Trap the Soul

[AuraSeer]

Material components, being consumed by spellcasting, simply go "POOF!". They're just gone. The rules do not state they can be recovered, but they do specifically state that the components are consumed.

My point is that the rules don't define exactly what "consumed" means, AFAIK; it's not a term of art in D&D. Saying the components simply vanish into nothingness is one interpretation, and probably the most common one, but not the only valid one. By the English definition, wood can be consumed in fire and still leave plenty of ash and stuff behind.

But the description of the spell makes no mention whatsoever of the gem being altered. It doesn't state that the gem ceases to be a gem, or that its composition is changed at all.

But as you said yourself, an item used as a material component is consumed. Whatever "consumed" means, it always happens to material components. There's no such thing as a material component that doesn't get consumed, because consumption is part of the definition of a component (as opposed to a focus).

IMO your interpretation contradicts the spell statblock, because you're saying the gem is really a focus. My argument is that the statblock means what it says, as long as you don't jump to conclusions about what the word "consumed" means.

I think my interpretation is more interesting than just assuming a typo in the statblock, but I won't insist that you're wrong. It's just another way of considering the problem.

 

[AuraSeer]

Well, the gem used in trap the soul contains the aforementioned soul. Since the only way of unoccupying the gem is to bash it into a million pieces[...]

...or cast dispel magic, or take it into an antimagic area. Trap the soul is permanent, not instantaneous, and therefore it can be dispelled or suppressed.

 

[kreynolds]

My point is that the rules don't define exactly what "consumed" means, AFAIK

No, they don't, but it's pretty obvious to me.

But as you said yourself, an item used as a material component is consumed. Whatever "consumed" means, it always happens to material components. There's no such thing as a material component that doesn't get consumed, because consumption is part of the definition of a component (as opposed to a focus).

And if the gem is consumed, the spell doesn't work. Simple as that.

IMO your interpretation contradicts the spell statblock, because you're saying the gem is really a focus.

No, I'm not. I'm saying its a material component that doesn't get consumed by the casting of the spell. I'm also saying that this spell is the exception to that rule based upon the very clear wording of the text. What part of the text is very clear, you might ask? That the gem isn't consumed.

I think my interpretation is more interesting than just assuming a typo in the statblock...

That may be, but I didn't assume a typo in the statblock. I'm not sure where you got that idea either.

...but I won't insist that you're wrong. It's just another way of considering the problem.

Sounds good to me. Good discussion, by the way.

 

[AuraSeer]

That may be, but I didn't assume a typo in the statblock. I'm not sure where you got that idea either.

I was oversimplifying.
What I meant was that, under your interpretation, the gem is a focus. (A component is always consumed. Anything not consumed therefore must be a focus.) The statblock says it's a component, so for your interpretation to be right, the statblock must be wrong.

Or we could just call this spell a unique exception and go on with our lives. (Nah. )

 

[Christian]

Obviously, there's some room for interpretation here. I'd rule that the destruction of the gem and the freeing of the trapped soul are necessary and sufficient conditions for each other. That is, destroying the jewel frees the soul, and freeing the soul (eg. by Dispel Magic) destroys the gem ...

 

[kreynolds]

I was oversimplifying.

Gotcha.

What I meant was that, under your interpretation, the gem is a focus.

You're doing it again.

The statblock says it's a component, so for your interpretation to be right, the statblock must be wrong.

No, because the spell states otherwise.

Or we could just call this spell a unique exception and go on with our lives. (Nah. )

Now _that_ is and has been my interpretation!

 

[kreynolds]

Obviously, there's some room for interpretation here. I'd rule that the destruction of the gem and the freeing of the trapped soul are necessary and sufficient conditions for each other. That is, destroying the jewel frees the soul, and freeing the soul (eg. by Dispel Magic) destroys the gem ...

I don't like the idea of destroying a 20,000 gp gem because it was dispelled, seems more like a slap in the face of a player than anything else, kinda like old drow items in sunlight.

 

[Norfleet]

There's no real evidence of whether or not trap the soul can be dispelled, or what the effect of dispelling it is.

Furthermore, there's evidence to suggest that a gem used in trap the soul doesn't lose its gemlike properties. One article in Dragon Magazine, I forget exactly which issue, but the one about monster pairs, suggested the pairing of a lich with a tarrasque, with the lich using the trap the soul gem with a tarrasque in it as a phylactery, so that, by smashing it, you release the tarrasque.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Soul bind can be cast repeatedly using the same gem. Said gem can also be used for other spells subsequently.

Trap the soul can only be cast once using a given gem, and said gem cannot be subsequently used for a spell which requires a 'gem'.

Beyond that - the how and why - is all flavour, and dependant upon the DM.

 

[kreynolds]

Trap the soul can only be cast once using a given gem, and said gem cannot be subsequently used for a spell which requires a 'gem'.

Where do you get that from?