Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 2613177" data-attributes="member: 3929">And so the spell fizzles. What's the problem here?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?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.</blockquote>

Verification