Spellguard Ring interpretation

[javcs]

Orb spells are made atypical by being instantaneous conjurations with a ranged touch attack as part of the casting that deal energy damage, most spells that are instantaneous with a ranged touch attack as part of the casting that deal energy damage are evocation. In this instance I'm using atypical to describe them, as they don't fit in with the 'typical' spells of their school.

It probably shouldn't.

Exception, due to the haphazard wording.

However, my definition was strictly for immunity to any spell cast as per the item queried about, it seems to me that you're seeking a wider application definition of 'immune to any spell'.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Orb spells are made atypical by being instantaneous conjurations with a ranged touch attack as part of the casting that deal energy damage, most spells that are instantaneous with a ranged touch attack as part of the casting that deal energy damage are evocation.

Even in the Core Rules, there's an instantaneous conjuration with a ranged touch attack as part of the casting that deals energy damage.

However, my definition was strictly for immunity to any spell cast as per the item queried about, it seems to me that you're seeking a wider application definition of 'immune to any spell'.

No, I'm looking at the Spellguard Ring. And I can't see a reasonable interpretation that would have the Ring make someone 'immune' to Orb of Fire, but not 'Immune' to Wall of Iron.

The ranged touch attack roll doesn't strike me as being at all relevant in making the determination as to whether or not a spell is cast upon someone; both spells are creating an Effect that can subsequently deal damage to an opponent.

-Hyp.

 

[javcs]

One, the Orb, is actively dealing that damage, the other, the wall, is passively doing so.

The Orb itself, and the casting thereof (including the attack roll), deals damage without any other actions. The Wall of Iron deals damage only after someone takes an action to knock it over, or it falls over in an uncontrolled manner.

 

[Hypersmurf]

One, the Orb, is actively dealing that damage, the other, the wall, is passively doing so.

The Orb is not the spell; it is the Effect of the spell. The Wall is not the spell; it is the Effect of the spell.

I'll go back to the 'Create Spear' example. If the two spears are identical, how is the action required to throw the spear relevant to how the Ring reacts?

-Hyp.

 

[javcs]

It shouldn't be relevant.



Perhaps the simplest fix to the generalization is to say he's immune to spells that the effects thereof are either an area that includes him, are targeted on him, or are aimed at him (by way of an attack roll), but affected normally by spells that have an effect that affect something else, causing it to affect him, including instantaneous conjurations.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Perhaps the simplest fix...

I think the simplest fix would be to have it work like infinite SR.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think the simplest fix would be to have it work like infinite SR.

Yeah - they changed the Golem wording in 3.5 for a reason

-Hyp.

 

[javcs]

I think the simplest fix would be to have it work like infinite SR.

However, it's not based of off a spell resistance, or spell immunity (the spells).

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, it's not based of off a spell resistance, or spell immunity (the spells).

Neither is a Golem's immunity to magic, which just states "Golems have immunity to most magical and supernatural effects, except when otherwise noted."

It's only within the individual golem descriptions that we get any mention of SR:
A stone golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance.

So in theory, if we create a Golem that is not a Clay, Flesh, Iron, or Stone Golem, it will have the Golem's Immunity to Magic (Ex) - that is, immunity to most magical and supernatural effects, except when otherwise noted - which will not be overwritten by the Clay, Flesh, Iron, or Stone Golem's Immunity to Magic (Ex) - that is, immunity to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance.

How would we determine what this broader immunity represents? Well, personally, I'd look to the nearest example of a creature immune to magic. And I'd find the Clay, Flesh, Iron, or Stone Golem... and so to interpret the immunity to magic, I'd understand an implicit 'that allows spell resistance' clause.

Likewise with the Spellguard Ring; when interpreting what 'immune to spells' means, I'd look to existing examples of creatures immune to spells, and I'd find the Clay, Flesh, Iron, or Stone Golem on which to base my ruling.

-Hyp.

 

[javcs]

That would be a reasonable way to do it. Supporting that is the definition of Spell Immunity, as per the WotC website, claiming it's from the PHB; however, countering that is the wording 'When the rings are activated, the wearer of the bronze ring becomes immune to any spell cast by the wearer of the gold ring, as long as that spell is cast within 1 round.' The item also only functions for a grand total of 3 rounds per day.

Also reasonable would be to look at the spell required to create the Spellguard Rings, Otiluke's Suppressing Field.