Orb of Fire and Metamagic Shenanigans

[JKTrickster]

So my friend raised a really weird question about Orb of Fire.

He stated that due to the nature of Orb of Fire, that is cannot benefit from the following metamagic feats:

1. Empower Spell
2. Maximize Spell
3. Invisible Spell
4. Searing Spell

Now granted he kind of makes sense for Invisible spell, how does this make any sense for the other three? Here is his argument:

(Note, it references a "field" which is an Anti-Magic Field that Orb of Fire is being cast into. The Orb of Fire in question has these 4 metamagic feats applied to it. The "White Lady" is the person who is the target of the spell)


The question then becomes "Is Orb of Fire an instantaneous conjuration"?

From one point of view, Orb of Acid is a Conjuration spell with an Instantaneous duration. The effect of the spell is "One orb of acid" that deals "1d6 points of acid damage per caster level". So, damage is not a variable component of the spell, but a result of being hit with the orb that was created by the spell. So Maximize, Empower, etc have no effect.

Alternatively, Orb of Acid is not an "instantaneous conjuration" because the result doesn't persist beyond the duration of the spell, like that of create water. Take for instance Minor Creation. It is a Conjuration (Creation) effect that lasts for 1 hour/level. So, based upon the rules for AMF, such a conjuration would wink out while within the region of the field. Clearly, Conjuration (Creation) effects do not have a special exemption. Can the results of Orb of Acid be harvested? It doesn't appear so. Which indicates that the result does not persist beyond the duration of the spell, and that it is therefore stopped by the field.

Regardless, the Invisible and Searing nature of the conjuration are nullified. Searing says "creatures affected by the spell": in the first case, there are none, as the effect is the Orb itself, and in the second because it cannot penetrate the AMF.

So, the DM ruling must be that the Crab Attack has no effect, either because it can't penetrate the AMF, or because the White Lady has immunity to fire.


In other words playground, does Orb of Fire work with Empower, Maximize, Invisible, and Searing?

[Big Fau]

Those feats affect the spell itself, not the actual orb produced. They alter the text of the spell so that the effect it produces (the orb of fire) gains those benefits.


Your friend's statement makes no sense at all.


Edit: AMFs do not have any effect on Metamagic (nor, strangely, Metapsionic) feats. They still modify the spells normally. The only time an AMF matters for a metamagic feat is if the caster is affected by the AMF itself, in which case the caster can't cast spells anyway.

[OracleofSilence]

interesting idea, but horrible argument. your friend is overthinking this. tell him to lay of the discrete mathematics

[Fox Box Socks]

Maximize / Empower / Whatever works fine on Orb of Fire because Orb of Fire is a spell that deals damage, and dealing damage is all Maximize / Empower / Whatever cares about.

Tell your friend to stop killing catgirls.

[JKTrickster]

I know that was what I have been trying to explain to him but I don't think that he's entirely convinced.

What is the most RAW-heavy argument that Orb of Fire indeed bypasses an AMF and with all those metamagic feats attached?

[Urpriest]

I know that was what I have been trying to explain to him but I don't think that he's entirely convinced.

What is the most RAW-heavy argument that Orb of Fire indeed bypasses an AMF and with all those metamagic feats attached?

It is Instantaneous, it is a Conjuration, feats are Ex unless otherwise specified, Metamagic isn't otherwise specified, and Metamagic changes the spell itself, not the in-world magical event, because the latter isn't a game object.

[Zaq]

Note that nothing in AMF says that only instantaneous conjurations that stick around are unaffected by it. It's just instantaneous conjurations. That's it.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

It is Instantaneous, it is a Conjuration, feats are Ex unless otherwise specified, Metamagic isn't otherwise specified, and Metamagic changes the spell itself, not the in-world magical event, because the latter isn't a game object.

QED, metamagic it to hell and back!

[JKTrickster]

Here are some things he said:



1. Like I said, there are two different interpretations. You cannot have both simultaneously. Personally, I would tend toward the second, wherein "instantaneous conjuration" does not automatically mean "a Conjuration spell of Instantaneous duration". Healing spells are generally Instantaneous Conjuration spells. Magical healing received does not go away once you enter the field. That doesn't mean you can heal someone in a field (say, with a Mass Heal). This is clearly the intent of the rules.

2. In order for Empower, Maximize, or Searing to have effect, the Orb would have to be magical in nature. If that's the case, it's nullified by the field.

3. Either the direct effects of the spell include the damage dealt, in which case the Orb is magical, or is limited to the creation of an Orb with certain properties, as determined by your caster level, etc.

4. Does that mean an Invisible Create Water creates invisible water? Actually... Invisible Summon Monster sounds really, really, good.

5. Absolutely not. No. Nonono. There will be no semantic games here. Forbidden. Either nobody is affected (because the sole result was the creation of an orb), or everybody is affected (by the butterfly effect). Or, the magical orb is a part of the spell, and it cannot penetrate the AMF.

[Zaq]

Oh. So your GM just wants things to be like this, but rather than having the balls to say "I think Orb of Fire is overpowered and I don't want it to [exist/work this way] (pick your favorite) in my game," he's employing these really weird and out-there interpretations to somehow convince himself that it does work the way he wants them to.

Houseruling is fine. Limiting PC power is fine. Placing constraints on your game is fine. I recommend doing all of these things. But for the love of Pun-Pun, own up to the fact that you're doing it!

Basically, when you run it through the translator (I'm pretty sure BabelFish has a "Prevaricator" setting, right?), your GM isn't saying that the feats don't work. He's saying that he desperately wants them to not work. He won't admit it and just ban the spell, change it to Evocation, or whatever, so he's pulling this crap. You can't win, because you're not actually talking about what the rules do. You're talking about what the GM wants the rules to do. I'd respect him if he actually said what he meant.

And for the record, yes, Invisible Create Water creates invisible water. That's kind of exactly what the feat does. What else could it possibly do?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

The spell itself is an instantaneous Conjuration (Creation) spell. All three of those things allow the orbs to go through an AMF.

Metamagic feats change the nature of the spell. Those, when applied to the above, it alters what is created. Normally, the Orb of Fire does Xd6 damage. You slap on Empower, and now that hot piece of fire is more fiery, dealing (1.5*X)d6 fire damage. The same follows for other metamagic feats.

Point 2 is applying "common sense" to magic and the rules: don't do that, especially here. It does, in fact, mean nothing.

Point 3 rides on point 2 and thus holds no weight. The spell generates nonmagical fire, yes, but metamagics would effect the spell itself, thus altering the nature of the orb created.

To point 4, yes, Invisible SM X spawns an invisible summoned monster. Same goes for created things like water, stone walls, and others. It is part of the reason why Invisible Spell is so silly.

Point 5 is drawing absurd conclusions from these premises. It works, because metamagics effect the spell, which in-turn effect the results of said spell. In this case, the fire being chucked. Nonmagically, too.

EDIT: The argument that metamagics can't work on this spell means nothing, as it boils down to a gigantic non-sequiter.

[Fox Box Socks]

Yeah, that sounds like he very much wants Anti Magic Sphere to shut off all of the Wizard's options, and has found an argument that leads to his conclusion rather than reading the text itself.

There is absolutely nothing written in the metamagic description that says that it only applies to effects that are magical in nature. Your friend is grasping at straws.

[Urpriest]

1. Hey, I've never come across that example before. However, it doesn't work. Antimagic Field specifies that it doesn't stop the effects of instantaneous conjurations. Mass Heal and Heal have no Effect: line, while the Orb spells do.

2. Has no rules support. Metamagic feats modify the spell no matter how magical its effects. If it's a die roll in the spell description then empower and kin affect it.

3. False dichotomy. The direct effects of a spell can be nonmagical.

4. Invisible Spell is fun, yes. I'm actually rather annoyed that there's no psionic equivalent, it made some shenanigans possible in my psionic tippyverse game.

5. This sounds like a summary rather than an argument, but the butterfly effect part is interesting. However, D&D has a very specific definition of effect: the thing in the Effect: line. That's the relevant bit.

[erikun]

I would say that yes, you can have an Empowered Maximized Invisible Searing Orb of Fire, and if you DM wishes to disallow it, then Orb of Fire would not work inside an Antimagic Field.

There is no logic that an Empowerd spell is uses seperate magic to hold the empowered effect. To use his own example: An Empowered Cure Light Wounds heals more than a standard Cure Light Wounds. These additional hit points do not go away when stepping inside an Antimagic Field; There is not a seperate "Empowerment" magic that gives additional hit points, outside of the spell, which can be supressed seperately. By the rules of the game, an Empowered Cure Light Wounds behaves like a 3rd level spell that grants more hit points than the basic, 1st level Cure Light Wounds.

Your DM would be best advised to rule if spells like Orb of Fire, which create "obviously" magical effects, can be thrown inside an Antimagic Field or not. If they can, then metamagic would work as usual. If not, then the point is moot.

[dextercorvia]

Houseruling is fine. Limiting PC power is fine. Placing constraints on your game is fine. I recommend doing all of these things. But for the love of Pun-Pun, own up to the fact that you're doing it!

May I sig this?

[Zaq]

I'd be honored.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ask your friend (not sure if I missed this bit, but I don't recall you saying he's the DM, so "wishful thinking" arguments among the Playgroundere are just that--wishful thinking), if you summon a monster with an Extended Summon Monster spell, and the monster walks into an antimagic field, is the monster blinked out of this plane of existence, the duration of its stay reduced to its normal duration, or neither?

There is a very important distinction to be made here about the difference between the spell and its effect. The orb of fire spell is instantaneous because the only magic involved is the casting of the spell itself--the fire is mundane and nonmagical in nature. The orb of fire spell is what the Metamagic effects are being applied to, not the orb of fire itself (it modifies the paramaters of the spell such that the very creation of the orb is different--that the orb itself is different is simply a result of these changes).

The Summon Monster line of spells is the same--the monster called into this plane is not particularly magical (it may have magical properties, which antimagic field would suppress), so antimagic field does not "suppress" it out of existence. The Metamagic feat Extend Spell, similarly, was applied to the spell that summoned the monster, not the monster itself; as a result, there is no lingering "Extend Spell" effect that exists on the monster when it happens upon the antimagic field, so that is not suppressed, either.

Remember that antimagic field suppresses magical spell effects, as well as spells. The nonmagical orb of fire, as well as the summoned monster, and the Metamagic effects applied to each, are neither.

[tyckspoon]

The Summon Monster line of spells is the same--the monster called into this plane is not particularly magical (it may have magical properties, which antimagic field would suppress), so antimagic field does not "suppress" it out of existence.


Erm. It does, actually. They get a SR check against it if the summoned creature has SR, but other than that AMFs do null out summoned creatures. And incorporeal undead, for some reason, because incorporealness is inherently magical? I wouldn't look too close at that one.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Erm. It does, actually. They get a SR check against it if the summoned creature has SR, but other than that AMFs do null out summoned creatures. And incorporeal undead, for some reason, because incorporealness is inherently magical? I wouldn't look too close at that one.

By Jove, you're right! I just re-read the text for antimagic field and summoned monsters absolutely do wink out of existence, though they re-appear once the field leaves, the spell meanwhile acting as if time was moving normally (meaning the answer to my question was actually D - none of the above: the monster winks out of existence, but the metamagic feat applied to it does not!). The text also spends a better part of the page explaining that it winks summoned monsters out of existence, but not magical creatures of the same type, or magically animated constructs (unless they were summoned magically animated constructs), outsiders, corporeal undead (echoing the sentiment above), any instantaneous Conjuration spell (including the reason why) or monsters summoned with Conjuration (calling) spells. HRNG, INCONSISTENCIES!

Anyway, disregard my post, I suppose, as I'm clearly wrong about the Summon Monster line... Or, if you'd like, simply ask him about a metamagicked Conjuration (Calling) spell instead.

[NecroRick]

My initial reaction was "bwuh?"

but, without reading his reasoning, I think I can actually take aguess at what he is saying.

also - please don't flame me, I'm not taking the other guys side, I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

The reasoning would go something like this.
1 spells dont work inside an AMF
2 we know that orbs do do damage inside an AMF
3 how can we reconcile this? It must be that the damage is done by the thing the orb spell summons. Eg the orb spell summons some acid and shoots it at the target and then immediately ends. It is the ACID that does the damage, not the spell that summoned the acid. The spell has ended and it is only momentum that is carrying the orb into the AMF. The spell 'must' have ended otherwise the AMF would kill it.
4 So therefore the spell isn't around and thus the empower and other feats are also gone by the time the acid (not the spell) deals damage

you could make a similar analogy to a monster summoning spell. You can maximise the spell, but that doesn't mean that the monsters hit points are maximised, and it doesn't mean that the monster does maximum damage whenever it hits...

[JKTrickster]

I actually believe that is his argument. In that case, is it valid? What are the main points against it? I think he's trying to say I shouldn't be able to apply Metamagic to Orb of Fire, or I shouldn't be able to cast Orb of Fire into an AMF - either way I can't have both.

[Urpriest]

I actually believe that is his argument. In that case, is it valid? What are the main points against it? I think he's trying to say I shouldn't be able to apply Metamagic to Orb of Fire, or I shouldn't be able to cast Orb of Fire into an AMF - either way I can't have both.

Because the spell being around has no bearing on whether the metamagic has taken effect. Again, the end result of an Empowered Cure Light Wounds remains Empowered in an AMF because the spell has already been cast.

[NecroRick]

Because the spell being around has no bearing on whether the metamagic has taken effect. Again, the end result of an Empowered Cure Light Wounds remains Empowered in an AMF because the spell has already been cast.

Ah, but what would happen if you cast an empowered cause light wounds, then went to deliver your touch attack against someone in an AMF??

[Kaeso]

I think your friends argument kind of makes sense. If you 'summon' an orb of fire, you can't apply maximize or empower spells to it, in the same way you can't summon a 'maximized, empowered' fiendish spider. Those metamagic feats wouldn't increase the damage the spider does with each of his attacks. The orb line kind of works the same.

So in conclusion, WotC should've but the Orb of X line in evocation :smallsigh:

[Boci]

I think your friends argument kind of makes sense. If you 'summon' an orb of fire, you can't apply maximize or empower spells to it, in the same way you can't summon a 'maximized, empowered' fiendish spider. Those metamagic feats wouldn't increase the damage the spider does with each of his attacks. The orb line kind of works the same.

But you can maximize and empower the magic that summons the creatures, so I don't see why you couldn't maximize the magic that creates the non-magical fire in orb of fire.

[Urpriest]

But you can maximize and empower the magic that summons the creatures, so I don't see why you couldn't maximize the magic that creates the non-magical fire in orb of fire.

Precisely. Empowering and Maximizing the summoning spells increases the number of creatures because it is a variable in the spell text. The monster's hit points and damage are not. Game mechanics care about textual details, not (directly) in-world ones. The text of the orb spells lists their damage. If the spells instead summoned some elemental that was detailed as a creature somewhere else and that determined the damage, then you couldn't maximize them.


Ah, but what would happen if you cast an empowered cause light wounds, then went to deliver your touch attack against someone in an AMF??

The touch attack isn't an Effect: of the power, though, so you can't deliver it in an AMF anyway.

[NecroRick]

Given all that, then the obvious way to suggest to your friend that those feats somehow reach into the AMF is not to put it like that... but rather to suggest that a maximised or empowered orb of acid does more damage because it summons more acid to start with.

[ericgrau]

By RAW those feats work. By common sense the orb of fire itself is a 40 page debate, let alone altering it.

[Keld Denar]

I think your friends argument kind of makes sense. If you 'summon' an orb of fire, you can't apply maximize or empower spells to it, in the same way you can't summon a 'maximized, empowered' fiendish spider. Those metamagic feats wouldn't increase the damage the spider does with each of his attacks. The orb line kind of works the same.

No...not quite.

If you cast an Empowered Summon Monster III, and you got one monster off the SMIII list, the feat would have no effect since there are no variable components to affect.

If you cast an Empowered Summon Monster III, and you get 1d3 things off the SMII list, you would instead get (1d3) x 1.5 creatures, since the only variable in the text now is how many creatures you get. IF you got 1d4+1 things off the SMI list, you'd get (1d4+1) x 1.5. Empower doesn't affect the stats of the creature summoned, because the stats of the creature summoned aren't part of the spell effect.

Contrast to Orb of Fire. It does xd6 damage. That damage IS part of the spell effect. Thus, Empowered Orb of Fire would deal (xd6) x 1.5.

JKTrickster, your friend is arguing that a spell can't both have a non-magical effect AND be affected by Metamagic. This is a false dichotomy. As shown above, spell effects CAN very much be both non-magical and affected by Metamagic. When you build your argument off a flawed premise, the logic doesn't hold up.

[erikun]

I think your friends argument kind of makes sense. If you 'summon' an orb of fire, you can't apply maximize or empower spells to it, in the same way you can't summon a 'maximized, empowered' fiendish spider.
It's called the Augment Summoning feat, but it does exactly that: The Fiendish Spider has higher stats, thus dealing more damage and having more HP than a standard summoned Fiendish Spider. And as Keld Denar pointed out, you can Empower/Maximize a summon spell and have it effect the results of the spell.

[Divide by Zero]

Fluff-wise, the orbs except for acid make no sense. Fire and lightning can't exist without a sustaining source, cold isn't even a thing, and sonic is just weird. Trying to make sense out of applying metamagic to them is a lost cause.

Empowered/Maximized orb of fire just produces hotter fire. It won't suddenly become less hot if it hits an AMF. Invisible orb of fire makes invisible fire. There's no reason why that should necessarily be magical, especially given the already nonsensical fluff of the spell.

[NecroRick]

No...not quite.
Contrast to Orb of Fire. It does xd6 damage. That damage IS part of the spell effect. Thus, Empowered Orb of Fire would deal (xd6) x 1.5.


IF the damage IIIIISSSSSS part of the SSSSSPPPPPEEEEELLLLLLLLLL effect then 'logically' *cough* neither it nor the metamagic attached to it / enhancing it would work in the AMF - which is rather the point I believe that the original parent's buddy was trying to make.

[JKTrickster]

Instead of answering my points (as all of you have really helped me out with that, thanks :smallbiggrin:) he said this instead:


I'm willing to give it to you on one condition, and one condition only. Find for me a nonmagical attack or effect that does a fixed amount of damage. (I know caltrops deal 1 point of damage, but I'm looking for something that does a significant amount, not minimum.) It can be anything: a trap, weapon, or alchemical substance; I don't care what, so long as it isn't magic. Do that, and I'll concede that it's possible for a non-magical orb to do a fixed amount of damage, as a Maximized Orb of Fire would, and grant the other metamagic effects (that is, Searing) as well. Otherwise, the created orb is magical (either by nature, or by the metamagic effects) and therefore suppressed.

Meanwhile, you should concede that the rules for metamagic effects were not written with AMF in mind. It looks to me like they modify the parameters of casting, and once the spell is done, they're done as well.

So is this reasonable? I don't see how these two are related.

And he mentioned that the idea of Invisible Non-supernatural Water that doesn't go away in an AMF is ridiculous (a.k.a. Invisible Create Water)

Is there a way to prove that the rules support that? If it does, then he can't say anything about my Orb of Fire right?

[MeeposFire]

Instead of answering my points (as all of you have really helped me out with that, thanks :smallbiggrin:) he said this instead:



So is this reasonable? I don't see how these two are related.

And he mentioned that the idea of Invisible Non-supernatural Water that doesn't go away in an AMF is ridiculous (a.k.a. Invisible Create Water)

Is there a way to prove that the rules support that? If it does, then he can't say anything about my Orb of Fire right?

Reasonable no possible yes.

Weapon master prc and any weapon use their ability to maximize a damage roll for the win.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

IF the damage IIIIISSSSSS part of the SSSSSPPPPPEEEEELLLLLLLLLL effect then 'logically' *cough* neither it nor the metamagic attached to it / enhancing it would work in the AMF - which is rather the point I believe that the original parent's buddy was trying to make.

Cool, but that is far from RAW or even RAI, in this case. The Orbs work in an AMF because of three things: Conjuration, Instantaneous, and Creation. Those three things together mean they work in an AMF, no ifs, ands, or buts. They just do.

He may be making a sensible (by common, mortal sense:smalltongue:) houserule, but it is not a reasonable rule. The orbs themselves are silly, as another poster pointed out. They get thrown around as being awesome because they pierce AMFs so hard and easily. Thus, when someone wants to make a metamagic focused mage who deals a lot of DPR, your options generally boil down to some form of minionmancer, Force Missile Mage, or Orb of X Arcane Thesis man.

[NecroRick]

Instead of answering my points (as all of you have really helped me out with that, thanks :smallbiggrin:) he said this instead:



I'm willing to give it to you on one condition, and one condition only. Find for me a nonmagical attack or effect that does a fixed amount of damage. (I know caltrops deal 1 point of damage, but I'm looking for something that does a significant amount, not minimum.) It can be anything: a trap, weapon, or alchemical substance; I don't care what, so long as it isn't magic. Do that, and I'll concede that it's possible for a non-magical orb to do a fixed amount of damage, as a Maximized Orb of Fire would, and grant the other metamagic effects (that is, Searing) as well. Otherwise, the created orb is magical (either by nature, or by the metamagic effects) and therefore suppressed.

Meanwhile, you should concede that the rules for metamagic effects were not written with AMF in mind. It looks to me like they modify the parameters of casting, and once the spell is done, they're done as well.


So is this reasonable? I don't see how these two are related.

And he mentioned that the idea of Invisible Non-supernatural Water that doesn't go away in an AMF is ridiculous (a.k.a. Invisible Create Water)

Is there a way to prove that the rules support that? If it does, then he can't say anything about my Orb of Fire right?

So anyway, here's what appears to be the sticking point in his interpretation


(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)


So now lets try to guess what his 'logic' about what is happening is -

1 the caster casts the orb of acid spell
2 a physical blob of acid appears and starts travelling towards the target
3 the physical blob of acid enters the Antimagic Field
4 the physical blob of acid hits (or misses) the target

At point 3, if there was anything magical about the blob, it would surely fall off.

Hence at point 4 where the blob hits the target and does damage, it must be non-magical damage.

Soooo.... so what? Well, hence his point about the maximised blob. If (as per the way most of us read RAW) the maximised blob of acid does maximum (a fixed amount) damage, then there must be some other non-magical effect that also does maximum (or a fixed amount) of damage.

I think he is saying that since every non-magical thing does a variable range of damage, that the non-magical blob of acid must also do a variable amount of damage (or else it is something extremely unusual in the system).

In other words he's saying that you're trying to create this precedent, and without some prior evidence to back you up then the system as a whole just doesn't work that way.

-----

At risk of repeating myself, I think the simplest answer which accomodates both the scenarios he prefers (that the effect inside the AMF *must* be non-magical), and the crowd screaming their heads off about RAW is that a maximised or empowered Orb of Acid simply summons a bigger blob.

Or maybe instead of quantity, go for a quality argument, that the Acid is stronger. Maximised uses the maximum strength acid available, whereas normally the variable range of the dice indicates that there are variations and inconsistencies in the strength of the acid summoned (which also nicely dovetails with the more dice giving you a bell curve - any individual amount of acid in a normal blob might be of wildly varying strength, but the more you have the more likely it is to even out to an average potency.

-----

With respect to the invisible water, that just involves levels of silliness that I'm not willing to even try to comprehend the arguments on either side of the debate.

[dextercorvia]

Instead of answering my points (as all of you have really helped me out with that, thanks :smallbiggrin:) he said this instead:



So is this reasonable? I don't see how these two are related.

And he mentioned that the idea of Invisible Non-supernatural Water that doesn't go away in an AMF is ridiculous (a.k.a. Invisible Create Water)

Is there a way to prove that the rules support that? If it does, then he can't say anything about my Orb of Fire right?

Diminutive Warblade using Strike of Perfect Clarity with a dagger. It deals 101 points of damage.

[Big Fau]

Diminutive Warblade using Strike of Perfect Clarity with a dagger. It deals 101 points of damage.

Or a Kobold with Sleight Build using a Spiked Gauntlet.

[Ben-oni]

Diminutive Warblade using Strike of Perfect Clarity with a dagger. It deals 101 points of damage.Not accepted, because the weapon in question deals minimum damage (1).

Same with the Slight Kobold and the spiked Gauntlet.

Caltrops are also not accepted, because they do the minimum possible damage.

-- Your Evil DM

[Ben-oni]

Actually, Strike of Perfect Clarity is pretty close to the precedent I'm looking for. I'll go with it.

[dextercorvia]

Not accepted, because the weapon in question deals minimum damage (1).

Same with the Slight Kobold and the spiked Gauntlet.

Caltrops are also not accepted, because they do the minimum possible damage.

-- Your Evil DM

Not Evil DM (TM) from rpol, by any chance?

[Ben-oni]

No, sorry.

Oh, and since JKTrickster didn't say, the reason for all the complex rules interpretation is that this is for a PvP match, and I feel a compelling need to justify the ruling as strongly as possible so that neither side feels cheated.

[JKTrickster]

Thanks guys for the help! I really appreciate it!

He willing to let everything go but refuses to let it be Invisible.

Honestly I'm not sure its even worth it to argue that, but whatever goes I suppose.

[Glimbur]

Erm. It does, actually. They get a SR check against it if the summoned creature has SR, but other than that AMFs do null out summoned creatures. And incorporeal undead, for some reason, because incorporealness is inherently magical? I wouldn't look too close at that one.

Amusingly, an AMF only affects Incorporeal undead. If one is [Incorporeal] without being Undead(I hear the Prismatic Golem does this, as does the Unbodied (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/unbodied.htm)) then an AMF is an amusing place to reside because it is difficult to attack incorporeal creatures without magic. I believe Serren wood from the BoED is Ex Ghost Touch, someone else could pull the same trick and theoretically meet you on equal footing... and orbs of force would work because they are nonmagical [Force]. Don't think about that too hard.

[Kojiro]

Admittedly, the invisible part seems like it'd be a lasting magical effect rather than somehow creating acid/fire/whatever that is somehow invisible non-magically, so I could see that getting turned down. Everything else though, yeah, that should be allowed.

[MeeposFire]

Amusingly, an AMF only affects Incorporeal undead. If one is [Incorporeal] without being Undead(I hear the Prismatic Golem does this, as does the Unbodied (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/unbodied.htm)) then an AMF is an amusing place to reside because it is difficult to attack incorporeal creatures without magic. I believe Serren wood from the BoED is Ex Ghost Touch, someone else could pull the same trick and theoretically meet you on equal footing... and orbs of force would work because they are nonmagical [Force]. Don't think about that too hard.

Also shadow elementals...

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Don't think about that too hard.

Honestly, the entire argument against metamagic'ing an instantaneous conjuration (creation) spell could be summarized as such.:smallbiggrin:

[Shadowknight12]

Amusingly, an AMF only affects Incorporeal undead. If one is [Incorporeal] without being Undead(I hear the Prismatic Golem does this, as does the Unbodied (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/unbodied.htm)) then an AMF is an amusing place to reside because it is difficult to attack incorporeal creatures without magic. I believe Serren wood from the BoED is Ex Ghost Touch, someone else could pull the same trick and theoretically meet you on equal footing... and orbs of force would work because they are nonmagical [Force]. Don't think about that too hard.

IIRC, that's a holdover from the times where the only way to be incorporeal was to be undead. I could be wrong, though.

[NecroRick]

-- Your Evil DM

Lol! Nice to see you embraced that rather than being offended!

Welcome to the Playground. :D

Note that while it is verbotten to flame members, players who come on here to whinge about their DMs regularly kick off an epic flame/blame storm about what a terrible person the DM is, how could they think that way etc.

So... chess much? Or did I not put enough ranks in my obscure reference check?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Thanks guys for the help! I really appreciate it!

He willing to let everything go but refuses to let it be Invisible.

Honestly I'm not sure its even worth it to argue that, but whatever goes I suppose.

If you were using Invisible Spell for Arcane Thesis shenanigans (the -1 spell level adjustment), then use Energy Substitution (Cold) and change Searing Spell to Piercing Cold. Now, you have a very cold Empowered Maximized Orb of Fire.

[Boci]

Fluff-wise, the orbs except for acid make no sense.

Depends.


Fire

1 second worth of fuel is also summoned.



lightning

Highly statically charged particles.


cold

Heavily endothermic reactions between exotic particles.


and sonic is just weird.

Yeah, I got nothing.

[Tar Palantir]

Depends.



1 second worth of fuel is also summoned.




Highly statically charged particles.



Heavily endothermic reactions between exotic particles.



Yeah, I got nothing.

Now do force :smallbiggrin:.

[Boci]

Now do force :smallbiggrin:.

You'll notice a pattern in my previous post: I can answer the ones that involve chemistry, but generally not the ones which physics, so force would be the same.

If I had to say something, I'd say you invoke raw kinetic energy which is then transfered to the immobile target, but I don't know enough about energy transfer to judstify how it gets to the target and no one else.

[Urpriest]

Force isn't that tough either. You throw a sphere made of the same stuff that Force Dragons are.

[Zaq]

Nonmagical attack that does a static amount of damage? Insightful Strike with Skill Mastery for Concentration. Static damage. (You can do this with just expending your psionic focus, but I don't know if you'd consider that "magical.")

[Big Fau]

You'll notice a pattern in my previous post: I can answer the ones that involve chemistry, but generally not the ones which physics, so force would be the same.

If I had to say something, I'd say you invoke raw kinetic energy which is then transfered to the immobile target, but I don't know enough about energy transfer to judstify how it gets to the target and no one else.

Well, Acid is self-explanitory (not really though, because there isn't a chemical compound that can melt through glass, plastic, metal, wood, stone, and any other material with a Hardness and HP stat, discounting liquids in general since they can't do so as fast as DnD Acid can).


What can't be explained is why Orb of Acid doesn't allow trip attempts. Tell that to the kids who love Cinnamon Toast Crunch.

[Yuki Akuma]

The text also spends a better part of the page explaining that it winks summoned monsters out of existence, but not magical creatures of the same type, or magically animated constructs (unless they were summoned magically animated constructs), outsiders, corporeal undead (echoing the sentiment above), any instantaneous Conjuration spell (including the reason why) or monsters summoned with Conjuration (calling) spells. HRNG, INCONSISTENCIES!

...What are you talking about? What inconsistencies?

Firstly: you do not summon creatures with Conjuration (Calling) spells. You call them. In both cases you also conjure them (because in both cases it's a Conjuration effect).

Secondly: creatures that are summoned aren't actually there. They're magical projections of the real thing, powered by magic. If the magic goes away, the projection goes away. If they're killed, they reappear on their home plane, perfectly fine (if maybe a little traumatised).

Thirdly: creatures that are called are actually there. The spell teleports them from their home plane to your location. There is no magic holding them in place, so AMF doesn't remove them. If they're killed, they actually die.

Fourthly: objects and creatures created by instantaneous Conjuration (Creation) spells are really real. There is no magic there. Objects and creatures created by Conjuration (Creation) spells with a duration aren't as real - they're held together with magic. Remove the magic and they go away.

(Also, technically, all the orbs (except Orb of Force) create orbs of acid. Orb of Fire, Cold, Electricity and Sound just create acid which deals a weird damage type. :smallwink: "As Orb of Acid, except it deals x damage and y status effect"...)

[ericgrau]

The maximized acid orb is more acid-y when it's created; it does not need magic to sustain its greater acidness. Thinking about it more than that may tear apart the spell(s) in general.

[Keld Denar]

The only one I really have to questions is Invisible Spell...

If you cast an Invisible Wall of Iron, it is a perfectly non-magical wall, made of iron, that you can't see. WTF? Now imagine building houses out of it (or at least windows and such). Or casting Fabricate and making a dagger out of it (which would be invisible). Or make enough Craft:Armorsmithing checks while under the influence of See Invisibility to craft the Emperor's New Fullplate?

Its the one MM feat I'd actually change to be SU in nature, since it replicates a magic effect (invisibility) by itself, regardless of what the rest of the spell effect is doing. Even then, it would be the invisibility effect itself that is SU, not the spell. If you cast Invisible Create Water, that water would be invisible, but in an AMF, it would both EXIST (due to Instantaneous Conjourations) and be visible (because the SU nature of Invisible Spell is suppresed). Again, this is something I would personally rule on, rather than a RAW interpretation, but is such a corner case its hardly worth writting into a "house rules" document.

[ericgrau]

Ya either you have to say invisible spell is a magical effect or that it only applies to magical effects, in which case it doesn't apply to real created objects.

[NecroRick]

The only one I really have to questions is Invisible Spell...

If you cast an Invisible Wall of Iron, it is a perfectly non-magical wall, made of iron, that you can't see. WTF? Now imagine building houses out of it (or at least windows and such). Or casting Fabricate and making a dagger out of it (which would be invisible). Or make enough

Transparent Aluminum?

Also: force = mass x acceleration

[Lonely Tylenol]

...What are you talking about? What inconsistencies?

Incorporeal undead are winked out of existence, but not corporeal undead or creatures with the incorporeal subtype that aren't undead.

Magically awakened creatures aren't affected, but summoned creatures are.

I wasn't referring specifically to the Conjuration (Summoning) and Conjuration (Calling) example, but the criteria as a whole, although the Conjuration (Summoning) and Conjuration (Calling) thing does irk me, and here's why:


Secondly: creatures that are summoned aren't actually there. They're magical projections of the real thing, powered by magic. If the magic goes away, the projection goes away. If they're killed, they reappear on their home plane, perfectly fine (if maybe a little traumatised).

The rulebooks don't actually support this notion! Granted, it's a commonly accepted interpretation of the wording, and perhaps for good reason, but as written this is how summoning creatures is described in the books:


A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.

Emphasis mine.

Now, there's clearly no disputing that this is a magical effect (the bodies reforming after their death kinda give that one away), but there's nothing in the language here (or in the Summon Monster text, which simply refers to "summoning" and is otherwise of little use) that suggests that the monsters aren't very real, and are plucked from the plane of your choosing, bound to this plane for a limited time, and then sent back to where it came from after its duration expires (or the god of that plane cleans up the pieces of the mess you just made). The only thing that suggests anything about these creatures is magic is the fact that they wink out of an antimagic field, but that simply implies that the conjuration magic is holding a very real creature here for a brief period of time (meaning, the ongoing magical effect can be very magical, but the very real creature entirely nonmagical, and the antimagic field is targeting the magics holding that creature to this plane of existence and not the creature).

If you accept this interpretation (which gives summoned monsters a place to come from and go to), then the difference between Conjuration (Summoning) and Conjuration (Calling) is that one has a duration... Which is the specific thing that antimagic field is targeting (noting the specific exception for instantaneous conjurations). You can call the same creature type with both spells, but only one would remain in existence in an antimagic field.

If creatures and objects summoned by a Conjuration (Summoning) spell couldn't be very real, after all, then Instant Summons would be very useless (okay, it already is, since it's a 7th-level spell with a 1000GP component and little payoff, but... You get the picture).

EDIT: It's probably worth mentioning that I don't consider myself the unparalleled expert on what a Summoned monster is, so apologies in advance if I'm clearly wrong and there is wording to support it, but within the confines of the knowledge available to me - there isn't. You are free to prove me wrong, and if I am, I welcome you to do so.

[Divide by Zero]

Thirdly: creatures that are called are actually there. The spell teleports them from their home plane to your location. There is no magic holding them in place, so AMF doesn't remove them. If they're killed, they actually die.

If you die on the Material Plane, you die in real life!

[Hazzardevil]

Your friend is out right wrong with the Orb of Fire not working when fired into an AMF, by his reasoning a charecter on -9 hit points healed back to full by Cure spells should lose all those hit points because the magic doesn't work.

[Raendyn]

*i admit i did not read more than the first page's posts, so sry if what I 'll say is ninja'ed*

Your friend as everyone ( i hope) told you is wrong.

But i feel like mentioning one thing that most people don't know.
( takes a deep breath because much swering is gona be replied )

Be carefull with metamagics, they are the most powerfull thing ever. Always have in mind that when they do it too well you have calculated something wrong.

The metamagics effect the spell each one on its own way & completely independed from the other metamagics. They don't modify the spell in a specific order, all of them modify the original spell & that during the casting.

Because what i said can be interpretanted in many ways I'll give a few examples...

ex.1. empower + maximize =
{ [ ( damage rolled, without adding static vallues ) / 2] + ( Maximum dice dmg ) + ( static dmg ) }
You don't suppose that because you maximized it is as if you had rolled max dmg for all dices & thus empower benefits from the maximized verion. ( the dmg is not [maximum possible x 150%] )

ex.2 split ray + maximize + heighten (2)+ twin + repeat ENERVATION =
ONE ray that forces the target to loose 4 lvls (because it is maximized)
and the DC is X. (X = original DC +2, due to heighten),
Split ray gives you an other ray, but with out any other effect, So a normal enervation that gives 1d4 negative lvls, DC = X-2 = original DC
Twin, works xactly as split ray above.
Repeat Works Exactly as the above two, exceptit is casted on the next round & fails if the target can't be targeted by any means.....

This is Rules As Written & Rules As Intended, despite what most will say.

Based on the above two examples...

Exted + persist = in best case scenario, the same as persist alone ( unless the extend on its own would send the duration above 24hours)

Reach spell + persist = does not do anything if the spell on its own did not have a fixed range. It is debateable IF this can be done with arcane reach.

You can see that many builds found online ( even on handbooks ) somehow interpretend that things work in a special way always in their favor. for example twice betrayer of shar does not exist

Keep what i said in mind:smallwink:

[TwylyghT]

Well you could almost argue that all the orbs except for acid could be invisible by default. Sonic isn't an object at all, just a wave of pressure, electricity itself has no visual form and can travel through the air undetected if it fails to create a plasma reaction, a number of gasses burn with almost invisible flames, and cold is just a lack of thermal energy, like sonic its not even a thing at all.

[olentu]

*i admit i did not read more than the first page's posts, so sry if what I 'll say is ninja'ed*

Your friend as everyone ( i hope) told you is wrong.

But i feel like mentioning one thing that most people don't know.
( takes a deep breath because much swering is gona be replied )

Be carefull with metamagics, they are the most powerfull thing ever. Always have in mind that when they do it too well you have calculated something wrong.

The metamagics effect the spell each one on its own way & completely independed from the other metamagics. They don't modify the spell in a specific order, all of them modify the original spell & that during the casting.

Because what i said can be interpretanted in many ways I'll give a few examples...

ex.1. empower + maximize =
{ [ ( damage rolled, without adding static vallues ) / 2] + ( Maximum dice dmg ) + ( static dmg ) }
You don't suppose that because you maximized it is as if you had rolled max dmg for all dices & thus empower benefits from the maximized verion. ( the dmg is not [maximum possible x 150%] )

ex.2 split ray + maximize + heighten (2)+ twin + repeat ENERVATION =
ONE ray that forces the target to loose 4 lvls (because it is maximized)
and the DC is X. (X = original DC +2, due to heighten),
Split ray gives you an other ray, but with out any other effect, So a normal enervation that gives 1d4 negative lvls, DC = X-2 = original DC
Twin, works xactly as split ray above.
Repeat Works Exactly as the above two, exceptit is casted on the next round & fails if the target can't be targeted by any means.....

This is Rules As Written & Rules As Intended, despite what most will say.

Based on the above two examples...

Exted + persist = in best case scenario, the same as persist alone ( unless the extend on its own would send the duration above 24hours)

Reach spell + persist = does not do anything if the spell on its own did not have a fixed range. It is debateable IF this can be done with arcane reach.

You can see that many builds found online ( even on handbooks ) somehow interpretend that things work in a special way always in their favor. for example twice betrayer of shar does not exist

Keep what i said in mind:smallwink:

You may wish to provide some textual evidence to back up your position.

[Raendyn]

You may wish to provide some textual evidence to back up your position.

I will, but double check it in your mind... You know i am right.

& twin + split ray + reapet enervation works as i said, because all of those metamagics double the spell effect. As with normal atacks x2 & x2 &x2 is not x8, but x4. Same goes here i dont even know how it originally went in the wrong way...

[olentu]

I will, but double check it in your mind... You know i am right.

& twin + split ray + reapet enervation works as i said, because all of those metamagics double the spell effect. As with normal atacks x2 & x2 &x2 is not x8, but x4. Same goes here i dont even know how it originally went in the wrong way...

Oh it is not about correctness or incorrectness but about proper justification.

[JKTrickster]

The metamagics effect the spell each one on its own way & completely independed from the other metamagics. They don't modify the spell in a specific order, all of them modify the original spell & that during the casting.


Where is your textual evidence for this :smallconfused:

[dextercorvia]

<snip>

Then (in your opinion) would the following be true?

Widened Invisible Lightning bolt: only the first half of the lightning bolt would be Invisible, the rest would appear normally.

Widened Empowered Lightning bolt: only the first half of the lightning bolt would be Empowered, the rest would deal normal damage. (I wanted to provide at least one core example, because the usual argument is Empower + Maximize says so.)

Invisible Empowered Lightning bolt: would be half as visible as normal to account for the 50% extra power that couldn't be made invisible.

Reach Empowered Shocking Grasp would deal 5d6 if delivered at range, or 1.5(5d6) if you use a melee touch.

How about Rapid and Quicken? They explicitly stack. That pretty much counters the example of Empower and Maximize applying separate effects.

[Divide by Zero]

twin + split ray + reapet enervation works as i said, because all of those metamagics double the spell effect. As with normal atacks x2 & x2 &x2 is not x8, but x4. Same goes here i dont even know how it originally went in the wrong way...

You may have failed to provide a textual reference, but I will. Per the multiplying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#multiplying) rules:

When applying multipliers to real-world values (such as weight or distance), normal rules of math apply instead.
"Number of rays" is as much a real value as distance is.

[AlexanderRM]

TL;DR in regards to the Orb debate (Though I actually did read it)...



So in conclusion, WotC should've but the Orb of X line in evocation :smallsigh:

This. In fact, your DM should houserule that they're evocation spells, with the possible exception of Orb of Acid. Having them be Instantaneous Conjuration spells neither makes ANY sense for those other than Acid, they're a serious break in game rules and gameplay balance terms as well. I honestly can't fathom why someone made them, other than Acid.

[Zaq]

TL;DR in regards to the Orb debate (Though I actually did read it)...



But, apparently, not the dates.

[Little Brother]

TL;DR in regards to the Orb debate (Though I actually did read it)...



This. In fact, your DM should houserule that they're evocation spells, with the possible exception of Orb of Acid. Having them be Instantaneous Conjuration spells neither makes ANY sense for those other than Acid, they're a serious break in game rules and gameplay balance terms as well. I honestly can't fathom why someone made them, other than Acid.Holy necrobump, Batman!