Sudden Stalagmite

[Dannyalcatraz]

To those who still don't like the "ground = earth" argument lets look at another very popular Conjuration (Creation) spell, Evard's Black Tentacles, which reads in relevant part:

PHB p228
...These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot- including water...

This spell is quite explicit- any surface underfoot can emit a tentacle, which contrasts sharply with the spell that is the main topic of debate in this thread, which states that the spike grows from the ground. EVT even distinguishes between earth and floor.

 

[ThirdWizard]

This spell is quite explicit- any surface underfoot can emit a tentacle, which contrasts sharply with the spell that is the main topic of debate in this thread, which states that the spike grows from the ground. EVT even distinguishes between earth and floor.

So long as you rule that all references to ground in spells mean natural earthen ground. See post 18.

 

[Bagpuss]

So long as you rule that all references to ground in spells mean natural earthen ground. See post 18.

If you do that is does make some spells no where near as useful or in need or rewording, just from the SRD.

Wind Wall (rests on the ground), Sleet Storm (make ground icy), Cloudkill (rolls along the ground), Baleful Polymorph (items fall to the ground), Whirlwind (moves along the ground), Gust of Wind & Command (falls to the ground).

 

[ThirdWizard]

If you do that is does make some spells no where near as useful or in need or rewording, just from the SRD.

That is my point, after all.

In the rules, when they mean to limit something to a particular area or type, then they say it. When they want stone wall to have to touch stone, they explicitly say it. When they want web to need anchor points, they call it out in the text. In 3.0, call lightning only worked when there were clouds in the sky (IIRC).

This spell makes no such expicit limitations in the description. Ground is used quite often in the RAW to mean "whatever you happen to be standing on." To read it otherwise breaks the game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So long as you rule that all references to ground in spells mean natural earthen ground. See post 18.

If you do that is does make some spells no where near as useful or in need or rewording, just from the SRD.

This spell makes no such expicit limitations in the description. Ground is used quite often in the RAW to mean "whatever you happen to be standing on." To read it otherwise breaks the game.

3W, see post #8. I don't rule all references to "ground" mean natural earthen ground, just when it makes sense in the context of the spell as a whole.

Here, its a druidic creation earth spell, with imprecise flavor & rules text. I have no problem limiting "ground" in such a context to mean natural earthen ground.

And as for ground being used to mean "whatever you happen to be standing on" in the RAW, EVT illustrates that sometimes they don't. Instead, they spell it out explicitly.

Its part and parcel of the English language- occasionally we use words that have a specific meaning as a general term, despite that when used that way, such words can cause confusion.

Which is part of why, as I pointed out in post #8, I rarely use RAW to guide spell interpretation. I take the spell as a whole- its rules text, its flavor text, and if need be, even the class that is casting it into account- when trying to interpret imprecise language in it. (After all, RAW, it would be indisputible based on the language in certain spells that a monk's unarmed strikes are also natural weapons...)

This spell is, IMHO, a classic poorly worded spell.on

 

[nogray]

The impaling thing and other concerns

For the hit points vs. being impaled thing, couldn't you envision it as the stalagmite grows and stabs through a limb (for those seriously, but not fatally, injured) or just scrapes the target badly and gets caught between the target's clothing/armor and flesh (for those less significantly harmed, percentage-wise)? Both of those mesh fairly well with the meaning(s) of hit points in the D&D game and with the spell's effects. Escape Artist represents carefully removing one's self (possibly with a synergy from climb), while a strength check might be seen as wrenching free, further fatiguing (causing hit point loss) or damaging yourself (with scrapes and muscle strain) in the process.

As to the main argument of the thread, I would allow the spell to function on any solid ground--meaning surface upon which you stand. I wouldn't even have the stone just fall over or make escaping any easier, since the stone might bond or adhere to whatever the floor is. (Reference Piratecat's "snarky" comment about how stalagmites grow.)

Someone asked the weight of the stone created. Assuming an ideal right circular cone,

V=(1/3)(pi)(r)^2(h), which is (1/3)(pi)(0.5 ft)^2(10 ft) = about 2.62 cubic feet.

The weight-density of generic stone is 157 lb/cu ft, while limestone is slightly higher, at 163 lb/cu ft. In either case, multiply by the above volume to get a weight of 411-427 lbs.

As an aside, you can determine with a little physics that a force of about 50-60 lbs applied horizontally at a height of about 4 ft would topple the stalagmite, assuming no adhesion between the stalagmite and the ground.

 

[Mycanid]

Boy - I created a ruckus with my burst! Sorry all. (And this is partly in keeping with 3Wiz's interpretation of me as an apologetic mycanid in another thread....)

Seriously though ... of course, yes. Magic IS magic and an argument could be made that you can create anything anywhere, but the spell descriptions DO give limitations here and there, which mean that the general thrust of the game is that magic does operate by limitations somehow.

This gets into the area of the spirit of the law verses the letter of the law that all you jurisprudence students out there should know about a'plenty. I read ground as ground - earth. And in this particular case with regards to this particular spell I feel that the spirit of the law behind the spell is that it necessitates the ground as a starting point to grow out of. This may be where Danny, Plane Sailing and Bagpuss (and others) are coming from. If I were DM'ing the situation this would be my ruling.

Piratecat - the only problem with discussing such a thing ahead of time is that when the "spirit of the law" is applied is precisely in those situations where you have NOT discussed it ahead of time or there is no clear written text all can refer to (as Bagpuss said the text of the spell is vague and can be subject to multiple interpretations), so one has to "wing it" based on ... well, lots of things: prior experience, and even "creative inspiration as it hits you in the moment", etc., etc.. I think this is precisely what the OP did. And I agree with his ruling.

Okay ... enough for now. Maybe next time the fungus will not be so vocal in his indignation and provoke so many folks.

 

[Crothian]

Of course, but there are several problems with this: it contradicts the rules.

So what? There are lots of items that are exceptions to the written rule, this is just one of many that do that.