PDA

View Full Version : Overlapping Spell Area Question



Koury
2010-01-15, 05:50 AM
I brought this up in the Q&A thread but want to keep discussing it.

Original question:
Q 78

Say I am a level 5 Wizard casting a Sculpted Hail of Stone. Is there any reason I cannot choose to place all 4 10' cubes in the same spot and deal 20d4 damage to someone? Meteor Swarm comes to mind as a spell that allows overlapping of its own area to deal more damage.

Responses so far:
A78

If I remember the wording of the spell correctly, it is similar to most area damage spells and does not "do damage to the area". I don't see anything prohibiting you from putting all 4 10' cubes in the same spot, but this would not result in 5d4 damage to the area repeated 4 times. The way such spells are worded, it works as a binary check of "is X creature inside the spell's area?", with damage as given dealt to creatures that are and no damage dealt to creatures that aren't. If a creature is in all 4 cubes, which could happen with a large creature even without stacking them in the same spot, then it is in the spell's area and takes the damage - once.

RE: A78

You create a rain of stones that deals 1d4 points of damage per caster level (maximum 5d4) to creatures and objects within the area. Material Component: A piece of jade worth at least 5 gp.
I believe the bolded is what you are referring to. However, it is in 4 separate areas that happen to overlap. Meteor Swarm can affect single individuals multiple times, why not this? And for a more level appropriate example, Magic Missile.

A 78, additional

Assuming for the moment that you can overlap the squares (which seems doubtful, but I don't have a RAW reference to back that up at the moment), you would need to make four separate attack rolls against the target, doing 5d4 damage on each successful roll.

That aside, a potential 20d4 to a single target with a 1st level spell (even using metamagic to up the spell slot by 1) seems excessive, and is almost certainly not RAI.

"The area" is the total of all 10' cubes. A creature is either in the area or not, as far as the spell is concerned.

Meteor Swarm is an exception because it specifies four separate areas and each area, rather than the spell as a whole, does damage. Similarly with Magic Missile, each missile does damage rather than the spell as a whole doing damage.

Sculpt Spell changes the area of a spell but does not change that it is the spell as a whole that does the damage, and the spell only cares about whether a creature is in the area or not, not how many times it is in the (single) area.

Edit: Hail of Stone does not require an attack roll, so Duke of URL's point is irrelevant for this case. It also doesn't allow a save. Or SR. And it's untyped. And an area spell. Yes, this makes it rather difficult to avoid taking full damage. And by "difficult" I mean that, in a level 50 gestalt arena where a typical character is immune to damn near everything it's possible to be immune to, I seriously considered making a character based on using this spell as his primary offense.

OK, so, the spell Caltrops, also from SpC, says in it SPECIFICALLY that the spell does nothing if you target the same square more then once with the same casting. This seems to me like a case of specific overriding general, with the general being that a spell CAN overlap with itself and the effects apply multiple times.

Asheram
2010-01-15, 06:14 AM
I brought this up in the Q&A thread but want to keep discussing it.

OK, so, the spell Caltrops, also from SpC, says in it SPECIFICALLY that the spell does nothing if you target the same square more then once with the same casting. This seems to me like a case of specific overriding general, with the general being that a spell CAN overlap with itself and the effects apply multiple times.


Well, Caltrops is a bad spell to use as an argument as it conjures a passive trap. The spell doesn't do any damage by itself.

Koury
2010-01-15, 06:23 AM
Actually, it does 1 hp of damage.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-15, 06:28 AM
The Area of a spell is listed in it's description. It's not listed in a Magic missile style. Thus, every square listed in the "Area" section is the area.

The spell is written in boolean.

Area = X
IF X=Yes, Then take 5d4
Else End.

There's not multiple areas to the spell. There's 1. Meteor swarm is a spell specifically allowing overlapping area. Without such text, the argument's not strong enough to allow it.

Koury
2010-01-15, 06:46 AM
So why include a line in another spell saying that overlapping is not allowed?

And I agree with your process but why is it not applied to every area? The 4 10' cubes are placed independently.

And why is the burden somehow on me to prove its allowed? If it isn't forbidden somewhere via RAW, isn't it possible?

(Note: I'm not being argumentative, despite how the above reads. I'm just curious :smallbiggrin:)

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-15, 06:57 AM
So why include a line in another spell saying that overlapping is not allowed?

And I agree with your process but why is it not applied to every area? The 4 10' cubes are placed independently.

And why is the burden somehow on me to prove its allowed? If it isn't forbidden somewhere via RAW, isn't it possible?

(Note: I'm not being argumentative, despite how the above reads. I'm just curious :smallbiggrin:)

Well, for starters, Meteor Swarm's text explicitly states it creates multiple seperate areas of effect. Most spells do not. It then goes on to allow multiple overlap, and cumulative damage.

Why include such lines in a level 0 Caltrops spell? Let me counter with this. Which of the two spells is more likely to receive closer scrutiny?

Which is more likely to include helpful clarifications to the inexperienced?

Koury
2010-01-15, 07:03 AM
Well, for starters, Meteor Swarm's text explicitly states it creates multiple seperate areas of effect. Most spells do not. It then goes on to allow multiple overlap, and cumulative damage.

Why include such lines in a level 0 Caltrops spell? Let me counter with this. Which of the two spells is more likely to receive closer scrutiny?

Which is more likely to include helpful clarifications to the inexperienced?

So we have one spell specifically allowing overlap and another specifically denying it.

If I apply Sculpt Spell to Meteor Swarm, what happens? I get multiple sets of 4 cubes? And cubes in the same set of 4 don't stack, but cubes from others do?

olelia
2010-01-15, 08:18 AM
I think this more has to do with similar effects arugments...incoming srd quotes with bolding



Instantaneous Effects
Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.


This specifically says two or more spells...A sculpted spell is still jsut one spell.



Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient.

This seems to innsinuate that the spell would still only do the 5d4 because the spell has only its printed effect on the same recipient even though its 4 times over.

EDIT: On the meteor swarm thing its text explicilty allow to overrule previous said quotes.

Koury
2010-01-15, 08:27 AM
Yeah, there is enough evidence to concede the point on HoS.

On Meteor Swarm though, do you get 4 cubes per normal meteor? And if so, what stacks with what?

Meteor 1 gives cubes a/b/c/d and meteor 2 gives e/f/g/h, etc and Cubes a and e will stack but not a and b? Or can you just murder someone with 16 cubes of doom?

Tyndmyr
2010-01-15, 08:30 AM
OK, so, the spell Caltrops, also from SpC, says in it SPECIFICALLY that the spell does nothing if you target the same square more then once with the same casting. This seems to me like a case of specific overriding general, with the general being that a spell CAN overlap with itself and the effects apply multiple times.

On the other hand, Meteor Storm is the exact opposite.

Edit: Never mind, plenty of others beat me to everything relevant. Suffice it to say, they're correct. It doesn't stack damage unless it explicitly says it does.

Koury
2010-01-15, 08:32 AM
Yeah, I know. But if I can't cherry pick my examples then half my arguments fail :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, that only makes is even more uncertain, if anything. I've conceded HoS not stacking in that fashion, but am curious about Meteor Swarm now.

Douglas
2010-01-15, 08:47 AM
For Meteor Swarm, I think there are two valid interpretations of RAW:
1) You get four separate bursts of your chosen shape, which you are free to place as you like. If you pick the cubes option, stacking works but only between different bursts. Using your wording, a stacks with e but a does not stack with b.
2) You get one burst of your chosen shape and it gets hit four times. If you pick the cubes, you've only got four cubes and they don't stack with each other, but each one gets hit for 6d6 (reflex half) four times.

I favor the first interpretation, but I think both of them are valid.

Koury
2010-01-15, 08:54 AM
If you go with interpretation 1 and stack as much as possible (Cubes a, e, i, m, as it were), you end up with interpretation 2 anyway :smallbiggrin:

That makes sense to me anyway. I think I'm done here. Thanks guys.:smallsmile:

Aracor
2010-01-15, 10:27 AM
What it comes down to is simple. Caltrops COULD fairly easily be cast multiple times on an area with the spell listed as is in the book. Just cast the spell multiple times in the same area, since it has a duration.

Sculpt spell isn't a part of the spell itself. It's an addition. The spell (as listed) doesn't have a possibility of overlapping. So why should it include explicitly saying that it can't do more damage if it overlaps when it doesn't even have an overlap option built into the spell?

Meteor swarm also has the option built into the spell, so it tells you how it responds to the situation.

But in general, I agree that unless a spell explicitly states that it will stack, being affected by the spell has you taking the spell's damage. Otherwise you start getting people saying 'Well, the giant takes up four 5x5 squares, so they should take damage from the fireball four times.' Similar argument for logic, but just as incorrect.