Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 3471026" data-attributes="member: 35909">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: <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12170546#post12170546" target="_blank">http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12170546#post12170546</a>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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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!</blockquote>

Verification