Potions of Personal spells?

[Equinox]

The SRD, under "Creating Potions", tells us that:

Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.
Now, logically, this doesn't seem to make much sense. I mean, if a spell was designed to affect the caster and only the caster, why can't it be made into a potion, which similarly affects the imbiber and only the imbiber? In fact, fluff-wise, a Personal spells looks like a perfect choice to put in a potion, doesn't it?

My question is twofold:
a. What is the rational for this rule? [some second-guessing of designer intent is welcome]
b. What bad things could happen if this restriction was waived and Personal potions become available (to both PCs and enemies, of course)?

[vendur]

The SRD, under "Creating Potions", tells us that:

Now, logically, this doesn't seem to make much sense. I mean, if a spell was designed to affect the caster and only the caster, why can't it be made into a potion, which similarly affects the imbiber and only the imbiber? In fact, fluff-wise, a Personal spells looks like a perfect choice to put in a potion, doesn't it?

My question is twofold:
a. What is the rational for this rule? [some second-guessing of designer intent is welcome]
b. What bad things could happen if this restriction was waived and Personal potions become available (to both PCs and enemies, of course)?

The rationale is "balance". Many of those spells are extremely powerful, especially cross classed.

[Rebel7284]

The rationale is "balance". Many of those spells are extremely powerful, especially cross classed.

Rationale: fighters can't have the nice things that wizards normally use to protect themselves. That would be too good. They can only use things that wizards can typically cast on them normally.

I think we all know that giving a fighter access to alter self and mirror image isn't a problem, but wizards thought otherwise.

[Lord Vukodlak]

My question is twofold:
a. What is the rational for this rule? [some second-guessing of designer intent is welcome]

Because personal spells are intended to only benefit the caster not be cast on anyone else. When you drink a potion you aren't the caster you're the target of an already cast spell.

Personal spells tend to be more powerful then buffs that can be applied to anyone. True Strike, Mirror Image, Alter-self and blink would be really powerful potions.


Rationale: fighters can't have the nice things that wizards normally use to protect themselves. That would be too good. They can only use things that wizards can typically cast on them normally.

I think we all know that giving a fighter access to alter self and mirror image isn't a problem, but wizards thought otherwise.

Cleric's would also get access to those spells too. A Cleric can already become near invulnerable should he get mirror image and blink on top of that.

[John Longarrow]

Many personal spells also have choices made by the caster, such as Alter Person, that are decided at the time of casting. As you cast the spell into a potion, this would be a bit problematic. After all, if a Pixie made a potion of Alter Self that changed them into another Fey, how would that work if a dwarf drank it?

[JoshuaZ]

Connected to the issue of personal spells being more powerful, this would let people effectively store up some of their most effective buffs for longer periods of time (at high levels one can't store in a spell slot every nice buff you might want without running into issues). Moreover, the obvious thing to limit their power level- making it so that they can only apply to the potion maker, will make the difference between melee and casters even worse

[Ravens_cry]

If you really want those spells, UMD a wand or scroll. Skill boosting items are dirt cheap for the bonuses they grant, and the DC for any wand is pretty low and is flat, regardless of wand level. With a little investment of skill points and GP, you too can have True Strike for your fighter.

[Darrin]

If you really want those spells, UMD a wand or scroll. Skill boosting items are dirt cheap for the bonuses they grant, and the DC for any wand is pretty low and is flat, regardless of wand level. With a little investment of skill points and GP, you too can have True Strike for your fighter.

Skull Talismans (Frostburn) can be used for personal spells without a UMD check. A bit more expensive than potions, but you can also get up to 9th level spells. Glyph Seals (MIC) also work, and are reusable.

[vendur]

Skull Talismans (Frostburn) can be used for personal spells without a UMD check. A bit more expensive than potions, but you can also get up to 9th level spells. Glyph Seals (MIC) also work, and are reusable.

I'm pretty sure neither one of those allow you to do "self only" spells. Nice try though.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm pretty sure neither one of those allow you to do "self only" spells. Nice try though.

"You can create a skull talisman of any spell you know and that targets one or more creatures. Crafting a skull talisman takes one day." There is no reference to personal spells or potions in the skull talisman rules, ergo it allows them.

[vendur]

"You can create a skull talisman of any spell you know and that targets one or more creatures. Crafting a skull talisman takes one day." There is no reference to personal spells or potions in the skull talisman rules, ergo it allows them.

Self only is not targeted".

[Gavinfoxx]

What about FR's Rune magic or Gem magic?

[eggynack]

Self only is not targeted.
Do you have any RAW support for that one? It looks like personal spells are targeted, and they're targeted at you. I'm getting that from the fact that personal spells always (I think) have a target listed within their parameters, and that listed target is "you". Furthermore, the magic overview section on targeting says, "If the target of a spell is yourself..." which seems to imply that you are a target.

[vendur]

Do you have any RAW support for that one? It looks like personal spells are targeted, and they're targeted at you. I'm getting that from the fact that personal spells always (I think) have a target listed within their parameters, and that listed target is "you". Furthermore, the magic overview section on targeting says, "If the target of a spell is yourself..." which seems to imply that you are a target.

No the onus is on you to find RAW that says a self only spells are considered targetted yourself. If i'm blinded, do they come with a concealment check?Haha. Ridiculous.

[eggynack]

No the onus is on you to find RAW that says a self only spells are considered targetted yourself. If i'm blinded, do they come with a concealment check?Haha. Ridiculous.
I did. The spells have targets listed. Thus, the spells have a target, and that target is you. Everything I've found is in support of the idea that personal spells have a target, so it appears that the onus is on you. Seriously, it's like you didn't even read my post, which is surprising, because it was only like three lines long.

Edit: For a bonus quote, the glossary defines a target as, "The intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magical effect." You are clearly the recipient of your own spells, so you are their target.

[vendur]

I did. The spells have targets listed. Thus, the spells have a target, and that target is you. Everything I've found is in support of the idea that personal spells have a target, so it appears that the onus is on you. Seriously, it's like you didn't even read my post, which is surprising, because it was only like three lines long.

Edit: For a bonus quote, the glossary defines a target as, "The intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magical effect." You are clearly the recipient of your own spells, so you are their target.

No DM is gonna swallow that bilge. Self only and targeting a single creature with a spell are two entirely different acts. Like i said, if i was blind I'd have to suffer a concealment check to cast a self only spell.

[Darrin]

Self only is not targeted".

Ah, but it is. An example:

Expeditious Retreat
Transmutation
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You

You = creature, so it works.

These are both well-known exploits. Glyph Seals even less restrictive (other than the 3rd/4th level "donut").

Other methods to get around the "Personal" restriction:

Ring of Spell Storing (DMG). Comes in both minor/major flavors, but both are way more expensive than they should be.

Create Infusion (Masters of the Wild). 3.0 material, but still technically legal in 3.5. Divine only, up to 9th level spells, same cost as a potion.

Attune Gem (Magic of Faerun). Arcane only, up to 9th level spells, same cost as a potion plus the cost of the gem (50 GP x spell level).

Inscribe Rune (FRCS/PGtF). Divine spells only, up to 9th level spells, same cost as a potion.

Talismans (Oriental Adventures). Similar to potions, up to 3rd level spells, same cost as a potion, but no restriction on "Personal" spells.

Shallantha's Delicate Disk (Lost Empires of Faerun). Spell that creates a ceramic disk that can store any spell up to 5th level for only 200 GP.

Chardalyn (Lords of Darkness/Silver Marches Web Enhancement). Another spell storing item, with three different sizes, up to 9th level spells.

[eggynack]

No DM is gonna swallow that bilge. Self only and targeting a single creature with a spell are two entirely different acts. Like i said, if i was blind I'd have to suffer a concealment check to cast a self only spell.
You seem to be making an argument from the potential results of a given rule, and that's ridiculous. It doesn't matter if a rule might cause problems. It only matter what the rules actually are. Also, you do not have total concealment against yourself when you're blind. The text of the condition reads, " All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character." Thus, your odd corner case disaster scenario won't come to pass.

[vendur]

I'm still waiting for RAW that a personal spell is the same thing as targeting a creature.

[Chronos]

Go ahead and read the RAWs, then. No need to wait for them, Darrin has already quoted one for you.

[eggynack]

I'm still waiting for RAW that a personal spell is the same thing as targeting a creature.
I really don't understand your issue. Personal spells explicitly have a target listed. There are specific sources that discuss you as a target. The definition of target clearly encompasses the idea of you targeting yourself. What more do you want? If you see any issue, any issue at all, in any of my claims, go right ahead and list them. As is, it looks a lot like you're sticking your fingers in your internet ears and whistling loudly as a debate tactic.

Also, the objection I noted to the total concealment thing might have been the wrong one to raise. The issue isn't that blindness does or doesn't block line of effect to yourself, because it might. The issue is that it doesn't look like that matters. Can you find anything that would indicate that you can't target yourself while you lack line of effect to yourself? I can't. It seems to me that (total) concealment only stops attacks, and a personal range buff isn't really an attack by any definition. Maybe you can't target yourself with inflict light wounds or something, but that doesn't really matter (if you're undead, inflict light wounds isn't really an attack).

[prufock]

I'm still waiting for RAW that a personal spell is the same thing as targeting a creature.

Personal is a range (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#range) parameter, separate from the target (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets) parameter. A spell that is Range: Personal also has Target: You. One example has been cited, for more go to d20srd.org's Spell Filter and put in Aiming (Target) and Range (Personal). There are lots.

These personal spells have a target, therefore they work with Skull Talismans.

[vendur]

Go ahead and read the RAWs, then. No need to wait for them, Darrin has already quoted one for you.

Did nothing of the sort. it's impossible to save against a self only effect. They are obviously inherently different than simply "targetting one creature who just happens to be yourself".

[eggynack]

Did nothing of the sort. it's impossible to save against a self only effect. They are obviously inherently different than simply "targetting one creature who just happens to be yourself".
What are you talking about? What does saving have to do with targets? What do you think targeting means? You seem to think that targeting is some hyper-complicated thing that has some specific definition, and exact parameters. It's not. A target is just whoever you're putting the spell on. The glossary bears out the definition, as does the magic overview section on targeting, as does every spell with a target listing. Just quote something, anything, that substantiates your views. As is, you've done nothing of the sort.

Edit: To be more exact, targeting does have exact parameters, but those parameters are quite large and bountiful.

[vendur]

What are you talking about? What does saving have to do with targets? What do you think targeting means? You seem to think that targeting is some hyper-complicated thing that has some specific definition, and exact parameters. It's not. A target is just whoever you're putting the spell on. The glossary bears out the definition, as does the magic overview section on targeting, as does every spell with a target listing. Just quote something, anything, that substantiates your views. As is, you've done nothing of the sort.

Self only, or personal, spells cannot ever be saved against or resisted(spell resist). which means they are clearly different than simply "targeting yourself as a proxy creature". the basic mechanics are inherently different, hence they are different until specially told they are the same for the purposes suggested in this very thread.

[Mando Knight]

Did nothing of the sort. it's impossible to save against a self only effect.

Irrelevant. There are plenty of other Save: None spells with targets (i.e. Air Walk, Cure spells on living creatures), and the only reason to save against a personal spell anyway would be if it had some built-in backlash.

A spell has a target if it specifies what a valid target is in the spell description. Most if not all "Range: Personal" spells I can think of also specify "Target: You" which is quite obviously designating yourself as a target. I have no idea how to read it in any other way.

[eggynack]

Self only, or personal, spells cannot ever be saved against or resisted(spell resist). which means they are clearly different than simply "targeting yourself as a proxy creature". the basic mechanics are inherently different, hence they are different until specially told they are the same for the purposes suggested in this very thread.
But how does you being unable to save against a spell make you not a target? You're not a proxy creature for targeting; you're just a regular creature who can be targeted by your own spells, and the mechanics of how the spell works are somewhat different. The mechanics of how the targeting are exactly the same. Where are you getting your definition of targeting, where there needs to be a save, and where you aren't a target of your own spells. Seriously, all the RAW relating to this matter opposes you.

[Mando Knight]

Self only, or personal, spells cannot ever be saved against or resisted(spell resist). which means they are clearly different than simply "targeting yourself as a proxy creature". the basic mechanics are inherently different, hence they are different until specially told they are the same for the purposes suggested in this very thread.

There is nothing in the target rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets) that suggest that personal spells target you differently than a self-cast beneficial spell except as specified (never having saves or SR).

[vendur]

it's pretty clear that personal spells are different from "creature target you". That's crystal clear from the rules. In this case, I could also rule that the target "self" was not satisfied when the spell is releseased from the skull or other items and hence there is no effect whatsoever because the only valid target was the "Self" who put the spell there in the first place.

[The Mentalist]

Vendur, we have provided you valid and sourced arguments based in RAW, if they are not good enough for you, provide your own (valid and sourced) argument or end the discussion.

[Mando Knight]

it's pretty clear that personal spells are different from "creature target you". That's crystal clear from the rules.
No, it's not. It's very obviously not. It's clearly a spell with a highly restricted range and choice of targets (that is, yourself, or perhaps a familiar if you have one).

In this case, I could also rule that the target "self" was not satisfied when the spell is releseased from the skull or other items and hence there is no effect whatsoever because the only valid target was the "Self" who put the spell there in the first place.
Would you also rule so for scrolls, wands, or command word-activated items charged with personal spells?

[vendur]

Vendur, we have provided you valid and sourced arguments, if they are not good enough for you, provide your own (valid and sourced) argument or end the discussion.

Where is your valid sourced argument that a self spell is the same thing as a creature target?

[lsfreak]

I'm actually going to tentatively side with vendur, but for very different reasons. The target entry for the spell has to have "One creature," "One creature per level," "Two or more creatures," or something along those lines in order to be acceptable for skull talismans. A target of "You" does not exclusively target creatures: an intelligent item casting dimension door with "You" as a target is not targeting a creature. Incidentally targeting creatures because Target: You spells are almost always creatures is along the same line as letting Range: Touch spells be Permenancied because Range: Touch is generally a fixed range.

EDIT: Nevermind, intelligent items count as constructs. Carry on.

[The Mentalist]

Oh, I haven't provided you with one but Mando Knight has done a remarkable job of it as did Darrin (Darrin was also kind enough to show me some cool things for future characters)

[vendur]

Would you also rule so for scrolls, wands, or command word-activated items charged with personal spells?

Then can I use the argument that "potions don't allow self only", so same with glyphs m skulls, etc?

I would contend scrolls/wands are different, as you need the ability to channel or utilize the magic question, either by having study it yourself in some capacity as a class choice or by a brute force of UMD.

[Mando Knight]

Where is your valid sourced argument that a self spell is the same thing as a creature target?

The target line of each and every single "Range: Personal" spell ever, which specifies Target: You. Unless "You" are not a creature, "You" as the caster are a subset of "One willing creature" which is a subset of "One creature." You happen to also be the only valid target in range (excepting the possibility of your nearby familiar, which is explicitly added in as a valid touch-range target through its Share Spells feature).

[The Mentalist]

Then can I use the argument that "potions don't allow self only", so same with glyphs m skulls, etc?.

No, because Potions specifically disallow Self-targetted spells, the other options don't.

[vendur]

No, because Potions specifically disallow Self-targetted spells, the other options don't.

I wasn't saying that was a valid argument. Try paying attention to context before you post.

[vendur]

The target line of each and every single "Range: Personal" spell ever, which specifies Target: You. Unless "You" are not a creature, "You" as the caster are a subset of "One willing creature" which is a subset of "One creature." You happen to also be the only valid target in range (excepting the possibility of your nearby familiar, which is explicitly added in as a valid touch-range target through its Share Spells feature).

I cast disrupt undead on a target. the target is alive. nothing happens. The spell does nothing.

i create an a self-contained, self "detonating" item such as the skull talisman with a spell that only works on the person casting the spell. The spell fizzles. The "self" who created the spell is not valid target in accordance withthe original spell being invooked, since the original spell could only target the SELf who made the spell. just like the living person not being disrupted. chicken versus egg RAW style.

Eat up.

[The Mentalist]

I cast disrupt undead on a target. the target is alive. nothing happens. The spell does nothing.

Non-sequitur argument



i create an a self-contained, self "detonating" item such as the skull talisman with a spell that only works on the person casting the spell.

The imbiber of the potion, the user of the wand, or the wearer of the magic item is considered the caster of the spell.



The spell fizzles.

Are there even rules for spell fizzles?



The "self" who created the spell is not valid target in accordance withthe original spell being invooked, since the original spell could only target the SELf who made the spell.


And the drinker of the potion is considered the caster of the effect by RAW, just like the user of a Wand is the caster or the wearer of an item is the caster.



just like the living person not being disrupted. chicken versus egg RAW style.


This is actually easily sorted out by the magic item rules (mostly in Magic Item Compendium which is the current trump source for such things)



Eat up.

This was unneeded and I feel you're attacking those of us who disagree with you when you end a post this way.

[Darrin]

I cast disrupt undead on a target. the target is alive. nothing happens. The spell does nothing.


Disrupt undead is a ray, and rays don't have a "Target:" line. Thus, this example is irrelevant.



i create an a self-contained, self "detonating" item such as the skull talisman with a spell that only works on the person casting the spell. The spell fizzles. The "self" who created the spell is not valid target in accordance withthe original spell being invooked, since the original spell could only target the SELf who made the spell. just like the living person not being disrupted. chicken versus egg RAW style.


From Frostburn:

"When you create a skull talisman, you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell. Whoever destroys the skull is the target of the spell."

In this case, the specific rules for Skull Talismans take precedence for the general rules on personal spells. Instead of "Target: You", the new target is whatever creature destroyed the skull. The new target does not need to make any decisions that a spellcaster might have to make, because the original caster has already taken care of that. The spell resolves normally, just as if the breaker of the skull had cast the spell on himself.

[vendur]

This was unneeded and I feel you're attacking those of us who disagree with you when you end a post this way.


It was a joke. Like drinking "raw eggs". Anyway. The point remains.
If i cast something on this skull when i'm creating that includes targets, yet when the person who cracks it open doesn't qualify as a valid target of the spell, what happens? what happens if the person is immune? a sleep spell on an elf. It checks and sees if its a valid target, right? wait, this is an elf, no sleep spell effect.

Wait, billybob is the wizard who i was targeted to effect with this spell when I was created, sorry i can't effect you mister mcgruffan. it's sad, but there would be no logical way for me to effect you, as a useless lump of inanimate non-sentient material when my VERY OWN CREATOR would have been completely unable to cast that very same spell on you even if he were standing right here and now.

[Darrin]

If i cast something on this skull when i'm creating that includes targets, yet when the person who cracks it open doesn't qualify as a valid target of the spell, what happens? what happens if the person is immune? a sleep spell on an elf. It checks and sees if its a valid target, right? wait, this is an elf, no sleep spell effect.


There are many reasons a spell can fail. Being immune to an effect doesn't mean you can't be targeted by it. But what you're arguing here sounds like "the spell failed, therefore the target must have been invalid". The elf was a perfectly legal target for a sleep spell. The reason it failed has absolutely nothing to do with targeting the spell. But sleep is a bad example, because it doesn't even have a "Target:" line, it's a burst effect. If the elf is in the area of the burst, then it gets hit with the spell.



Wait, billybob is the wizard who i was targeted to effect with this spell when I was created, sorry i can't effect you mist mcgruffan. it's sad, but there would be no logical way for me to effect you, as a useless lump of inanmate non-snstient material when my VER CREATOR would have been inable to caste that very same spell on you even if he were standing right here and now.

I have no idea what you're arguing here. But I think we can boil all this down to, "Well, that's not how it works in MY GAME!" And you're absolutely correct, and there's nothing we can say that would contradict that. If it works for you and you're having fun, then we can all go suck eggs or whatever. But if your argument is "You're playing the game WRONG and you should play MY WAY!", then that's a different argument... and just not a very constructive one.

If you're trying to say, "Look, there are wildly different opinions on how to interpret things, so lets use the most literal interpretation of the Rules As Written as a starting point, and then work towards an agreed-upon framework of how we think the game should be played", then that's another endeavor entirely, and if we want to move towards that, then maybe we need to put down the sharp objects and calm down the rhetoric a bit.

[vendur]

There are many reasons a spell can fail. Being immune to an effect doesn't mean you can't be targeted by it. But what you're arguing here sounds like "the spell failed, therefore the target must have been invalid". The elf was a perfectly legal target for a sleep spell. The reason it failed has absolutely nothing to do with targeting the spell. But sleep is a bad example, because it doesn't even have a "Target:" line, it's a burst effect. If the elf is in the area of the burst, then it gets hit with the spell.



I have no idea what you're arguing here. But I think we can boil all this down to, "Well, that's not how it works in MY GAME!" And you're absolutely correct, and there's nothing we can say that would contradict that. If it works for you and you're having fun, then we can all go suck eggs or whatever. But if your argument is "You're playing the game WRONG and you should play MY WAY!", then that's a different argument... and just not a very constructive one.

If you're trying to say, "Look, there are wildly different opinions on how to interpret things, so lets use the most literal interpretation of the Rules As Written as a starting point, and then work towards an agreed-upon framework of how we think the game should be played", then that's another endeavor entirely, and if we want to move towards that, then maybe we need to put down the sharp objects and calm down the rhetoric a bit.


What you are asking me to swallow is that a stupid inanimate, non sentient object has the ability to do what the original "spell caster" that created the very object in question would have been unable to do. if it were so simple and not intended to be complicated by "targeting", there would have never been a "self only" designation placed on them.

[eggynack]

@ vendur: This is getting somewhat ridiculous. You are wrong. Your arguments are based upon nothing. The term "target" does not mean what you think it means. There are many situations in this game where there are two equally valid sides, and it's all up to interpretation, and no one is ever completely sure who is right per the RAW. This is not one of them. These spells say they have a target, right there in the spell, and that target is you. In fact, here is a direct quotation with nothing cut out: "Range: Personal Target: You". It's quoted from a massive pile of different places, because that's the way personal range spells work.

Edit: Missed the last post.

What you are asking me to swallow is that a stupid inanimate, non sentient object has the ability to do what the original "spell caster" that created the very object in question would have been unable to do. if it were so simple and not intended to be complicated by "targeting", there would have never been a "self only" designation placed on them.
Stupid inanimate objects can do whatever the hell those stupid inanimate objects say they do. If they say they change targets, they change targets. If they don't, they don't. It's as simple as that. That's how RAW works.

[Darrin]

What you are asking me to swallow is that a stupid inanimate, non sentient object has the ability to do what the original "spell caster" that created the very object in question would have been unable to do. if it were so simple and not intended to be complicated by "targeting", there would have never been a "self only" designation placed on them.

And that's why the Skull Talisman rules are worded exactly the way they are. Let me repeat that text for you:

"When you create a skull talisman, you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell."

Thus, we are all saved from the stupidity of inanimate objects making decisions only a spellcaster could make. Indeed, we are even saved from non-spellcasters being forced to make decisions only spellcasters could make... because the specific rules for Skull Talisman are designed to handle exactly a situation where a "Range: Personal" spell with "Target: You" is switched to a different target than the original spellcaster.

[vendur]

Stupid inanimate objects can do whatever the hell those stupid inanimate objects say they do. If they say they change targets, they change targets. If they don't, they don't. It's as simple as that. That's how RAW works.

No, RAW says you can't target someone else with a self only spell. And skulls and whatnot don't explicitly say they can obviate those RAW rules. Wishful thinking is not fact.


Point is, there is no way a stupid inanimate object that was 1005 crated/enchanted by the caster in question should be able to do something that original creator of the item was unable to do.

RAW says it's wrong. Logic says it's wrong.

[ericgrau]

If you want personal stuff then dip 1 level or get UMD and grab a wand. Some spells are meant to be exclusive to people who put in the effort, that's all. You don't need to be a full caster just grab UMD or 1 level or put in some kind of investment.

And not being a caster isn't an excuse to abandon all logic. Options should be compared to each other not to casters, as item/feat/level/whatever taxes are horrible fixes. Etc., etc.

[The Mentalist]

If you want personal stuff then dip 1 level or get UMD and grab a wand. Some spells are meant to be exclusive to people who put in the effort, that's all. You don't need to be a full caster just grab UMD or 1 level or put in some kind of investment.

Or use one of the many shiny non-core options that Darrin showed us on page 1 but I see your point. Wands are better than potions anyway, especially with Wand Chambers so you don't have to take a move and a standard to get a buff.

[eggynack]

No, RAW says you can't target someone else with a self only spell. And skulls and whatnot don't explicitly say they can obviate those RAW rules. Wishful thinking is not fact.


Point is, there is no way a stupid inanimate object that was 1005 crated/enchanted by the caster in question should be able to do something that original creator of the item was unable to do.

RAW says it's wrong. Logic says it's wrong.
It's actually not you targeting someone else with a personal spell. It's the destroyer of the talisman targeting himself with a spell he is casting. "The destroyer is both the effective target and the caster of the effect." You are a legal target for a personal range spell cast on yourself, so there's no lack of RAW or logic.

[Douglas]

No, RAW says you can't target someone else with a self only spell. And skulls and whatnot don't explicitly say they can obviate those RAW rules. Wishful thinking is not fact.
Personal spells target the caster. The rules for skull talismans specifically state that whoever destroys it is considered the caster. Voila.


Point is, there is no way a stupid inanimate object that was 1005 crated/enchanted by the caster in question should be able to do something that original creator of the item was unable to do.

RAW says it's wrong. Logic says it's wrong.
By that reasoning, there is no way a stupid inanimate magic wand could cast a spell 50 times in one day when the guy who made it only has 3 spell slots of sufficient level.

Whether the creator of an item is able to do something directly himself is completely irrelevant to whether the item is able to do it.

[vendur]

Personal spells target the caster. The rules for skull talismans specifically state that whoever destroys it is considered the caster. Voila.

And what happens if the target of the skull effect is invalid in accordance with the spell as originally cast?

[Douglas]

And what happens if the target of the skull effect is invalid in accordance with the spell as originally cast?
What "spell as originally cast"? The crafter wasn't casting a spell, he was making a magic item. The item just happens to be able to cast a spell later.

[eggynack]

And what happens if the target of the skull effect is invalid in accordance with the spell as originally cast?
It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the target of the skull effect is valid as it is cast by the destroyer of the skull. It is, so the spell works. Presumably, if you had a spell in the talisman that didn't work because the target is invalid for another reason, like if the spell in the talisman is animal growth or something, then the spell would fail. That situation is not this situation, so we're fine.

[vendur]

It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the target of the skull effect is valid as it is cast by the destroyer of the skull. It is, so the spell works. Presumably, if you had a spell in the talisman that didn't work because the target is invalid for another reason, like if the spell in the talisman is animal growth or something, then the spell would fail. That situation is not this situation, so we're fine.

No, it is the situation. the original spell creator CAN ONLY TARGET THEMSELVES. No other options. None. Even if the spell is invoked via the breaking of the skull the target would be invalid to all but the original caster.No RAW says otheriwise. So the skull could store the fffect, but it could only effect the original creator, not the current owner/smasher.

[eggynack]

No, it is the situation. the original spell creator CAN ONLY TARGET THEMSELVES. No other options. None. Even if the spell is invoked via the breaking of the skull the target would be invalid to all but the original caster.No RAW says otheriwise. So the skull could store the fffect, but it could only effect the original creator, not the current owner/smasher.
The original spell creator isn't casting the spell. He's making an item that explicitly causes the destroyer of the item to cast the spell on himself. There is no original and new caster. There is only the one caster. If you can find anything, anywhere, that indicates anything different, go right ahead.

[Douglas]

No, it is the situation. the original spell creator CAN ONLY TARGET THEMSELVES. No other options. None. Even if the spell is invoked via the breaking of the skull the target would be invalid to all but the original caster.No RAW says otheriwise.
Restrictions on who can be targeted are considered at the time the target is determined. This does not happen until the skull is activated by destroying it. At that time, the caster of the spell is the person who activated the skull. The target restriction of Personal spells is that the target must be the caster. The caster is the person who activated the skull, so the Personal restriction is that the target must be the person who activated the skull. Skulls target the person who activated them. The person who activated the skull is the same as the person who activated the skull, so the restriction is satisfied.

Also, the "original spell creator" is, once again, NOT CASTING A SPELL. He is creating a magic item. Period. Restrictions on who he can target with a spell are irrelevant because he's not casting one.

[vendur]

The original spell creator isn't casting the spell. He's making an item that explicitly causes the destroyer of the item to cast the spell on himself. There is no original and new caster. There is only the one caster. If you can find anything, anywhere, that indicates anything different, go right ahead.


What spell, exactly? now according to you that spell never existed.

[Douglas]

now according to you that spell never existed.
The spell that the creator of the skull cast? Yep, exactly. There is no such spell.


What spell, exactly?
What we've all been talking about is the spell that the skull casts when it is activated. The creator of the skull chooses which spell this will be and any choices involved in it (other than target selection), but it is not cast until the skull is activated, at which point it is cast by the skull's activator on himself.

[eggynack]

What spell, exactly? now according to you that spell never existed.
You make an item that has the ability to cause the destroyer of the item to effectively cast the spell upon himself. The item is not a spell conduit. You need to have the spell on your list to make the item, but you're not casting the spell on the talisman, which is casting the spell on the destroyer. There's one spell event, and it has nothing to do with the original caster. The spell exists, but it doesn't exist until the guy destroys the talisman. Up till then, it's just a magic item.

[Douglas]

The chain of events goes like this:
1) Magic item crafter makes a magic item.
2) As part of making the magic item, he chooses a spell he is able to cast, and makes all choices other than target that would be involved in casting that spell.
2i) The magic item crafter does not, in actual fact, cast the spell he selected. The choice of spell affects the crafting cost and the later effect of the item, but it is not cast at this point.
3) Someone else acquires the magic item.
4) Said someone else activates the magic item.
5) The magic item's effect happens, which is to cast the spell chosen in step 2, with caster = activator and target = activator.

No spellcasting occurs until step 5. In step 5, all spellcasting validity checks are performed at that time with the appropriate variables, including that the activator of the item is both the caster and the target.

[Deophaun]

Cleric's would also get access to those spells too. A Cleric can already become near invulnerable should he get mirror image and blink on top of that.
Anyspell. Cleric's already can.

There's really no point except to keep it out of the hands of the mundanes, as that's really who potions are targeted to (casters use scrolls or wands, both of which are cheaper).

[vendur]

The spell exists, but it doesn't exist

Uh, huh. ah-yep.

[Douglas]

Uh, huh. ah-yep.
Riiiiiiight, the rest of that sentence was meaningless cruft instead of important clarifying context.:smallannoyed::smallsigh:

The spell exists at the point in time when the skull is activated, and for however long its duration lasts after that. The spell exists only during that period of time, and any argument based on it existing or being cast outside that interval is groundless.

[vendur]

Riiiiiiight, the rest of that sentence was meaningless cruft instead of important clarifying context.:smallannoyed::smallsigh:

The spell exists at the point in time when the skull is activated, and for however long its duration lasts after that. The spell exists only during that period of time, and any argument based on it existing or being cast outside that interval is groundless.

Nah, it's indicative of what i see here.

he doesn't really cast the spell -- is that RAW? Where?
there isn't really a spell target when the object is created-- is that RAW? Where What happens if the spell I enchant is, for instance, shatter.Be spefici with your RAW what happens when the spell has multiple applications and you must select on during targeting.

Ignoring those RAW issues -- how did this happen? Ar ehte magic users of D&D totally incompetent? why wouldn't they be able to share their self only spells with others?


No, cause it's not simple. it's not easy. Oh, here's a polymorph i'm sure you can handle it mister 8 int barbarian. If they could so, there would be no self only spells, only touch spells.

[eggynack]

he doesn't really cast the spell -- is that RAW? Where?
It's under the entries for creating magic items: "The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item’s creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from his currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)" Thus, you don't actually cast the spell; you merely expend it. There is no actual casting involved, and the magic item is certainly not acting as a conduit for the spell.


there isn't really a spell target when the object is created-- is that RAW? Where
Targets are chosen after the spell is cast, not before. I'm specifically referencing the line, "You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell," from the targeting section of the magic overview. Also, the skull talisman specifies that it targets the destroyer of the skull talisman, so it's basically impossible to pick a target before the talisman is destroyed.



What happens if the spell I enchant is, for instance, shatter.Be spefici with your RAW what happens when the spell has multiple applications and you must select on during targeting.
The entry for skull talisman says that, "The character destroying the skull talisman doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect - the creator of the talisman has already done so." That seems pretty clear cut to me. If there are multiple applications, the crafter of the talisman chooses one. That doesn't mean he's casting the spell. He's just making decisions about the spell that will be cast.

[Douglas]

Nah, it's indicative of what i see here.

he doesn't really cast the spell -- is that RAW? Where?
there isn't really a spell target when the object is created-- is that RAW?
When someone is creating a magic item, the starting point is "creating a magic item". For him to be casting a spell, the magic item creation rules would have to specifically call for that action. They do not.


Where What happens if the spell I enchant is, for instance, shatter.Be spefici with your RAW what happens when the spell has multiple applications and you must select on during targeting.
Strictly speaking, "the spell you enchant" is meaningless gibberish. There is a spell that you select for the purpose of determining the magic item's effect.

For making a skull talisman of the spell Shatter, the effect is determined by the following quotes from the skull talisman magic item description:

Only spells that target one or more creatures can be stored in a skull talisman

The character destroying the skull talisman doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect - the creator of the talisman has already done so.

The destroyer is both the effective target and the caster of the effect

As per the second quote, the creator of the talisman chooses which of the area, single object, and single creature options of the Shatter spell to use. The single creature option is the only one that satisfies the first quote, so he must choose that one in order for the spell to be a valid choice.

When the user of the skull talisman destroys it, Shatter is cast on him as per the third quote. If he is a crystalline creature, he takes 1d6 sonic damage per caster level of the skull, fort save for half. If he is not crystalline, the spell fails due to invalid targeting.

[demigodus]

No, cause it's not simple. it's not easy. Oh, here's a polymorph i'm sure you can handle it mister 8 int barbarian. If they could so, there would be no self only spells, only touch spells.

Polymorph is a range: Touch spell. You CAN cast it on an 8 int bararian.

[Douglas]

Ignoring those RAW issues -- how did this happen? Ar ehte magic users of D&D totally incompetent? why wouldn't they be able to share their self only spells with others?

No, cause it's not simple. it's not easy. Oh, here's a polymorph i'm sure you can handle it mister 8 int barbarian. If they could so, there would be no self only spells, only touch spells.
That is a fluff concern. It is not relevant to a discussion of what the rules are. If we were talking about what the rules should be, then it might be worth discussing.

[vendur]

Polymorph is a range: Touch spell. You CAN cast it on an 8 int bararian.

Ya what version? they change the spell oevery other book.

the point is a moron who couldn't even read should not be able, per logic, to invoke things of a magical nature with any degree of significant control,

[vendur]

That is a fluff concern. It is not relevant to a discussion of what the rules are. If we were talking about what the rules should be, then it might be worth discussing.

Yes, i'm curious myself to read about this inanimate skull class able to cast self only spells on anyone who dare crack them open, countrary to allRAW regarding self only spells, including the very subject of this thread, potions.

[Douglas]

Ya what version? they change the spell oevery other book.

the point is a moron who couldn't even read should not be able, per logic, to invoke things of a magical nature with any degree of significant control,
Invoke magic all on his own from his own ability? Maybe not. But that's not what we're discussing here, we're discussing an item where all the moron has to do is crush it and the item does the rest.


Yes, i'm curious myself to read about this inanimate skull class able to cast self only spells on anyone who dare crack them open, countrary to allRAW regarding self only spells, including the very subject of this thread, potions.
What class? It's a magic item. And it can do what its description says it can do, which is cast a single spell once and treat it as if the guy smashing it were the one actually casting it.

[eggynack]

Ya what version? they change the spell oevery other book.

the point is a moron who couldn't even read should not be able, per logic, to invoke things of a magical nature with any degree of significant control,
But... they can. That's not even up for debate. It's just a bog standard usage of the item. You don't have to be smart to break a talisman. In fact, I have the feeling that a little dumbness helps with the process. Your arguments here have gone from illogical to extra bonus illogical, which is admittedly not a very far move. This is the game we're playing. It has rules, and if you want to make an actual argument about how the game works, you need to use the rules to do it. You can't use your distorted version of logic, where breaking a talisman takes any real intelligence. Also, we're using polymorph from D&D 3.5, which is the game we are talking about.

[Deophaun]

the point is a moron who couldn't even read should not be able, per logic, to invoke things of a magical nature with any degree of significant control,
Savage bard says "Hi." And I think the totemist is illiterate as well.

[Captnq]

You guys really have no idea how spells work, do you?

1. I cast a spell with a range of personal.

My spell is cast by me and I am the target. Target is YOU. Target is not CREATURE. Yes, you can argue that you are a creature, but it doesn't matter. By RAW it has to read CREATURE. You might be a creature, but the spell doesn't target creatures, it targets YOU.

Counter-Argument: That doesn't make sense!

Correct. It doesn't make sense. But rules are not about "sense". Rules are about what is allowed and not allowed. Here. Read for yourself:



Creatures as Targets: Many spells affect living creatures, which means all creatures other than constructs, deathless, and undead. Other spells affect a specific type of creature, such as humanoid. Creatures in the spell’s area that aren’t of the appropriate type don’t count against the creatures affected. A creature is anything that has both a Wisdom and a Charisma score. A living creature also has a Constitution score. An object is anything that lacks a Wisdom and a Charisma score, even if it is actually alive. (A rose bush, for example, is alive, but it's an object insofar as the rules are concerned.)

Targeting Yourself: If the target of a spell is you, the spell description has a line that reads Target: You. Against such a spell, you don’t receive a saving throw, and spell resistance doesn’t apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells.



They are different targets, I'm afraid. No question about it.


2. I put the spell in a scroll and hand it to someone else to read.

Well, I have stored the spell in a scroll. He is casting it, it targets YOU. It goes off without a hitch, affecting the reader.


3. I put the spell in a wand.

Same thing.


4. I put it in a potion.

I'm afraid not. Here's why. A potion needs to be a spell that meets the following criteria:

A. 3rd level or lower.
B. Targets one or more creatures.
C. You make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell.
D. Whoever drinks the potion is the target of the spell.

First of all, again, it has to target one or more creatures. That means no personal range. Sorry. YOU and CREATURE are two different things. (See above)

Secondly, You have to make any choices that would happen when casting the spell. Unlike the scroll or wand, the creator makes the choices. I wave a wand, poof, I choose where the fireball goes. Can I drink a fireball and cast it at someone? No. (although one could argue that I can choose to have it explode on top of the drinker, making it cursed or something.)

Third, because all the choices are made when the potion is created, the potion's target is selected at the time of potion creation. Which, in this case, MUST BE the creator. Now, that said, if you could overcome the previous two objections, I suppose you could brew a potion that only you could drink. However, if anyone else took that potion, it would not work, because it isn't targeting THEM, it's targeting YOU.

(And by a weird quirk of fate, if the spell had a range for some reason, and the creator was inside range, when the potion was drunk, it would take effect on you, not the drinker. Not that it is possible, mind you. But if you did break all the previous rules, that's what could happen.)

Why? Because Scrolls and Wands are usable only by those who have the spell on their spell list to begin with. Potions are useable by anyone.

Now Your skulls sound like potions, so they should be treated as such.

Besides, you should just use:
SHALANTHA’S DELICATE DISK
- LOST EMPIRES OF FAERÛN (3.5)

It's so poorly worded, you could store up to 5th level personal spells in it for only 200gp a disk. So much cheaper then potions or skulls.

[eggynack]

@Captnq: That whole post is sarcasm, yeah? If so, it's pretty amusing, and if not, well, it is certainly a thing of some kind. With the ridiculousness of this thread thus far, you have fallen into the sad state of affairs that is Poe's law. This is why blue text is awesome, by the way.

[Douglas]

First of all, again, it has to target one or more creatures. That means no personal range. Sorry. YOU and CREATURE are two different things. (See above)
"You" is definitionally a creature. You as a pronoun in correct non-metaphorical usage can only refer to creatures.


Secondly, You have to make any choices that would happen when casting the spell. Unlike the scroll or wand, the creator makes the choices. I wave a wand, poof, I choose where the fireball goes. Can I drink a fireball and cast it at someone? No. (although one could argue that I can choose to have it explode on top of the drinker, making it cursed or something.)

Third, because all the choices are made when the potion is created, the potion's target is selected at the time of potion creation. Which, in this case, MUST BE the creator. Now, that said, if you could overcome the previous two objections, I suppose you could brew a potion that only you could drink. However, if anyone else took that potion, it would not work, because it isn't targeting THEM, it's targeting YOU.

(And by a weird quirk of fate, if the spell had a range for some reason, and the creator was inside range, when the potion was drunk, it would take effect on you, not the drinker. Not that it is possible, mind you. But if you did break all the previous rules, that's what could happen.)
There's one little detail you're missing: the choice of target is determined by the potion rules - which state it's always the person who drinks the potion. The creator of the potion doesn't get to make that particular choice, because it's made by the nature of the item type.

The reason potions can't contain personal range spells is because the rules specifically say so (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingPotions).

[Mando Knight]

Invoke magic all on his own from his own ability? Maybe not. But that's not what we're discussing here, we're discussing an item where all the moron has to do is crush it and the item does the rest.

Think of a magic item like the skull (i.e. those without UMD checks) not as a channel of one's own magic ability, but a tool.

I have nowhere near enough strength or skill to throw a couple grams of lead at several hundred meters per second, but a firearm is specifically designed to do so with but a pull of a lever. I cannot run faster than a horse nor can I run nonstop for four hours, but a car can do both easily, conveying me many days' worth of walking distance in mere hours, for as long as there is something to drive on and fuel to power it.

Many magic items work the same way. One does not need to be able to understand magic to make use of them (except for when the item specifically says otherwise, as with a scroll or wand), nor does the magical ability that the device is imbued with need to perfectly match the spell(s) used to create it, and some can even exceed the limitations of the spell (the Handy Haversack is in most cases superior to the Secret Chest at the prescribed caster level for creation, for example).

[Renen]

Person that joined the website this month: show me the raw! Its nor raw!

Person thats been here for years: The raw doesnt call for it, therefore you dont do it.

New person: show me the rawww!!!!

[prufock]

My spell is cast by me and I am the target. Target is YOU. Target is not CREATURE. Yes, you can argue that you are a creature, but it doesn't matter. By RAW it has to read CREATURE. You might be a creature, but the spell doesn't target creatures, it targets YOU.
If you want that strict an interpretation, only spells that have exactly "Target: One or more creatures" is viable for a skull talisman, since it says exactly "You can create a skull talisman of any spell you know and that targets one or more creatures." So if you have a spell that targets only "one creature," it doesn't work. If you have a spell that targets "up to four creatures" it also doesn't work.

This is a poor way to interpret it.

In the SRD, there are FOUR spells that say "Target: One or more creatures."
- Mass Hold Monster
- Mass Heal
- Veil
- Mass Charm Monster
Two of these are debuffs and would be stupid choices for Skull Talismans, since the target is You.

Better Logical Progression:
- Skull Talismans (ST) can be created from any spell that targets one or more creatures.
- You are a creature. If anyone can cite an example where the caster is not a creature, please provide it. Even if there are examples of this, it would only mean that that spellcaster could not create ST with Target: You.
- Therefore spells that have Target: You can be used for ST.
- Many spells with Target: You also have Range: Personal.
- Therefore spells that have Range: Personal can be used for ST.

It is that simple, and this is all according to RAW. How are we still having this discussion?

PS, the reason potions can not have personal range is because it states: "Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions," not any of the reasons you tried to connect there.

PPS, under Aiming a Spell is also the text "Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself."

"You" is therefore either a creature or an object. Heck, your own post contains the text "A creature is anything that has both a Wisdom and a Charisma score." If the caster has both of those, it is a creature.

[Segev]

No, RAW says you can't target someone else with a self only spell. And skulls and whatnot don't explicitly say they can obviate those RAW rules. Wishful thinking is not fact.

Your last sentence is correct. Your second, however, is flawed. It doesn't need to say, "This is in specific exception to Paragraph 3, subsection B of the general rules." In D&D, the rule is, "specific trumps general." The Skull gives specific targeting rules. These specific rules trump any general targeting rules which may exist.

This makes your first sentence accurate but meaningless.

Morever, the spell being cast on the breaker of the skull is, per the Skull's RAW, being cast by the person breaking the skull. He is the caster, and his statistics as caster are calculated as if he had the statistics of the creator of the skull. He casts it as if all choices he could make were those made by the creator of the skull.

But, per the RAW of the skull, he is the caster of the spell. Specific rules are given for all his stats-as-caster-of-the-spell, and specific rules say he is the caster.

There is no ambiguity. There is no contradiction. There is only specific rules which trump any general rules which might otherwise be seen as contradictory.

[vendur]

Your last sentence is correct. Your second, however, is flawed. It doesn't need to say, "This is in specific exception to Paragraph 3, subsection B of the general rules." In D&D, the rule is, "specific trumps general." The Skull gives specific targeting rules. These specific rules trump any general targeting rules which may exist.

This makes your first sentence accurate but meaningless.

Morever, the spell being cast on the breaker of the skull is, per the Skull's RAW, being cast by the person breaking the skull. He is the caster, and his statistics as caster are calculated as if he had the statistics of the creator of the skull. He casts it as if all choices he could make were those made by the creator of the skull.

But, per the RAW of the skull, he is the caster of the spell. Specific rules are given for all his stats-as-caster-of-the-spell, and specific rules say he is the caster.

There is no ambiguity. There is no contradiction. There is only specific rules which trump any general rules which might otherwise be seen as contradictory.


The spell fizzles according to RAW. The breaker of the skull is not the legal recipient of the self only spell. The skull actually says that all choices are made regarding the spell, just like potions. The fact that every single positive statement in D&D is not filled with an entire book of negative statements stating everything the item CAN'T do or be, does not mean those rules do not exist. Without specific wording otherwise, it's nothing more than wishful thinking.

[Deophaun]

So vendur, I have a question for you: What is the point of a skull talisman? Because as you've described them, they are just more expensive versions of magic tiles, which can be made with the Brew Potion feat already. What justifies the existence of the Craft Skull Talisman feat and the 100% mark-up?

[vendur]

So vendur, I have a question for you: What is the point of a skull talisman? Because as you've described them, they are just more expensive versions of magic tiles, which can be made with the Brew Potion feat already. What justifies the existence of the Craft Skull Talisman feat and the 100% mark-up?

I'm pretty sure that magic tiles follow the same creation rules as potions, and hence all their restrictions. Skulls are less restricted. it's also not my place to be WOTC's accountant and cost-balancer.

What's the price difference on a tile versus a potion when a tile can more easily stored, used underwater, and used by a creature withoyt a mouth, used more discretely in non combat situations, etc.?

[prufock]

The spell fizzles according to RAW.

No, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you're clinging to this willful misunderstanding of the rules. Stubbornness?

RAW states that the talisman can be made with any spell that targets one or more creatures.
RAW states that anything with a charisma and wisdom score is a creature.
RAW states that Target: You refers to the caster.
RAW states that the breaker of the talisman is the caster.
RAW states that Target: You spells are compatible with Range: Personal spells.

You break the ST, you are the caster. If you have cha and wis scores, you are a creature. If you are a creature, Target: You targets one or more creatures. If the spell targets one or more creatures it can be made into a Skull Talisman.

[vendur]

No, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you're clinging to this willful misunderstanding of the rules. Stubbornness?

RAW states that the talisman can be made with any spell that targets one or more creatures.
RAW states that anything with a charisma and wisdom score is a creature.
RAW states that Target: You refers to the caster.
RAW states that the breaker of the talisman is the caster.
RAW states that Target: You spells are compatible with Range: Personal spells.

You break the ST, you are the caster. If you have cha and wis scores, you are a creature. If you are a creature, Target: You targets one or more creatures. If the spell targets one or more creatures it can be made into a Skull Talisman.

If you want to get technical with RAW, it also says that the spell must target one or more creature. Self only spells do not target "one or more creatures".

The end. The spell would have to specifically say in its targetting "targets one or more creatures".

that's the explicit RAW man. Sure you want to go there? You'd lose there,
too.

Oh, and you are wrong on your list. The breaker is considered the target, not the caster. If they were the caster how could they cast a spell with zero magiical ability(assuming that was the case).

[prufock]

You can use an argument of semantices just readily to debunk this notion. If you want to get technical with RAW, it also says that the spell must target one or more creature. Self only spells do not target "one or more creatures".
By this logic, Skull Talismans can not be used on ANY spells from the PHB. There are 0 spells that have Target listed as exactly "One or more creatures." Only four spells in the PHB, that I listed above, contain that phrase, but the full text is "One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart" By your reasoning, these spells do not work. And two of them are debuffs that you wouldn't WANT to work. If you're going to take "that targets one or more creatures" to mean exactly "Target: One or more creatures," the feat does nothing, and Skull Talismans do not exist.

That does not comply with either RAW or common sense.

"Target: You" is targeting a creature. There is one of you. Therefore you are one or more creatures.


Oh, and you are wrong on your list. The breaker is considered the target, not the caster. If they were the caster how could they cast a spell with zero magiical ability(assuming that was the case).
You have this one right. Luckily, it doesn't change the logic. Breaker is the target, target is you, you are a creature, you are one or more creatures, skull talisman works.

[Segev]

The spell fizzles according to RAW. The breaker of the skull is not the legal recipient of the self only spell.Show me where the RAW say this.


The skull actually says that all choices are made regarding the spell, just like potions.This does not seem to support your point in any way. If you could elaborate on how it does, it would be appreciated.


The fact that every single positive statement in D&D is not filled with an entire book of negative statements stating everything the item CAN'T do or be, does not mean those rules do not exist. Without specific wording otherwise, it's nothing more than wishful thinking.Except that it gives specific wording: it says the person breaking the skull is the caster.

Pretending otherwise is wishful thinking.

[vendur]

By this logic, Skull Talismans can not be used on ANY spells from the PHB. There are 0 spells that have Target listed as exactly "One or more creatures." Only four spells in the PHB, that I listed above, contain that phrase, but the full text is "One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart" By your reasoning, these spells do not work. And two of them are debuffs that you wouldn't WANT to work. If you're going to take "that targets one or more creatures" to mean exactly "Target: One or more creatures," the feat does nothing, and Skull Talismans do not exist.

That does not comply with either RAW or common sense.

"Target: You" is targeting a creature. There is one of you. Therefore you are one or more creatures.

I'm not going to argue here that target "you" spells do not fall under the same category as "target creature". though as far as I'm concern they absolutely do not. That argument is not necessary here. The skull requires the spell it holds to target "one or more creatures". Per RAW a spell that does have "targets one or more creatures" in it's targeting spell description would not qualify for going into the skull. That's the RAW. Full stop. Sorry. Doesn't make logical sense? Tough luck, The skull casting self only spell makes just as little logical sense.

[Deophaun]

I'm pretty sure that magic tiles follow the same creation rules as potions, and hence all their restrictions. Skulls are less restricted.
The only thing less restricted on a skull talisman is there is no explicit prohibition on Personal spells, which you are undoing.

it's also not my place to be WOTC's accountant and cost-balancer.
No, but maybe it should give you pause when your interpretation of RAW leads to strange results.

What's the price difference on a tile versus a potion when a tile can more easily stored, used underwater, and used by a creature withoyt a mouth, used more discretely in non combat situations, etc.?
Craft Wondrous Item.

Oh, and you are wrong on your list. The breaker is considered the target, not the caster. If they were the caster how could they cast a spell with zero magiical ability(assuming that was the case).
That's funny. What's this, then?

The destroyer is both the effective target and the caster of theeffect (though the skull talisman indicates the caster level, the destroyer still controls the effect).

[Kuulvheysoon]

Except that it gives specific wording: it says the person breaking the skull is the caster.

Pretending otherwise is wishful thinking.

No matter how much I agree with you, Segev, that's not what it says in my copy of Frostburn.
Whoever destroys the skull is the target of the spell.Of course, that kinda serves to improve Segev's position: Specific trumps General, so it's changing the target from the Caster (IE personal, target: you) to target: whoever breaks the damned skull.

[Deophaun]

I'm not going to argue here that target "you" spells do not fall under the same category as "target creature". though as far as I'm concern they absolutely do not. That argument is not necessary here. The skull requires the spell it holds to target "one or more creatures". Per RAW a spell that does have "targets one or more creatures" in it's targeting spell description would not qualify for going into the skull. That's the RAW. Full stop. Sorry. Doesn't make logical sense? Tough luck, The skull casting self only spell makes just as little logical sense.
Your interpretation is dead wrong. How do I know?

You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures.
Does cure light wounds fit your interpretation? No, so there shouldn't be a potion of cure light wounds in the DMG. Does invisibility fit your interpretation? No, so there shouldn't be a potion of invisibility in the DMG. Bull's strength? Enlarge person? Gaseous form? Barkskin? There is not a single potion listed that matches your interpretation of how crafting works. That is how I know you're dead wrong.

No matter how much I agree with you, Segev, that's not what it says in my copy of Frostburn.
Check page 112.

[Segev]

Ah, my mistake. I'm AFB, so was taking the word of people who I thought were quoting the item. ^^;

But yes. Specific trumps general, and the Skull Talisman specifies who the target is.


Though didn't somebody also quote it as expressly stating the breaker was both target AND caster? Or was he misquoting?

[Fax Celestis]

Self only is not targeted".

Range: Personal
Target: You (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htm)

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040824a

arget or Targets, Effect, or Area

The next entry in the spell header explains how you aim the spell, as follows:

Target or Targets: You select one or more recipients to receive the spell. All your targets must be in range and you must have line of effect to them. If you don't have line of sight to a recipient, you still can select it as a target if you can touch it.

Often, the entry will limit the kinds of targets you can select. For example, living creatures, objects, or willing creatures. A creature is anything that has both a Wisdom and a Charisma score. A living creature also has a Constitution score.

An object is anything that lacks a Wisdom and a Charisma score, even if it is actually alive. (A rose bush, for example, is alive, but it's an object insofar as the D&D rules are concerned.)

A willing creature must declare itself willing, which it can do anytime, even during someone else's turn or when flat-footed. Declaring oneself willing is not an action. Likewise, you can declare yourself unwilling anytime. Unconscious creatures are automatically willing. Helpless, but conscious creatures (such as paralyzed creatures) still can declare themselves willing or unwilling."You" are a creature.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041214a

Creating Potions

A potion is somewhat similar to a scroll because it is a stored spell in drinkable form (or in spreadable form in the case of an oil). Unlike a scroll, only certain kinds of spells can be made into potions or oils. The spell must be 3rd level or lower, and it must have a casting time of less than 1 minute. The spell stored in the potion or oil must have a target entry in its spell description (see Reading Spell descriptions) and be a spell that the caster can target upon herself or upon an object she touches. A spell with a personal range cannot be made into a potion or oil, and neither can a spell with an area or effect entry.

Spells that can affect multiple targets can be made into potions or oils, but the potion or oil affects only one target, no matter what the potion's caster level.We know magic item creation can change how a spell targets.

Ergo, a skull talisman can be made of shield, and it will cast the spell upon the person using the item.

[vendur]

Your interpretation is dead wrong. How do I know?

Does cure light wounds fit your interpretation? No, so there shouldn't be a potion of cure light wounds in the DMG. Does invisibility fit your interpretation? No, so there shouldn't be a potion of invisibility in the DMG. Bull's strength? Enlarge person? Gaseous form? Barkskin? There is not a single potion listed that matches your interpretation of how crafting works. That is how I know you're dead wrong.

Check page 112.

RAW, it would be incorrect to use any spell that can target only one creature, per that writing. it doesn't matter if "everyone allows it". Per RAW it would still be wrong. it's not logical, but this isn't a logical argument, it's a RAW one.

The logical and (IMO) RAW argument is that the target of a self only spell would be invalid when cast from the skull on ANYONE other than the original creator of the skull.

[Segev]

RAW, it would be incorrect to use any spell that can target only one creature, per that writing. it doesn't matter if "everyone allows it". Per RAW it would still be wrong. it's not logical, but this isn't a logical argument, it's a RAW one. Except that you're relying on "I can read it this way, and choose to exclude other readings" to get here, and it most certainly can be read, thanks to "specific trumps general," to work as everybody else is saying. Given that the magic items provided in the DMG do not contradict the actual reading of the RAW, but do contradict your personal reading of the rules, the evidence is against you.


The logical and (IMO) RAW argument is that the target of a self only spell would be invalid when cast from the skull on ANYONE other than the original creator of the skull.There's no "opinion" when it comes to RAW. There is only opinion when it comes to interpreting the meaning, and that's unusually clear, here. You are quite simply wrong.

[eggynack]

Though didn't somebody also quote it as expressly stating the breaker was both target AND caster? Or was he misquoting?
No, that quote is accurate. The destroyer is the caster and the target, which is rather nifty.

Also, the "one or more creatures" thing doesn't match the semantics of anything else in the game that has the effect you folks are claiming. Nor does it match any kind of logical English semantics. In order for it to work in that manner, the item would need to say something like, "only spells with a target of one or more creatures." Target in that sentence is being used as a verb, rather than as a noun meant to discuss the "target:" part of spells. Here're some examples, like ocular spell, "Only ray spells and spells with a target other than personal," or persistent spell, "Spells with a fixed or personal range". These things are clearly discussing the target and range parameters of the relevant spells. The skull talisman only says that it needs to target one or more creatures, which means any spell that is targeting a creature. "you" are a creature, so the item works.

[Deophaun]

RAW, it would be incorrect to use any spell that can target only one creature, per that writing.
You obviously lack the ability to differentiate between RAW, and an interpretation of RAW.

Yes, under your interpretation of RAW, those spells would not work. But, your interpretation of RAW that says "a spell that targets one or more creatures" means ""a spell that has Target: One or more creatures" is not the only interpretation. For instance, there's on that says "a spell that targets one or more creatures" is just that, it targets one or more creatures. That RAW interpretation works just fine with everything in the books, while the other interpretation does not. Hence, the other interpretation is wrong.

[Douglas]

The logical and (IMO) RAW argument is that the target of a self only spell would be invalid when cast from the skull on ANYONE other than the original creator of the skull.
The fact that a spell is self-only means that the target must be the same as the caster. A spell produced by a skull talisman is explicitly considered to be cast by the creature who used it.

[vendur]

The fact that a spell is self-only means that the target must be the same as the caster. A spell produced by a skull talisman is explicitly considered to be cast by the creature who used it.

Are you calling Kuulvheysoon a liar?

[Renen]

Are you calling Kuulvheysoon a liar?

You arent a particularly bright human specimen arentcha?

[Douglas]

Are you calling Kuulvheysoon a liar?
Maybe he just didn't notice the relevant passage.

Frostburn page 112, second column, top of the page:

The destroyer is both the effective target and the caster of the effect

[vendur]

You arent a particularly bright human specimen arentcha?

oh, personal attacks, great argument there, good chap.

If you bothered to read the persons post I refereed to, he has the specific book in question and that does not say that the breaker is the caster, only the target.

[eggynack]

If you bothered to read the persons post I refereed to, he has the specific book in question and that does not say that the breaker is the caster, only the target.
I have the specific book in question, and he is very much wrong. The book says, "The destroyer is both the effective target and the caster of the effect."

Edit: I figured out the discrepancy (though deophaun already did so, I did not know where the other rule came from). He was referring to the feat description on page 47, where it does have that quote, but there is a whole section on skull talismans on page 112, and that's where the quote about the destroyer being both caster and target is. The feat refers to the section that I quoted, and the two quotes do not contradict each other (it does not say that the destroyer is the effective target but not the caster) so my claim is correct.

[vendur]

I have the specific book in question, and he is very much wrong. The book says, "The destroyer is both the effective target and the caster of the effect."

so what happens when the "effective caster's" caster level is zero

[denthor]

I am getting into this very late but the DM that I play with says yes however you must have a lab in stationary location cost about 15,000 GP and you must burn two feats in brew potion. That will let you cast 5th or 6th level spells in a potion and personal spells.

So not really worth it in his game

[Douglas]

oh, personal attacks, great argument there, good chap.

If you bothered to read the persons post I refereed to, he has the specific book in question and that does not say that the breaker is the caster, only the target.
I managed to find his quote. He is quoting from the Craft Skull Talisman feat on page 47. I am quoting from the item description on page 112. The quotes do not conflict, one just contains more information and rules content than the other. Both are compatible, so both are in effect - and the latter says that the caster is the person who activates the item.

[Douglas]

so what happens when the "effective caster's" caster level is zero
Let me quote the full sentence in question:

The destroyer is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the skull talisman indicates the caster level, the destroyer still controls the effect).
Emphasis added.

Caster = destroyer, target = destroyer, caster level = caster level of the talisman.

[Fax Celestis]

You can create skull talismans, which carry spells within themselves (for more information on skull talismans, see page 112).

Prerequisite: Caster level 6th

Benefit: You can create a skull talisman of any spell you know and that targets one or more creatures. Crafting a skull talisman takes one day. When you create a skull talisman, you set the caster level. The caster level must be sufficient to cast the spell in question and no higher than your own level. The base price of a skull talisman is its spell level * its caster level * 100 gp. To craft the talisman, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials (mostly comprised of the rare metallic inks needed to inscribe the runes of power on the skull) costing one-half this base price. When you create a skull talisman, you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell. Whoever destroys the skull is the target of the spell. Any skull talisman that stores a spell with a costly material component or a XP cost also carries a commensurate cost. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend the material component or pay the XP when creating the skull talisman. The skull to be used to create a skull talisman must be from a creature of at least Small size. A Small creature's skull can store a spell of up to 3rd level. A Medium creature's skull can store a spell of up to 6th level. A Large creature's skull can store a spell of up to 9th level. The art of crafting skull talismans was perfected by neanderthal druids, but any spellcaster can learn the art of making these devices. Many view the act of creating or using a skull talisman as a distasteful activity, but neither in and of itself is it an evil act.

tl;dr: CL is set at item's crafting. You may put any spell into the skull, breaking the skull changes the target to the breaker, and personal range spells can be put into a skull (as a creature is defined as "anything with a Wisdom and Charisma score", and Target: You is targeting a specific creature).

[Tvtyrant]

tl;dr: CL is set at item's crafting. You may put any spell into the skull, breaking the skull changes the target to the breaker, and personal range spells can be put into a skull (as a creature is defined as "anything with a Wisdom and Charisma score", and Target: You is targeting a specific creature).

Is there anyone in this argument who doesn't own Frostburn? It would seem weird to have a 4 page discussion about something you don't own and therefore cannot really read...

[eggynack]

Is there anyone in this argument who doesn't own Frostburn? It would seem weird to have a 4 page discussion about something you don't own and therefore cannot really read...
Apparently vendur fits into that category, seeing as how his textual references are all based on things other people have quoted, even when those things are part of a clear larger context within the book. It is an odd thing.

[vendur]

Is there anyone in this argument who doesn't own Frostburn? It would seem weird to have a 4 page discussion about something you don't own and therefore cannot really read...

Don't own. Have access to, though not recently. Banned everywhere I have ever played.

[vendur]

As written above the wording does not address the argument of whether "one or more" is a specific targetting parameter required or several paramaters combined to make sense with single phrase. Addiiitionally, it contains the words about ALL CHOICES ARE MADE AS IF CASTING THE SPELL. That includes a target. Even if the skull targets the breaker, if the breaker is not a valid target for the spell, the spell would fizzle like casting .Target not valid, spell no worky.

[Deophaun]

As written above the wording does not address the argument of whether "one or more" is a specific targetting parameter required or several paramaters combined to make sense with single phrase.
It's the same wording as used in Brew Potion, and by the available potions the SRD obviously does not interpret it as a specific targeting parameter. This argument has been addressed and destroyed.

Addiiitionally, it contains the words about ALL CHOICES ARE MADE AS IF CASTING THE SPELL. That includes a target.
The target will be the one who breaks the skull, ergo it is not a "choice."

[Fax Celestis]

Even if the skull targets the breaker, if the breaker is not a valid target for the spell, the spell would fizzle like casting .Target not valid, spell no worky.

The item changes the spell's "Target" line, in exactly the same manner that potions do (with, say, a potion of haste).

[eggynack]

As written above the wording does not address the argument of whether "one or more" is a specific targetting parameter required or several paramaters combined to make sense with single phrase. Addiiitionally, it contains the words about ALL CHOICES ARE MADE AS IF CASTING THE SPELL. That includes a target. Even if the skull targets the breaker, if the breaker is not a valid target for the spell, the spell would fizzle like casting .Target not valid, spell no worky.
I just have to ask, why do you think you have a RAW leg to stand on when you don't even have the RAW in front of you? A lot of these issues you're having with our claims would be quickly resolved if you actually knew what you were talking about. Anyways, the crafter makes decisions about the effect, not the target. If the breaker were not a valid target, the spell would indeed likely fizzle. Unfortunately for you, the breaker is a valid target for personal range spells, because he's the caster of the spell.

As for the one or more thing, your claim doesn't really make sense in any situation. Every single piece of text I can find supports the clearly correct reading that the spell just have to target a creature or creatures. You are a target, so a personal range spell targets a creature or creatures. Target isn't being used in its noun parameter form in that sentence, so it just doesn't work the way you're saying it does.

[vendur]

It's the same wording as used in Brew Potion, and by the available potions the SRD obviously does not interpret it as a specific targeting parameter. This argument has been addressed and destroyed.

Like said before this specific piece of wording is related to RAW, not general game logic. As per the RAW it says the spell most target "one or more".. Not "just one". That's RAW, regardless of the "sense" it makes.


The target will be the one who breaks the skull, ergo it is not a "choice."

So what happens when the skull breaks but the creature is not a valid target for the spell?

Nothing happens. Other than making a mess.

[eggynack]

Like said before this specific piece of wording is related to RAW, not general game logic. As per the RAW it says the spell most target "one or more".. Not "just one". That's RAW, regardless of the "sense" it makes.
Yes, one or more. As in, the relevant spell can target one, or the relevant spell can target more.

[Deophaun]

Like said before this specific piece of wording is related to RAW, not general game logic. As per the RAW it says the spell most target "one or more".. Not "just one". That's RAW, regardless of the "sense" it makes.
No, it's not RAW. There is nothing in RAW that says "a spell that targets one of more creatures has an entry that reads 'Target:One or more creatures.'"

As I said, you have displayed a complete inability to distinguish between RAW, and an interpretation of RAW.

So what happens when the skull breaks but the creature is not a valid target for the spell?

Nothing happens. Other than making a mess.
Right, and no one has said otherwise. I have to ask, do you spend any effort trying to understand what other people are saying, or are you just a goldfish swimming around in a bowl, always surprised by your new surroundings?*

*Yes, I know it's just a myth.

[prufock]

As per the RAW it says the spell most target "one or more".. Not "just one". That's RAW, regardless of the "sense" it makes.
One is one or more. The set of 1...n contains 1. "Or" means one is a valid target as well as more than one.

[/quote]So what happens when the skull breaks but the creature is not a valid target for the spell?[/quote]
Example? If the breaker is a creature, it's a valid target. Depending on the spell it may have no effect (if the spell grants a fortitude save and you aren't a living creature, for example), but I'd need to know the specific case.


ALL CHOICES ARE MADE AS IF CASTING THE SPELL. That includes a target.
Target: You is not a choice.


Per RAW a spell that does have "targets one or more creatures" in it's targeting spell description would not qualify for going into the skull. That's the RAW. Full stop. Sorry. Doesn't make logical sense? Tough luck, The skull casting self only spell makes just as little logical sense.
There are 0 spells with the exact text "Target: One or more creatures" without some qualifier, so your argument is that Skull Talismans are impossible.

[Renen]

Like said before this specific piece of wording is related to RAW, not general game logic. As per the RAW it says the spell most target "one or more".. Not "just one". That's RAW, regardless of the "sense" it makes.


So what happens when the skull breaks but the creature is not a valid target for the spell?

Nothing happens. Other than making a mess.


You are arguing against 5 people who are saying you are wrong, some of which have been playing dnd waaay longer than you. And you still think you are the one who is right and 5 people are wrong?

[Malimar]

You are arguing against 5 people who are saying you are wrong, some of which have been playing dnd waaay longer than you. And you still think you are the one who is right and 5 people are wrong?

Fallacy of masses, and possibly illegitimate authority. Vendur's argument is invalid because his premises disagree with the RAW, not because of how many people disagree with him.

[vendur]

Target: You is not a choice.


That's actually part of the problem and why a personal spell is not the same thing as "target a creature who just also happens to be you". The self spells are essentially crafted by and for the user/caster.


*
There are 0 spells with the exact text "Target: One or more creatures" without some qualifier, so your argument is that Skull Talismans are impossible.

Looking at mass hold person and mass hold monster right now, and you are wrong. qualifier like "humanoid" doesn't make it any less of a creature.

[Segev]

That's actually part of the problem and why a personal spell is not the same thing as "target a creature who just also happens to be you". The self spells are essentially crafted by and for the user/caster. You are now willfully ignoring that the skull talismans explicitly state that the breaker of the talisman is both caster and target. Since the breaker is both caster and target, he meets all necessary requirements for a "target: you" spell, such as he is casting by breaking the talisman.




Looking at mass hold person and mass hold monster right now, and you are wrong. qualifier like "humanoid" doesn't make it any less of a creature.Now you're being inconsistent. You first insist that "you" being a creature does not qualify as "one or more creatures," and now are claiming that "humanoid" does. You can't have it both ways.



Honestly, I think you just like to argue.

[eggynack]

That's actually part of the problem and why a personal spell is not the same thing as "target a creature who just also happens to be you". The self spells are essentially crafted by and for the user/caster.

Personal spells are cast by and for the user/caster. They are not crafted by and for the user/caster. There is a distinction, and a difference, and it's a big one. Skull talismans cause the spell in question to be cast by and for the user/caster, so it works. A personal spell actually is a spell that can only target you. That's it. There's no crazy special distinction between personal and non-personal spells, outside of those explicitly listed in the text, and none of those distinctions involve there not being a target.

[vendur]

Fallacy of masses, and possibly illegitimate authority. Vendur's argument is invalid because his premises disagree with the RAW, not because of how many people disagree with him.

Does not disagree with RAW. One ore more creatures is a specific targeting parameter found a certain subset of spells. that's the purest RAW argument. The fact that "logically" that wouldn't be right because the manual contains items, such as potions and whatnot that violate that RAW does not discount the RAW itself. But I don't really care about that argument cause i prefer logic to knee deep in RAW and semantics lawyering.

I need written proof that a self only spell is no different than "target creature" spell. There is no pure RAW that says that only wishful thinking bu gluing different sources/lines together and claiming they were a whole.

[Mando Knight]

Target: You is not a choice.

Irrelevant! It's not a choice that the caster normally gets to make with the spell in this case, and with a skull talisman, the choice of a target is overridden anyway.

Does not disagree with RAW. One ore more creatures is a specific targeting parameter found a certain subset of spells. that's the purest RAW argument. The fact that "logically" that wouldn't be right because the manual contains items, such as potions and whatnot that violate that RAW does not discount the RAW itself.
Except that all given examples within the source material break your interpretation of RAW, which strongly implies that your interpretation is false.

[vendur]

You are now willfully ignoring that the skull talismans explicitly state that the breaker of the talisman is both caster and target. Since the breaker is both caster and target, he meets all necessary requirements for a "target: you" spell, such as he is casting by breaking the talisman.



He is the caster and the target but the spell he is trying to cast lacks a valid target. He is the EFFECTIVe caster and target, but the weaver of the incantation/effect being evoked. So he evokes the spell, but the spell does nothing because it has no valid target. That's the argument anyway.

[eggynack]

He is the caster and the target but the spell he is trying to cast lacks a valid target. He is the EFFECTIVe caster and target, but the weaver of the incantation/effect being evoked. So he evokes the spell, but the spell does nothing because it has no valid target. That's the argument anyway.
How does it lack a valid target? It has a valid target, which is you. If the target of the skull talisman were not you, but rather someone else, there might be some room to argue about personal spells, but that's not the situation we're in.

[Mando Knight]

He is the caster and the target but the spell he is trying to cast lacks a valid target. He is the EFFECTIVe caster and target, but the weaver of the incantation/effect being evoked. So he evokes the spell, but the spell does nothing because it has no valid target. That's the argument anyway.

So now there is a magical semantic difference between "effective caster" and "caster" that prohibits one from using personal spells if they're only the "effective caster?" Where's the RAW on that?

[vendur]

How does it lack a valid target? It has a valid target, which is you. If the target of the skull talisman were not you, but rather someone else, there might be some room to argue about personal spells, but that's not the situation we're in.

1. someone needs to make the item
2. The person is going to make a "self only" spell they currently know
3. the crafter knows NO OTHER WAY to cast the spell other than on HIMSELF.
4. the crafter creates the skull/item by channeling hwhatever his magical abilities in whatever ways he needs to create the item, but it does not change the nature of the spell caster/crafter; he does not know how to cast it any other person than SELF.
5. hence the "self only" version of the spell is sealed in the item. but only he is a valid target. Anyone else is invalid.

[kaminiwa]

{scrubbed}

[vendur]

So now there is a magical semantic difference between "effective caster" and "caster" that prohibits one from using personal spells if they're only the "effective caster?" Where's the RAW on that?

If there wasn't a semantically difference, it wouldn't be included in the text.

[vendur]

Is there some way to flag a moderator to mark vendur as a troll? Reporting individual posts seems silly - it's a pattern of abuse, not any specific post.

I mean, this is Page 5 of the thread, and she's still continue to argue a point from Page 1. And no one else thinks she has a valid point.

That is five pages of vendur simply repeating the same argument and ignoring everyone else. If it's not trolling, it's still utterly unproductive and has pretty much ruined this thread - I don't have the patience to wade through vendur's posts and all the replies, just to see if one or two posts might have actually been something interesting :smallfrown:

Also, may I suggest we stop feeding the troll? She's spent the last five pages ignoring us; that makes it pretty clear to me that no one is going to change her mind!

Maybe they can ban you for calling me a troll?

[prufock]

I'm going to sum up for those just joining us.


Self only is not targeted".
Personal spells have Target: You.


Like i said, if i was blind I'd have to suffer a concealment check to cast a self only spell.
Nothing in the blinded condition or the targeting description suggests anything of the sort.


it's impossible to save against a self only effect.
Irrelevant.


it's pretty clear that personal spells are different from "creature target you"
Almost all Range: Personal spells have Target: You.


If i cast something on this skull when i'm creating that includes targets
That is not how item creation works.


What you are asking me to swallow is that a stupid inanimate, non sentient object has the ability to do what the original "spell caster" that created the very object in question would have been unable to do.
Irrelevant "flavour" argument that has no relationship to the rules.


No, RAW says you can't target someone else with a self only spell. And skulls and whatnot don't explicitly say they can obviate those RAW rules.
Except that they do, because you aren't targeting someone else with a Personal Range spell. You're creating an item that treats the user as both target and caster.


Oh, here's a polymorph i'm sure you can handle it mister 8 int barbarian. If they could so, there would be no self only spells, only touch spells.
Polymorph can be cast on others, making this argument nonsensical.


the point is a moron who couldn't even read should not be able, per logic, to invoke things of a magical nature with any degree of significant control
That's exactly what magic items are meant to do.


Yes, i'm curious myself to read about this inanimate skull class able to cast self only spells on anyone
It's not a class, it's an item.


Self only spells do not target "one or more creatures".
Suggests the caster is either less than one creature or is not a creature at all.


The breaker is considered the target, not the caster. If they were the caster how could they cast a spell with zero magiical ability
Faked me out with this one. The breaker is indeed considered BOTH, and you seem to miss the point of magic items like potions and skull talismans. They are intended to be used by people with no magical ability.

RE: Cure light wounds not stating Target: One or more creatures.

RAW, it would be incorrect to use any spell that can target only one creature, per that writing. it doesn't matter if "everyone allows it".
Misses the fact that these potions are published in the DMG, which is RAW, which means it isn't a matter of "everyone allows it." It's a matter of "this is how it's designed."


he has the specific book in question
Apparently working from memory without the source material.


so what happens when the "effective caster's" caster level is zero
Skips over the fact that you must have CL 6 to create the talismans.


ALL CHOICES ARE MADE AS IF CASTING THE SPELL
Target: You is not a choice, for 2 reasons - "You" is the only option available and Skull Talisman makes the target the breaker.


That's actually part of the problem and why a personal spell is not the same thing as "target a creature who just also happens to be you". The self spells are essentially crafted by and for the user/caster.
Except that Skull Talisman changes that.


Looking at mass hold person and mass hold monster right now, and you are wrong. qualifier like "humanoid" doesn't make it any less of a creature.
Contradicting yourself.

If I counted correctly, that's 18 ways in which you are wrong.

[Mando Knight]

1. someone needs to make the item
2. The person is going to make a "self only" spell they currently know
3. the crafter knows NO OTHER WAY to cast the spell other than on HIMSELF.
4. the crafter creates the skull/item by channeling hwhatever his magical abilities in whatever ways he needs to create the item, but it does not change the nature of the spell caster/crafter; he does not know how to cast it any other person than SELF.
5. hence the "self only" version of the spell is sealed in the item. but only he is a valid target. Anyone else is invalid.

...Except the creator doesn't cast the spell to create the item. They expend it, but do not cast it.

If your interpretation holds true, then "Target: You" wands and scrolls could also not exist, nor could a wizard learn such a spell from another's spellbook.

If the spell was "Range: Personal/Target: Elminster" rather than "Target: You" I could see the argument (that the spell could only target Elminster, in this case). Instead, the "You" of the target line is the caster. If someone is designated as the caster by the magic item for the purpose of the spell's effect, then that person is the "You" in question.

Furthermore, the skull talisman changes the rule anyway, by overriding the target line. The target changes from "You" to "The destroyer of the talisman."

[vendur]

{scrubbed}

[Fax Celestis]

The item changes the spell's "Target" line, in exactly the same manner that potions do (with, say, a potion of haste).

Please, vendur, tell me why this isn't right.

[vendur]

...Except the creator doesn't cast the spell to create the item. They expend it, but do not cast it.

If your interpretation holds true, then "Target: You" wands and scrolls could also not exist, nor could a wizard learn such a spell from another's spellbook.

totally disagree here. In those cases you are either brute forcing magical knowledge --- a pretender, not a real magic user, or more commonly the user actually had arcane/divine/etc. knowledge that allows them to channel/use those spells themselves, in which case the wand/scroll is no more than an addition to their own existent magical abilities.



Furthermore, the skull talisman changes the rule anyway, by overriding the target line. The target changes from "You" to "The destroyer of the talisman."



But the invocation in the skull was only put there by someone who only knew how to cast that spell with themselves as the target. The skull cracker can be the effective caster and the effectie target, but it doesn't change that the original spell was not created for person breaking it up and hence would be inavlid, as if a dragon smashed open an enlarge person spell.

[kaminiwa]

{scrubbed}

[vendur]

{scrubbed}

[Segev]

totally disagree here. In those cases you are either brute forcing magical knowledge --- a pretender, not a real magic user, or more commonly the user actually had arcane/divine/etc. knowledge that allows them to channel/use those spells themselves, in which case the wand/scroll is no more than an addition to their own existent magical abilities.



But the invocation in the skull was only put there by someone who only knew how to cast that spell with themselves as the target. The skull cracker can be the effective caster and the effectie target, but it doesn't change that the original spell was not created for person breaking it up and hence would be inavlid, as if a dragon smashed open an enlarge person spell.

All irrelevant. The creator of the talisman is not, when the talisman is broken, the caster of the spell. He made the talisman, set the CL of the spell it will cast, made any required choices, and expended a spell slot (or few) of the appropriate level, but the spell the talisman's breaker will cast is not being cast by the creator of the talisman.

The spell cast when the talisman is broken is - for all intents and purposes save the CL and the choices already set by the creator when he made it - being cast by the breaker of the talisman.

Let me repeat that: The spell cast when the talisman is broken is being cast by the breaker of the talisman.

Therefore, if it's a Personal-target spell, the spell's caster (he who broke the talisman) is casting a spell on himself.

[vendur]

All irrelevant. The creator of the talisman is not, when the talisman is broken, the caster of the spell. He made the talisman, set the CL of the spell it will cast, made any required choices, and expended a spell slot (or few) of the appropriate level, but the spell the talisman's breaker will cast is not being cast by the creator of the talisman.

The spell cast when the talisman is broken is - for all intents and purposes save the CL and the choices already set by the creator when he made it - being cast by the breaker of the talisman.

Let me repeat that: The spell cast when the talisman is broken is being cast by the breaker of the talisman.

Therefore, if it's a Personal-target spell, the spell's caster (he who broke the talisman) is casting a spell on himself.

I don't disagree that the spell is being cast and the vast majority written here. However, the spell has no valid target and does nothing. You broke the skull and were the effective caster and target, but an invalid target. unless of course the breaker of the skull was also the one who created it. That's fine.

[Fax Celestis]

I don't disagree that the spell is being cast and the vast majority written here. However, the spell has no valid target and does nothing. You broke the skull and were the effective caster and target, but an invalid target. unless of course the breaker of the skull was also the one who created it. That's fine.

The creator is irrelevant. When the skull talisman is broken, the target becomes the breaker, as outlined in the description of skull talismans. Specific trumps general, and in this case it changes the spell's target to "breaker", not "you".

It's exactly like how metamagic can change a fireball's Range line from "Long (400' + 40'/lev)" to "800' + 80'/lev".

[Segev]

I don't disagree that the spell is being cast and the vast majority written here. However, the spell has no valid target and does nothing. You broke the skull and were the effective caster and target, but an invalid target. unless of course the breaker of the skull was also the one who created it. That's fine.
Where do the rules say that the creator is the only valid target?

The creator is irrelevant. When the skull talisman is broken, the target becomes the breaker, as outlined in the description of skull talismans. Specific trumps general, and in this case it changes the spell's target to "breaker", not "you".

It's exactly like how metamagic can change a fireball's Range line from "Long (400' + 40'/lev)" to "800' + 80'/lev".
Fax Celestis is exactly right.

Not only does the Skull directly change the target to "you," but a "personal" range spell has a target of "you," the caster, to begin with.

Since the person breaking the skull is the caster, the target of "you" applies to the person breaking the skull.

There is no reading of this that makes you an invalid target. You have to insert or make up words that aren't there to achieve that reading. Which is effectively wishing, and as you say, that doesn't make it so.

[kpenguin]

The Modguin: Locked for review