Spell turning vs. spell resistance need help

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So, Infiniti:

The wizard casts HW on a target with 1 level of spell turning left. By the rules on Spell Turning, the target gets his with 7/8ths of the damage, and the other 8th turns back on the original wizard.

This is still a single spell effect - is it still the wizard's own?

EDIT:

Even better. The wizard casts HW on two targets - one with spell turning, and one without. The bit targeted on the target with spell turning rebounds completely. Is part of the spell "his own" and part of the spell "not his own"? Keep in mind, there's still only one spell effect going on ...

 

[Felix]

It seems to me that the only thing that Spell Turning chances in a hostile spell is the Target: (whomever). If that is the case, and ST only changes the Target, then the hostile spell acts in all ways as if the original caster had cast that spell with himself as a target. If that is the case, then no SR would apply.

So, does Spell Turning function otherwise than my changing the "Target:" line of the hostile spell?

--I'm not saying that it definitly does... only that if it does, then no SR need apply.---

 

[Infiniti2000]

More Hypotheticals

If a wizard targets two opponents with HW 400ft away, one with spell turning and one without, can the HW even affect the wizard? Keep in mind that if you say yes, then the condition of "no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart" is violated.

So, does Spell Turning function otherwise than my changing the "Target:" line of the hostile spell?

And then the question is, at what point does a spell no longer qualify as 'your own'? Assume there are special abilities (feat, spell, or whatever, similar to spell turning) that changed someone's spell as it was cast or as it took effect. e.g.

a. Who set the caster level? I might have a feat that alters the caster level to the minimum for that level spell.

b. Who chose the targets? Spell turning changes this.

c. Whose ability scores set the save DC? A wand could change this. Or, how about a spell effect that lowers the DC of any spell entering an area?

d. Most importantly, who cast the spell? A weapon, perhaps?

Keep in mind, there's still only one spell effect going on ...

This is a different subject entirely. Are you stating that one spell can generate only a single effect? Granted, 'effect' is not well-defined, so make sure you include what you mean by a definition as it will have significant consequences.

 

[Felix]

Keep in mind that if you say yes, then the condition of "no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart" is violated.

And so the spell fizzles. What's the problem here?

Assume there are special abilities (feat, spell, or whatever, similar to spell turning) that changed someone's spell as it was cast or as it took effect. e.g.

Then we would rule based on those abilities. At the moment we're looking at Spell Turning.

A: If this ability did nothing else, then it would still be the caster's spell. He's still casting it under the effect of someone else's ability. It is still a sorcerer's spell that he casts, even when doing so under a charm effect from someone else.

B: Yes, the caster does select his targets. And another spell effect changes it. Consider a sorc casting Ray of Enfeeblement at a fighter. Little does the sorc know, but there is a Wall of Force in between him and the fighter. It disrupts the spell due to lack of line of effect, which made a target invalid. It's still the sorc's spell that failed because of a problem with targeting.

C: These are effects that affect the spell, not the ownership of the spell. Go plane hopping. Are your spells not your own simply because they are impeded?

D: You hit the nail right there: "Who casts the spell?" That pretty much does it, eh? You ask if a weapon casts it, and I assume you mean an intelligent weapon. In that case, it's ability scores and the spell level of the effect would determine most things, and other things would be defined by the weapon itself.

If you're talking about a spell storing weapon, the "caster" is the one who activates the spell (for his mental command releases the spell), even if the DC and other specs are set by the caster who put the spell in there. Does the creator of a wand recieve the effects of a spell turned a half a world away?

This is a different subject entirely.

You claim that the original caster loses the "his owness" of a spell when it is turned.

A spell that is successfully cast upon a target by a sorc is his own spell.

A spell with multiple targets has one spell effect that affects multiple individuals. The effect is itself multiplicity.

By your contention, a spell that is turned back upon a sorc is no longer his own spell.

So... Patryn's point being:

If a sorc casts a spell, with a single spell effect that affects multiple targets, and one of those targets turns the effect back upon the sorc, the spell effect that affects the unabjured target remains the sorc's own, while the effect that has turned back upon the sorc ceases to be his effect, and simultaneously these two effects are one in the same.

You essentially have a Mobius Strip of a spell, with two sides that are one. That is a flaw Patryn is pointing out.

 

[Infiniti2000]

And so the spell fizzles. What's the problem here?

That's a problem. I really doubt Patryn would agree with you on that one.

If you're talking about a spell storing weapon, the "caster" is the one who activates the spell (for his mental command releases the spell), even if the DC and other specs are set by the caster who put the spell in there. Does the creator of a wand recieve the effects of a spell turned a half a world away?

That's explicitly not the case. The weapon casts the spell for a spell storing weapon, but the weapon is not the original caster, per the spell turning. Read the example in my first post in this thread.

You claim that the original caster loses the "his owness" of a spell when it is turned.

That's what I suggest as a reasonable, alternative interpretation, yes. I think it's just as valid.

A spell that is successfully cast upon a target by a sorc is his own spell.

Okay.

A spell with multiple targets has one spell effect that affects multiple individuals. The effect is itself multiplicity.

You have no basis for this statement. Although I have no direct proof for the reverse (i.e. explicit language that a spell creates multiple, separate effects), there is strong evidence for it (e.g. area dispel magic, roll SR separately, roll saves separately).

 

[Felix]

That's explicitly not the case.

Not explicitly, no.

Spell Storing: A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Any time the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance to have a spell stored in it already.
Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus.

Underlined by me.

I would say the wielder's desire, being a necessary part in the release of the stored spell, makes him a good "caster" of the spell. It also says that this rule is an exception to the activation time it usually takes with magic items. I would say that it functions as a command-word activated magic item (because the wielder's desire is necessary), except that the time required to activate it has shortened. So if turned, it would turn upon the activator.

That'd be my ruling, of course, and open to disagreement.

You have no basis for this statement.

I do in that...

A spell is a one-time magical effect.

So a spell has one magical effect. Furthermore, the Target or Targets section further down the page does not mention that the effect is divided into multiple effects when affecting multiple targets. Ergo, it is still one effect that affects multiple targets. The effect does not change; the targets react differently to that singular effect.

So, does Patryn's critique hold water?

 

[elmuthalleth]

First , I have to thank you for the feedback .

Second , after reading your posts , I think that the key for all is in the word original
as reported in the spell description .

I mean , if the spell bounces back to the original caster , happened something that changed the person who cast the spell .

In my example the drow is the caster . When he cast horrid wilting and spell turning took effect , the drow became the original caster , and the cleric w spell turning became the new caster .

It's only a version of mine . I'm Italian , and maybe I don't know all the intricacies of the English language .

In Italian original becomes originale and I think the meaning it's just the same

Thank you one more time .

 

[Dross Swordra]

Can Spell Turning even turn the Horrid Wilting spell. I don't have the books in front of me, but I thought that horrid wilting was an area effecting spell, and Spell Turning explicitly states that "The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected."
By the text it seems to me that this discussion is moo (you know a cows opinion) since the HW would not be turned.

But I've been wrong plenty of times in the past, so if I am, please set me straight.

-Dross

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Horrid Wilting has a "Target:" entry. Therefore, it can be turned.

Targets: Living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart