StoneShape

[The Souljourner]

The intent of the spell is that you should be able to reshape x cubic feet of stone. If they wanted to restrict it to an unbroken mass, they'd have been more specific about it.

As has been pointed out, it's not unbalanced using that interpretation, and it's godawful useless if you use the "must be unbroken" interpretation, not to mention the fact it makes the spell completely impossible to adjudicate. Really, I think that's all there is to it. Debating the semantics of such a generic words as "piece" is useless.

-Nate

 

[kayn99]

While as a group, we have always agreed that what the DM says is the ruling at the table. In addition ViciousPenguin runs a great, fun, and fair game. We only placed up this post to see what other opinions on the matter were. That being said we run a Grim and Gritty game system where magic is rare and unpopular. I can see in our game that the spell be more restricted. In most DnD games I do not see it being that way. What will the rolls be to determine id a stone has no cracks in it; counting as two pieces. Then a person needs to wonder if there is any ore in it, for I do not think ore is affected by the spell. Did players just find the quickest way to mine for gold ore? What about a cement wall or some sort of stone composite? Then if we are sticking to the letter of the law, could the large stone (bigger then the area of effect) cause the spell to fail? I know when WOTC wrote this stuff they did not think of all the applications or how people will read it. The most important thing is to make the best ruling to fit in the game in which you are playing.

So what it comes down to for me is that the rule needs to be simple. The game is already full of to many rules and exceptions to rules. I would have it work on stone and if you have more area of effect, then it can affect more stone as long as it is touching. I would make mortar or other barrier stop the spell effect.


Kayn

 

[Funkthis]

I agree with kayn for the most part. Every DM must continually use their judgement and rule accordingly. Hopefully each DM rules in a way that players can generally accept (not neccessarily agree upon). As long as he rules consistantly I don't see any problem. My only issue is when people take the rules so literally. Yes, I know this is a rules forum but sometimes I just laugh at the logic. (I still can't believe the argument that ray of enfeeblement protects from str draining attacks taking a char below 1 str.)

What I really wanted to comment on though was frankthedm's statment on the building of fortifications just to foil spells. Sigh...I don't know what settings you use but most traditional fantasy settings which use non magical built fortifications aren't thinking about disintagration attempts on their walls. Heck a wizard high enough to cast disintegrate can do far worse things... If you are using your standard low tech setting they use seperate blocks and layers with rubble between each because that is the technology people used back in the appropriate time setting. Yes, if a wizard built a fortress maybe he would put in all sorts of spell foiling plans but in most games I've played walls are built to keep out armies, withstand catapult ammo, etc...

The DM made a good catch on this spell. Yes, they do take these spells into account. Separate blocks are just one way of doing this. Layered walls are also good for dealing with disintagrate attempts. If you want to limit the spell in such a manner, that’s your choice. Stone types changing would not change it being one piece of stone.

Mortar is more glue than stone. IF the spell does work on most motars in the setting, then builders avoid using it.

 

[Jesus_marley]

Weighing in a little late on this one...

If one wants to argue if a mortared wall constitutes a "single piece of stone" or not really depends on what one considers to be "stone". would a piece of sandstone qualify? or conglomerate which is a sedimentary rock made up of pieces of varying sizes naturally cemented together? or is metamorphic and igneous rock the only kinds that qualify? why or why not?

what about petrified wood?

Do gems count as rock? Maybe it only works on stone below a certain GP value by weight?

Truly this argument sounds kind of ridiculous to me.