StoneShape

[Nail]

The spell says "peice of stone". In my games, I've always interpreted that to mean "a single, unbroken peice of stone".

FWIW, mortar in castle walls IRL contain straw. If that's the case in your campaign, then this spell *can't* affect the mortar.

 

[Nail]

But thanks for reposting exactly what was said above.

Are you saying that the spell doesn't say this? You ignored (and flatly contradicted) the wording, so frankthedm showed it to you. Where's the problem?

 

[Someone]

He's not saying that walls are made of individual, glued pieces of stone, instead his opinion is that it nerfes the spell in unneeded ways and instead prefers to consider a wall a single item made of stone (and mortar).

Also, but this is now mine, what constitutes a single piece isn't exactly well defined - it appears nowhere in the rules, and depends on semantics. It affects a lot other spells, like Shatter or Heat metal. For example, can I Shatter a chain, or only a single link in it? a chain is after all, a collection of links (and they are not even glued to each one) yet it's treated as a single item. Also, heat metal heats "metal equipment" in a creature's possesion, but says that items make saving throws. Surely it doesn't mean that helmets, chesplates, codpieces, individual chaimail links, greaves, shoulder guards, etc, make their own saving throws, despite being also individual items conveniently grouped as "one armor".

 

[3d6]

I'd allow you to affect a stone wall as a single piece of stone. It affects such a small area anyway, I don't think it makes much difference. At 5th level, when you first get the spell, it affects a 2.5' X 2.5' X 2.5' cube, which means it will require several castings of the spell to get through any defensive fortifications.

 

[frankthedm]

For example, can I Shatter a chain, or only a single link in it?

This is one of those situations where one can not have things both ways, but many will try. Either it only breaks one link and thus that link can weigh up to 10 pounds of caster level OR the chain is a single object and thus you could not shatter a significantly thick chain like for an anchor or such.

 

[Someone]

Sort of my point, but not what I meant: you can consider a wall a single object made of stone and mortar, or a collection or individual pieces glued by mortar, similarly as you can stick with whole chains or lenghts of many chain links. If I interpreted Rakhir correctly, he prefers the single item interpretation, and it makes even more sense than the "whole chain as a single item" one. The chain isn't even glued.

 

[Rackhir]

Are you saying that the spell doesn't say this? You ignored (and flatly contradicted) the wording, so frankthedm showed it to you. Where's the problem?

He's not saying that walls are made of individual, glued pieces of stone, instead his opinion is that it nerfes the spell in unneeded ways and instead prefers to consider a wall a single item made of stone (and mortar).

Someone has it correct. Given that Frankthedm ignored the rest of my point, I didn't feel it necessary to pay attention to his, especially since he was just simply repeating points that had already been made above, that I obviously didn't agree with. If the rule had some clarifications or intensifications on the "single piece", I might agree with that interpretation of the rules, but it doesn't.

Mechanically, I don't really see the difference between a mortared together stone wall and a natural strata of rock that might contain several different types of stone.

If the spell allowed you to instantly create vast chasims or pits or structures, then I could see nerfing the spell with the above restriction. Given that it's going to take something on the order of 10 to 15 castings to make a hole, you will have to stoop in order to pass through, in a castle wall or moderately thick dungeon wall, I think it's entirely pointless to restrict the spell in this fashion.

It's especially pointless when you consider that most thick stone walls are not even solid stone. They are generally filled with rubble and other kinds of fill that would not be affected by Stone shape even under my more lenient reading of things.

 

[Nail]

I get that you see this differently. Since this is the Rules forum, it's often helpful to point to a rule or text that backs up your interpretation. Saying "this spell needn't be nerfed" is a weak rules argument.

Perhaps you could point to the Target listing in the Spell Description block. It says "stone or stone object...". That sounds like a rules argument you could stand on.

 

[Rackhir]

I get that you see this differently. Since this is the Rules forum, it's often helpful to point to a rule or text that backs up your interpretation. Saying "this spell needn't be nerfed" is a weak rules argument.

Perhaps you could point to the Target listing in the Spell Description block. It says "stone or stone object...". That sounds like a rules argument you could stand on.

But the whole argument is about interpretation of sematics, not really the rules. Nobody is arguing over if the sentence reads "One contiguious stone with no breaks or fractures or mortaring." or "One stone object of any size, composition or conglomeration." It's the old problem of insufficient precision in language. Frank and I disagree about what consitutes "an existing piece of stone".

The thing is that if you wanted to get really pedantic about it, you could argue that the spell only affects a stone of up to the 10' cu + 1' cu a level and that the spell fails if you try to use it on a piece of stone larger than that.

However, like with Frank's argument, that sort of reading to me contradicts what was likely meant and how one might reasonably expect to use the spell.

You do have a good point about the wording of the spell though.

 

[ViciousPenguin]

. . . what constitutes a single piece isn't exactly well defined - it appears nowhere in the rules, and depends on semantics.

I'm only half inclined to agree that this is a matter semantics. More accurately I suspect that this is a matter of language, and while the rules are not always well defined, the English language generally is.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
piece [pees] Pronunciation Key noun, verb, pieced, piec·ing.
–noun
1. a separate or limited portion or quantity of something: a piece of land; a piece of chocolate.
<snip>
10. one of the parts that, when assembled, form a whole: the pieces of a clock.
11. an individual article of a set or collection: a set of dishes containing 100 pieces.

Where 'piece' is not a term of art in D&D, I think it appropriate to fall back on the literal definition of the word when deciding what a 'piece' is in game. That definition is fairly clear.

It affects a lot other spells, like Shatter or Heat metal. For example, can I Shatter a chain, or only a single link in it? a chain is after all, a collection of links (and they are not even glued to each one) yet it's treated as a single item.

The fact that a chain can be considered a single 'item' is both factual and irrelevant. Items can be made of pieces, and the two terms are not universally interchangeable. The key term used in the description of that spell however is 'a single solid object'. Perhaps you and I would disagree on this too, but I take 'solid' in this case to mean 'rigid', which a length of chain is not. A coil of rope is 'solid' too, in so far that it is not 'fluid' or 'gaseous', but I would balk at someone 'shattering' it. That single link of chain however . . .

Also, heat metal heats "metal equipment" in a creature's possesion, but says that items make saving throws. Surely it doesn't mean that helmets, chesplates, codpieces, individual chaimail links, greaves, shoulder guards, etc, make their own saving throws, despite being also individual items conveniently grouped as "one armor".

I have to agree with this conclusion, and for several reasons. Firstly, as stated above, the fact that items can be made of pieces means that your cod piece can share the same saving throw with your gorget. Furthermore 'item' is a term of art in D&D. One can find an entire suit of armor as a single magical item, with no pieces excluded. Also, the fact that the spell lists the target as

Metal equipment of one creature per two levels, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart; or 25 lb. of metal/level, all of which must be within a 30-ft. circle

supports this. Items and equipment are both terms of art in D&D and are frequently interchangeable. For this spell, it is obviously more appropriate for each 'item' to gain a saving throw.

But the whole argument is about interpretation of sematics, not really the rules. Nobody is arguing over if the sentence reads "One contiguious stone with no breaks or fractures or mortaring." or "One stone object of any size, composition or conglomeration." It's the old problem of insufficient precision in language. Frank and I disagree about what consitutes "an existing piece of stone".

If we look deep enough we'll probably find poorly phrased exceptions, but it seems to me that the spells generally do just what their descriptions say they do. Even with the examples of 'problem' spells given above, we see this to be the case. The words in those spell descriptions have specific meanings, whether defined in game or in the dictionary, and when those meanings are understood the outcome is fairly predictable. I think that the problem of 'semantics' comes in when we want the spell to do something other than what it says it does. In that case some of us tend to stretch or skew the meaning of words to our liking. If everyone around the table can agree that "this is what the spell ought to do" then fine. But if such a consensus cannot be reached than the literal meaning of the description (or DM decree) should be respected.

- Vicious Penguin