt Spell rather than Twin Spell, or Duplicate Spell, or Multiply Spell, your decision shouldn't be difficult.

 

[pawsplay]

That's no different than the second option. You said so yourself. Thus, your description seems biased to me.

What I said was that the rules do not provide an explicit answer. Thus, the task becomes one of information gathering and logic. One explanation hinges on comparision to similar cases. The other one has essentially nothing to stand on.

Actually, it works exactly like those other situations, if you apply the rule literally. As I pointed out above, the "instantaneous effect" rule explicitly states that two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively. It's only when you treat a single spell with more than one area of effect as if it were two spells instead of one that the result becomes inconsistent.

As I pointed out, if you apply the rules literally, the rules do not help you in the slightest.

In other words, the only "problem" is the one you create by treating the sculpted spell as if it were more than one spell.

... whereas if I do not, again, the rules do not provide a solution. No matter what, some inventiveness is going to be required.

This is not the product of my unwillingness to read the rules, but the result of the rules not covering a specific area.

No. It implies that the four areas are all one "fireball."

If I use Sculpt Spell on a sleep spell to create four cubes, and I overlap them on a single target, I see no reason why that target would have to make four saving throws. It's the same spell. It just has the ability to affect targets in a non-contiguous area (an ability that I chose not to take advantage of when I overlapped the cubes). That doesn't imply that getting hit with two sleep spells is no worse than one.

You see no reason. I, however, see considerable ambiguity in the situation.

What I'm suggesting is that it's your expectation that is flawed, rather than the non-broken interpretation. If you simply read and apply the rules literally, and stop trying to treat a sculpted spell as more than one spell, the inconsistent result doesn't occur.

What I'm suggesting is that your reading of the rules is flawed. Specifically, you are holding to the premise that one spell can only effect a target one time. Not only is this not a rule, but there are numerous spells that do not work that way. While in general a fireball has only one area, there is no rule that tells us how to handle a fireball with multiple areas.

The feat is not written as clearly as it could be. That's a common problem with supplemental rules. But you have a choice: you can interpret the feat as sculpting the area of a single spell, or as dividing a single spell into multiple spells. Given that the name of the feat is Sculpt Spell rather than Twin Spell, or Duplicate Spell, or Multiply Spell, your decision shouldn't be difficult.

If I'm going by the name of the spell, I might ask, "Why does this spell create non-contiguous cubes at all?" Treating the spell, as you say, as a single spell, creates various problems I have mentioned above. The only benefit I can see of your "no sweat, so what?" approach is that the game moves on, but the results are so lacking in logic I would rather just toss out the feat than deal with it.

In fact, creating four fireballs spaced around me with non-cumulative damage is so strange my inclination at this point is to suggest that the feat should not do that, that either it was intended or perhaps should have been written to create a three-dimensional space defined by cubes (shapeable), which is an area adequately covered by the rules.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

How about this as a rationale to forbid the effect described in the OP:

Text of Sculpt Spell says "The sculpted spell works normally in all respects except for its shape."

Fireball text says it "deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area."

So dealing an amount of damage other than 1d6 per level to any creature in the area would be changing a characteristic of the spell other than its area (ie, shape). But, as noted in the highlighted part of the excerpt, this is explicitly forbidden by the feat. Hence, you can't double-up damage on a single casting of a spell with Scupt Spell.

 

[pawsplay]

Taken literally, "works normally in all respects" would mean a sculpted, empowered fireball would not gain the benefits of empowered. Anyway, unless someone has something further to add, I think we've thoroughly established that in answer to my original question, the rules are not as helpful as they could be.

I am inclined to take the name Sculpt Spell literally and treat the four cube spell as a shapeable spell, making the cubes contiguous.