PDA

View Full Version : Spell Turning and targeting



PhoenixRivers
2010-04-01, 01:08 AM
Redirected from:
Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8194978&postcount=1512).
Addendum: Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8194872&postcount=1514)
Relevant responses: Initial Response (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8194890&postcount=1515)

Rebuttal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8194427&postcount=1517)

Disagreement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8195074&postcount=1521)

Counterpoint (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8196098&postcount=1525)

Disagreement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8196322&postcount=1527)

Counter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8196874&postcount=1529)

Discuss.

SethFahad
2010-04-01, 01:17 AM
I'm not considering my self a Rules-Lawyer, therefore I won't say a thing.
I'll just sit, right here {sits} beside the fireplace and eat my pop-corn...

So don't use Smite- Buffoonery on me, ok? :smallsigh:

BobVosh
2010-04-01, 01:27 AM
The intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magical effect. If a targeted spell is successful, its recipient is known as the subject of the spell.

Does being the recipient make you the target?

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-01, 01:29 AM
The intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magical effect. If a targeted spell is successful, its recipient is known as the subject of the spell.

Does being the recipient make you the target?

I would posit that Spell Turning makes the spell Unsuccessful. It did not do what was intended, much as a scroll mishap or wild magic zone might alter the intended effect of the spell.

BobVosh
2010-04-01, 01:31 AM
Unless the spell fails (which would nerf spell turning a lot), it does successfully resolve.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-01, 01:35 AM
Unless the spell fails (which would nerf spell turning a lot), it does successfully resolve.

Just because it has an effect, doesn't mean it's successful. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm#scrollMishaps)

For something to be a success, it needs to do what it was supposed to do. If it does not do what it was intended to do, was not successful.

BobVosh
2010-04-01, 01:42 AM
I'm going to yield the floor as that is a silly argument, that unfortunately makes perfect sense within RAW.

Well played, sir.

Also for my 2 cents: spell turning makes a new target, which is legal for spell battle. Possibly not RAW, but makes sense to me. Hopefully it doesn't come up much.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-01, 01:47 AM
I'm going to yield the floor as that is a silly argument, that unfortunately makes perfect sense within RAW.

Well played, sir.

Also for my 2 cents: spell turning makes a new target, which is legal for spell battle. Possibly not RAW, but makes sense to me. Hopefully it doesn't come up much.

It's not for spell-battle. That was being used as a counter example, where it DOES reference a target.

The specific was on an effect that is keyed to a spell being targeted on the effect's bearer. Specifically, a Spellblade weapon.

Emmerask
2010-04-01, 01:56 AM
I think it is exactly what's asked. Spell Turning doesn't change the nature of the turned spell, which is that it must be targeted. As it changes the recipient back to the caster, that is a retargeting, even without using that specific term.

this is correct because otherwise this:


If you and a spellcasting attacker are both warded by spell turning effects in operation, a resonating field is created.

would not happen if itīs not a targeted spell anymore. So a retargeting must have happened even though it is not clearly stated.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-01, 02:12 AM
would not happen if itīs not a targeted spell anymore. So a retargeting must have happened even though it is not clearly stated.

Specific effect, specific exception.

Your argument is just as valid as saying that Wall of force isn't a magic effect, because it's not affected by Antimagic Field. Specific exceptions called out in spell descriptions are handled differently than standard. That's why they're called out specifically. Because they're exceptions.

SethFahad
2010-04-01, 02:27 AM
Say... why don't we call Claudius Maximus and ask him what he meant with his question in the first place???
As I understand it, a spell is cast, the spell reaches its target but due to spell turning its been cast back to the original caster (and not anyone else).
Sounds like casting was perfect (no-missfire) but the damn target messed the casters attempt (tricky bastard) and drawn an Ace-of-spades from his sleeve...

Hmmm... a picture comes to my head... A petrifying gaze of a medusa, and a mirror in the end.... bam.

:smalleek:

I was...just thinking aloud.... :smallbiggrin:

Ozymandias9
2010-04-01, 02:27 AM
Humm. This is an interesting one. I'm going to side with the target not changing, even though I would never rule that way as a DM.

The random elements of both the partial turning effect and the resonance effect both create opportunity for unsuccessful resolution with an effect other than the spell failing to complete. Thus, we know that spell turning is capable of making it so that a spell has an effect despite the target of a spell not becoming its subject. Those sections also require that it is capable of causing a turned spell to have at least a partial effect on someone other than the target. Since extrapolating this to the general case for the resolution of spell turning would be sufficient to make the spell behave as described, it would seem the most parsimonious explanation.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-01, 02:36 AM
Exactly. I'm not arguing that it makes 100% sense. I'm arguing that there is nothing in Spell Turning to suggest that it changes the target. In absence of that, one should only conclude that it doesn't.

Say... why don't we call Claudius Maximus and ask him what he meant with his question in the first place???

Claudius raised the question in direct response to a post that I made to him.

Specifically, the issue of whether spell turning alters the target is relevant to a spellblade gauntlet, which absorbs a specific spell, but only if it's targeted at the wearer.

If the caster casts such a spell, and it's turned (as it was in the specific instance referenced), then the spellblade gauntlet could only absorb the spell if Spell Turning actually changes the target.

Irreverent Fool
2010-04-01, 03:39 AM
Exactly. I'm not arguing that it makes 100% sense. I'm arguing that there is nothing in Spell Turning to suggest that it changes the target. In absence of that, one should only conclude that it doesn't.


Claudius raised the question in direct response to a post that I made to him.

Specifically, the issue of whether spell turning alters the target is relevant to a spellblade gauntlet, which absorbs a specific spell, but only if it's targeted at the wearer.

If the caster casts such a spell, and it's turned (as it was in the specific instance referenced), then the spellblade gauntlet could only absorb the spell if Spell Turning actually changes the target.

In a game, I would say yes it triggers targeting effects only because I recall a WotC source making reference to spells bouncing back and forth between spell turning on two different casters, and such examples often serve to clarify the rules. I lack specific citation, however and I admit that I may be relying on knowledge of 2e that still lingers on in my brain. I see nothing in the RAW that says spell turning causes the spell to acquire a new target.

Furthermore, previous posters' arguments of:
"target" means "the one who receives the effect"
Therefore "the one who receives the effect" means "target"
commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent, if I recall my Logic.
Further example: "An apple is a fruit."
Therefore, "A fruit is an apple."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Edit: I forgot about the "resonating field" bit.

obnoxious
sig

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-01, 03:49 AM
In a game, I would say yes it triggers targeting effects only because I recall a WotC source making reference to spells bouncing back and forth between spell turning on two different casters, and such examples often serve to clarify the rules. I lack specific citation, however and I admit that I may be relying on knowledge of 2e that still lingers on in my brain. I see nothing in the RAW that says spell turning causes the spell to acquire a new target.

Furthermore, I previous posters' arguments of:
"target" = "the one who receives the effect"
Therefore "the one who receives the effect" = "target"
is a fallacy.


In a game, I'd rule it the same way. Then, in a game, I'd likely have an issue or two with a spellblade enhancement.

However, I've seen no evidence to support the target change in Spell Turning. The way I see it, if it exists, someone here's probably seen it. So if you're right on that WotC source, it should be citable by someone.

KillianHawkeye
2010-04-01, 08:13 AM
As I understand it, a spell is cast, the spell reaches its target but due to spell turning its been cast back to the original caster (and not anyone else).
Sounds like casting was perfect (no-missfire) but the damn target messed the casters attempt (tricky bastard) and drawn an Ace-of-spades from his sleeve...

Hmmm... a picture comes to my head... A petrifying gaze of a medusa, and a mirror in the end.... bam.

:smalleek:

I was...just thinking aloud.... :smallbiggrin:

You've activated my TRAP CARD!!!1!1 :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

bosssmiley
2010-04-01, 08:40 AM
{Scrubbed}

Claudius Maximus
2010-04-01, 10:07 AM
It's looking to me that PhoenixRivers is correct, by RAW. Spell Turning changes the subject, but not the target.

I'd still like to see that WotC statement, if it exists.

Ozymandias9
2010-04-01, 02:06 PM
It's looking to me that PhoenixRivers is correct, by RAW. Spell Turning changes the subject, but not the target.

I'd still like to see that WotC statement, if it exists.

I doubt there is one.

And since we're at least attempting a RAW discussion, it wouldn't change the "subject", but rather the "effect": "subject" is reserved for something affected by a successful targeted spell.

Curmudgeon
2010-04-01, 03:15 PM
I'm not arguing that it makes 100% sense. I'm arguing that there is nothing in Spell Turning to suggest that it changes the target. In absence of that, one should only conclude that it doesn't.

Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster.
target

The intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magical effect. If a targeted spell is successful, its recipient is known as the subject of the spell. Spell Turning only works on targeted spells. If Spell Turning is successful, it changes the intended recipient of the turned spell. The first spell remains targeted, but after Spell Turning it meets the definition of having as its target its original caster.

"Turned back upon the original caster" = "change the intended recipient to the original caster". Lacking any D&D defined terms for this action, we use English terms. As the original spell remains targeted, but is now going elsewhere, it's got a new target. We're forced to abide by the single D&D term which is defined here: "target". There's nothing else in the D&D rules that covers this case.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-01, 03:21 PM
Spell Turning only works on targeted spells. If Spell Turning is successful, it changes the intended recipient of the turned spell. The first spell remains targeted, but after Spell Turning it meets the definition of having as its target its original caster.

"Turned back upon the original caster" = "change the intended recipient to the original caster". Lacking any D&D defined terms for this action, we use English terms. As the original spell remains targeted, but is now going elsewhere, it's got a new target. We're forced to abide by the single D&D term which is defined here: "target". There's nothing else in the D&D rules that covers this case.

"Turned back upon the original caster" = "change the intended recipient to the original caster".

THIS is the statement that you have nothing to support.

It does not change the intended recipient. It changes the final effect. But the Intended recipient is the one that the caster intended to target.

The person who casts spell turning makes no choices. He does not direct the effect. He could have any number of intents. The spell has no intent.

The only intent that is guaranteed is that the original caster intended to choose the target he designated.

ANYTHING beyond that, with respect to intent, is pure speculation.

marjan
2010-04-01, 03:26 PM
"Turned back upon the original caster" = "change the intended recipient to the original caster". Lacking any D&D defined terms for this action, we use English terms. As the original spell remains targeted, but is now going elsewhere, it's got a new target. We're forced to abide by the single D&D term which is defined here: "target". There's nothing else in the D&D rules that covers this case.

Fixed. There is difference between recipient and intended recipient.

Curmudgeon
2010-04-01, 04:10 PM
It does not change the intended recipient. It changes the final effect. But the Intended recipient is the one that the caster intended to target.

The person who casts spell turning makes no choices. He does not direct the effect.
Do you have any support for this bolded statement?
AIMING A SPELL
You must make some choice about whom the spell is to affect or where the effect is to originate, depending on the type of spell.
The person who casts Spell Turning certainly intends to turn targeted spells back on their casters; they make that choice when they cast Spell Turning on themselves. If that original spell successfully discharges on its caster, Spell Turning has succeeded. And that makes the original caster meet the D&D definition of "target".

You're assuming that "intended recipient" requires knowing a name or description of that recipient. The rules only stipulate that "you must make some choice about whom the spell is to affect".

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-01, 05:05 PM
Do you have any support for this bolded statement?Sure. Let's investigate.

Person A: has spell turning.
Person B: Is his party member, who has been dominated.
Person C: Is the hostile caster.

Let's say person B casts a Save or Die on Person A. Person A desperately wants to leave person B alive, and kill person C. When person B casts that save or die, does spell turning allow Person A any choice in who gets affected? Because he'd LOVE to hit person C with that save or die. And he really doesn't intend to kill person B.

No. Because Person A has no control over that effect.

The person who casts Spell Turning certainly intends to turn targeted spells back on their casters; they make that choice when they cast Spell Turning on themselves. If that original spell successfully discharges on its caster, Spell Turning has succeeded. And that makes the original caster meet the D&D definition of "target".

You're assuming that "intended recipient" requires knowing a name or description of that recipient. The rules only stipulate that "you must make some choice about whom the spell is to affect".

Incorrect. Last time I had my PC's cast that, I had them do it with the sole intent of not being affected by counterspells. Where the spell went? They couldn't care less.

And you make no choice on who the spell affects. After Spell Turning is cast (before the turned spell has any choices made), can the caster of spell turning change any turned spell's target?

Let's say that the person with spell turning wants to capture the enemy spellcaster alive. Do you think that person intends to turn a save or die effect?

There are a lot of things that you speculate and assume as fact with no evidence to support you. At this point, even the person that originally asked the question disagrees with you.

Lysander
2010-04-01, 05:37 PM
I think it would have to change the target because otherwise a lot of spells with "the target" in their descriptions would no longer make sense. For example look at Charm Person:


This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly).

If the target doesn't change then you'd turn the spell but still have your attitude changed, which makes no sense. Or look at baleful polymorph, which switches between refering to the "target" and the "subject" in its description.


The target loses all the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features.

So now since the spell is turned its caster turns into an animal, but the person protected by spell turning still loses all class features?

Irreverent Fool
2010-04-01, 05:39 PM
And that makes the original caster meet the D&D definition of "target".

Please see my previous post. Things that share a definition are not necessarily identical things. Compare "paralysis" and "dexterity reduced to 0".

obnoxious
sig

Curmudgeon
2010-04-01, 05:54 PM
When person B casts that save or die, does spell turning allow Person A any choice in who gets affected? Because he'd LOVE to hit person C with that save or die. And he really doesn't intend to kill person B.
Regrets after the fact aren't relevant. Person A does intend to have spells that would kill him sent back to the caster when he casts Spell Turning; he makes that choice when he casts the spell. A Cleric who casts Spell Resistance may have regrets later when an ally's beneficial spell fails because of SR, but that doesn't change the original intent: to resist incoming spells.

Also, Lysander's point regarding spell description consistency is a good one. Spell subject and spell target are used interchangeably. The game doesn't provide options for separating the two concepts.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-01, 06:14 PM
Regrets after the fact aren't relevant.
But intent BEFORE the fact are.

"The fact" being the casting of the spell that is turned. When that spell is cast, and targeted, the person with spell turning has zero intent to hit his dominated ally. That is quite relevant.


Person A does intend to have spells that would kill him sent back to the caster when he casts Spell Turning; he makes that choice when he casts the spell.Assumption not supported by fact. The only thing that is absolutely certain that the caster intended was to cast spell turning. Beyond that, no.


A Cleric who casts Spell Resistance may have regrets later when an ally's beneficial spell fails because of SR, but that doesn't change the original intent: to resist incoming spells.However, that intent is irrelevant. Why? Because those spells aren't referencing future targets. Any target choices for those spells are made when they are cast.

You are assuming facts that are not supported by proof, and basing your fragile house of cards on that.


Also, Lysander's point regarding spell description consistency is a good one. Spell subject and spell target are used interchangeably. The game doesn't provide options for separating the two concepts.
Lysander's point is like saying that the paint on the walls can't be blue, because that might clash with the carpet.

It has zero relevance on the actual facts of the color of the wall.

Curmudgeon
2010-04-01, 06:55 PM
"The fact" being the casting of the spell that is turned. When that spell is cast, and targeted, the person with spell turning has zero intent to hit his dominated ally. That is quite relevant.
Not by the rules.
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect. The intent is fixed when Spell Turning is cast. Anything after that is irrelevant (i.e., isn't a rules issue).

Lysander
2010-04-01, 07:12 PM
Lysander's point is like saying that the paint on the walls can't be blue, because that might clash with the carpet.

It has zero relevance on the actual facts of the color of the wall.

I don't understand the analogy. Some spells specifically say "target" in their descriptions.

lesser_minion
2010-04-01, 07:22 PM
Lysander's point is like saying that the paint on the walls can't be blue, because that might clash with the carpet.

It has zero relevance on the actual facts of the color of the wall.

Spell Turning wouldn't work if the spell's target was still the intended one. Your analogy is inappropriate.


"The fact" being the casting of the spell that is turned. When that spell is cast, and targeted, the person with spell turning has zero intent to hit his dominated ally. That is quite relevant.

Your dominated friend did not want to target a spell at you, yet he was quite capable of doing so You have demonstrated that your intent is to reflect a spell targeted at you upon its caster, no matter who that may be. Otherwise you wouldn't have cast the spell. It's the spell effect that's reflecting the spell, not you, so why are your wishes at the time the spell turning comes into play relevant exactly? Arguably, spell turning is a 'special resistance to magic', so you could have chosen to eschew it and spare your friend.

In the end, the only time your intent as far as affecting certain people matters is when you demonstrate that you actually do intend to target your friend.

Say you picked up a coinpurse on the street and cast scrying to find it's owner. No matter how much you don't want to scry on a specific person (for whatever reason), that doesn't make them somehow "not the target" if it turns out to be their purse.