Spellguard Ring interpretation

[StreamOfTheSky]

The Spellguard Rings seemed like a good investment, a while back. I had the Spell Immuntity spell, but I'm a "stragtegist" sorcerer, so a lot of my area affect spells (web, EBT, spike stones, caltrops, etc...) have no SR and thus I can't protect the fighter from them. So, I see the item on page 127 of CMage and think I have the solution. It worked just fine till the aftermath of last night's session: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12170546#post12170546

My DM was completely awe-struck by the above tactic and checked the wotc boards to see if it was legal. I had told him, "I fully expect you to never allow it again once you see it, but I just want to surprise you with it once." He said he'd allow it if it was legal, despite my saying I didn't mind. Post #5 rightfully finds a reason this combo doesn't work (well). My problem is the later posts, which "kick things up a notch."

So, I ask all the esteemed rules-lawyers here, help me prove my case! Essentialy, that the text for Spellguard Rings does not imply either the Spell Immunity spell or the Spell Immunity extraordinary ability (MM, page 315). Arguments I've made:

a) The rings are made from the Otiluke's Suppressing Field spell, NOT the Spell Immunity spell, so parallels to it have no basis.
b) The Spell Immunity only fails to effect "SR: No" spells because it explicitly says so in the text, whilst the rings make no mention at all of this.
c) The effect of the rings is on a creature, as opposed to the Extraordinary Spell Aim feat, which specifically effects the area of the spell itself (to counter any argument that the rings leave "holes" in my spell area).
d) Saying "the wearer...becomes immune to any spell cast by [the other wearer]" is not the same as saying, "The wearer is treated as having Spell Immunity, as the extraordinary ability (or, "spell immunity, as the spell") to any spell cast by..." Did I state that well? I must admit, I'm not nearly as good at this as Hyp.

This is very important to me, though. My character's greatest joy comes from laying these nasty spells down and then toying with his prey...uh, enemy, yeah, enemy! If I can't protect the party tank at least some of the time from the effects, he'll get all angry about not getting to melee anything. I know there's the feat I mentioned above, but my feats are very limited and besides,the DCs are obscene! I have +7 int and maxed ranks, as well as +2 synergy bonus, and I could still potentially fail the spellcraft check! Add in the increased casting time and the whole "swiss cheese" effect that potentially leaves enemies with safe spots in the middle of my tentactle field, and yeah, not really my thing.

Thank you!

 

[javcs]

If the text on the item says "becomes immune to any spell", that is different from having "... Spell Immunity as the spell ...".

Therefore, by RAW, due to the wording of the item, it works on any and all spells cast by the wearer of the other ring.

There is no comparison to Spell Immunity, or any other effect or ability that was mentioned on the WotC boards.


It is my opinion that you're using it as it was intended to be used, because really, what other use would there be?

 

[Darklone]

Agreeing with javcs. The rings do make the fighter immune to all spells of your char (Don't buff him!). No idea why the Wotzee dudes think it shouldn't work.

 

[moritheil]

People are being sloppy in their panic to find an excuse to rule that the ring doesn't work that way. Happens all the time.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Agreeing with javcs. The rings do make the fighter immune to all spells of your char (Don't buff him!). No idea why the Wotzee dudes think it shouldn't work.

Well, it's only three times per day, for one round. But yes, during those three rounds, certainly no buffs.

I think my DM has relented, if only because without the ability to use them on any spell, they serve no purpose any way. (in our particular game, not in general, of course)

 

[Hypersmurf]

I have a few questions, though.

If I cast Wall of Force, does being immune to my spells mean he can walk through it?

If I cast Wall of Iron, does being immune to my spells mean he can walk through it?

If I cast Summon Monster, does being immune to my spells mean he can ignore my Summoned creature?

If I cast Planar Ally, does being immune to my spells mean he can ignore my Called creature?

If I cast Transmute Rock to Mud on the ground at his feet, does he sink?

What does blanket immunity entail, exactly?

-Hyp.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I have a few questions, though.

If I cast Wall of Force, does being immune to my spells mean he can walk through it?

If I cast Wall of Iron, does being immune to my spells mean he can walk through it?

If I cast Summon Monster, does being immune to my spells mean he can ignore my Summoned creature?

If I cast Planar Ally, does being immune to my spells mean he can ignore my Called creature?

If I cast Transmute Rock to Mud on the ground at his feet, does he sink?

What does blanket immunity entail, exactly?

-Hyp.

Well, those were some of the sticky points with my DM, especially since I have Transmute Rock to Mud. He said in that case, the spell is affecting the rock, not him. It is confusing, I concede. As long as he's immune to my webs, Evard's, and the like, I'm fine though. When I get Earthquake next level (from a quest item), that will likely not be allowed to work, either. Also, I do recognize the irony in that my DM's current interpretation for the sake of sanity is basically identical to the MM spell resistance entry in defining the difference between direct and indirect effects.

 

[javcs]

Evocation so, probably (magic is being used to sustain it).

No, it's an instantaneous conjuration, once cast, it's just another object.

What do you mean by 'ignore my summoned creature'?

What do you mean by 'ignore my called creature'? Probably not, though.

I would say, yes, he sinks, you're not hitting him with it, you're hitting the ground beneath him.

I cannot explain it well. If a spell would directly affect him, he is unaffected, and if a spell would indirectly affect him, it depends what the spell is and the properties of the spell, - instantaneous effects cast such that they cause something else to affect him, probably he is affected.

 

[moritheil]

I cannot explain it well.

And lest anyone think that is indicative of a problem, I feel compelled to point out that it is distinctly possible for things to be true but not easily explained or articulable.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What do you mean by 'ignore my summoned creature'?

What do you mean by 'ignore my called creature'?

If he's immune, can he take damage from the creature's attacks? From the creature's weapons, spells, spell-like abilities? Can the creature grapple him, provide cover against his attacks, create a barrier against movement, charging, etc?

I would say, yes, he sinks, you're not hitting him with it, you're hitting the ground beneath him.

I cannot explain it well. If a spell would directly affect him, he is unaffected, and if a spell would indirectly affect him, it depends what the spell is and the properties of the spell, - instantaneous effects cast such that they cause something else to affect him, probably he is affected.

So can he speak (or cast) in the area of a Silence spell (not cast directly on him)? Can he see through a Fog Cloud?

Orb of Fire, Orb of Acid, Orb of Force?

Is there a difference between Transmute Rock to Mud and Web?

-Hyp.