Spellcasters immune to their own magic?

[Mr.Kraken]

So, I've been playing with this group and they are used to the following rule: a spellcaster is immune to his own magic if it's harmful to him. So, if a spellcaster uses an area of effect spell that would harm him in a area that he would be targeted he wouldn't be affected, but if he uses a spell that has "Target: You" or "Target: Creature touched", then, he can be affected depending on the spell's effect.

Is this standard? Do you think this is too unbalanced (like me), or maybe there is some ruling I'm missing here?

[Tohsaka Rin]

That's a bit like throwing a grenade a few feet away, and expecting nothing bad to happen to yourself, don't you think?

[weckar]

I've seen it used before - especially in tight dungeoncrawlers - but usually it is hard to see where to draw the line. A sleep spell may not affect yourself, but what about a summoned creature? A zombie? A fire?

[ahenobarbi]

Antimagic Field.

[Spore]

This can get out of hand when a Cleric realizes the power of Antimagic zones. Tell them about that issue and then readjust your houserules.

Personally I am fond of playing with skill checks in that area. I'm not sure if the skill Appraise let's you judge distances and blast areas but my old DM always let me roll on that to see if I can position my fireball so that it kills the guy our melees are infight with.

[lord_khaine]

No offence, but i agree with the second poster here, and also think that rule is bonkers.

Placing an violent sphere of flaming death right before you so that it only incenerates the guy attemting to shiv you is one thing, and acceptable since it can be explained as training.

But dropping said sphere of doom on your own feet and expecting to be able to walk away again is crazy, as well as most likely a result of playing to many d&d based computer games with friendly fire turned off.

I will also at the same time point out, that there are som feats that allow something like this, so its clearly not a part of the core rules.

[Killer Angel]

I will also at the same time point out, that there are som feats that allow something like this, so its clearly not a part of the core rules.

And also prestige classes, that let you select squares or targets affected / unaffected (archmage, spellguard of Silverymoon).

In the end, no, to allow it by default, is a terrible idea.

[Red Fel]

I think it's a fine idea, if you allow all melees to be immune to weapons.

Seriously, what everyone else said. There are ways to protect yourself from your own spells (generally using other spells, or feats, or PrC features), but having it by default takes the already-powerful caster and basically turns him up to 11. And yes, as others mentioned, the AMF horror is just one of the more archetypical symptoms here.

There is nothing balanced about giving spellcasters blanket immunity to their own spells right out of the gate. Just no.

[atemu1234]

'tis a bad idea.

Casters aren't immune to their spells, and if he's in a situation where he has to choose between hitting himself and dying or facing monsters and dying, there's a reason rez magic exists. Seriously, there's a variety of ways of granting himself Immunity to Fire without a poorly conceived houserule, if he wants to be the center of a Fireball.

[Dalebert]

... takes the already-powerful caster and basically turns him up to 11.

Agreed. Casters are already over-powered. Not just that, but the whole idea of magic being a dangerous tool to wield is kind of integral to a lot of the stories that inspired D&D. It should be dangerous and you should have to exercise caution with its use.

This reminds me of a thread a little while ago about whether all spells should be dismissible. Clearly they didn't intend for all of them to be because they have a special notation for the ones that actually are. When Mickey plays with magic to avoid his choirs, he whipped up a summon mops spell that got out of control and even he as the caster couldn't stop it. Magic is inherently dangerous.

[Psyren]

No; it's already debatable whether magic is as "risky" as it should be. Declawing it further does not compute.

[Crake]

Selective spell does pretty much exactly that, and it's a +1 metamagic, so if you just increase the level of every single spell and all spellcasters need to waste a feat at level 1, then sure.

[Mr.Kraken]

The guys in the group argue that since spellcasters (specially, high-leveled ones) have to know all the nuances of their learned spells and that their magic is fueled by their own soul, it's not reasonable that they should be harmed by their own spells, much in a way as a snake is not harmed by its own venom.

My opinion? Well, I said it was outright wrong, unbalanced and cheap. Heated discussions ensued. I was the new guy (even though they trusted me enough to be the DM) and was trying to "outrule their houserules". Kind of a difficult situation, but we eventually got over it.

Until Monkey Grip was used to hold a medium-sized two handed-weapon in one hand. Heated discussions. Again.

[Oko and Qailee]

Honestly, casters are pretty strong, this rule doesn't change much IMO (honestly, other than really tight conditions, it's not that hard to position fireballs).

But it is a buff and it's abusable (AMF as stated above). It's also downright silly. Is the caster immune to their own conjuration effects for example? If so, how? Conjurations cease to be magical after they're cast...

[Agincourt]

Until Monkey Grip was used to hold a medium-sized two handed-weapon in one hand. Heated discussions. Again.

I would let this one slide. It doesn't make anyone overpowered if you let this happen. Sometimes you have to pick your battles, and this one led to an argument.

[Mr.Kraken]

The argument started when one of the guys used Reverse Gravity centered on himself to make all foes surrounding him levitate, and with that rule, he wouldn't be affected.

[ahenobarbi]

Honestly, casters are pretty strong, this rule doesn't change much IMO (honestly, other than really tight conditions, it's not that hard to position fireballs).

But it is a buff and it's abusable (AMF as stated above). It's also downright silly. Is the caster immune to their own conjuration effects for example? If so, how? Conjurations cease to be magical after they're cast...


It makes caster defenses much, much stronger. Solid Fog prevents most creatures from approaching you (or knowing where you are) without hindering you movement (or sight). Put an ongoing damaging spell (Maw of chaos, kill cloud, ...) on in the same are to effortlessly butcher anything trying to approach you. And be sure to carry a lot of Explosive Runes with you - if something manages to get close to you blow them up.

EDIT: And just try to think about how this works with Wall of X spells.

[Psyren]

The argument started when one of the guys used Reverse Gravity centered on himself to make all foes surrounding him levitate, and with that rule, he wouldn't be affected.

Reverse Gravity is shapeable - simply leave out the cubes you and your allies are standing in. Since enemies can't normally share your square it should be fairly easy to make it selective.

[Jermz]

The guys in the group argue that since spellcasters (specially, high-leveled ones) have to know all the nuances of their learned spells and that their magic is fueled by their own soul, it's not reasonable that they should be harmed by their own spells, much in a way as a snake is not harmed by its own venom.


I'd like to point out that it's a fallacious belief that a snake isn't harmed by its own venom. Yes, it carries its venom inside its body, but the venom is located in venom sacs and secreted via fangs/saliva, depending on the species of snake. If the snake's own venom enters its bloodstream, as is usually needed in order for it to be affected - it tends to suffer ill effects. *

With regard to the ruling that spellcasters are immune to their own magic, I find it silly and overpowering - especially since there are feats and classes which specifically are needed for this kind of thing to take place.

*I'm not a herpetologist or any kind of reptile specialist, so I might be wrong on these counts.

[Red Fel]

The argument started when one of the guys used Reverse Gravity centered on himself to make all foes surrounding him levitate, and with that rule, he wouldn't be affected.

Yeah... No. If you can cast Reverse Gravity, which is a 7th- or 8th-level spell, you can cast Levitate, which is a 2nd-level spell with a longer duration (measured in minutes instead of rounds). Spend the extra round to cast Levitate on yourself, and you can move up and down freely, then cast Reverse Gravity, using Levitate to ignore the effects. Or cast Fly, same thing. In fact, Reverse Gravity explicitly calls those out as ways to bypass it. Or use the Selective Spell metamagic. Or any number of other options available.

This isn't a case of debating RAW, because the RAW isn't on the player's side. It's not a case of balance, because there is none. It's not a case of a lack of options, because the player has plenty of them, if he only knew how to use them. This is a case of a lazy player, who wants all the marbles, and he wants them now. He doesn't want to use any of the tools available to get what he wants in a roundabout way; he wants what he wants, he wants it immediately and without effort, and he doesn't like it when you bring annoying things like "rules" or "balance" or "logic" into the debate.

Bad little children get no marbles. That's all I'm saying.

[(Un)Inspired]

The argument started when one of the guys used Reverse Gravity centered on himself to make all foes surrounding him levitate, and with that rule, he wouldn't be affected.

There are casters who aren't flying all day?

If this is how they want to play then send an AMF cleric at them. It should change their minds pretty quick.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Just ask your players if they (not their characters, them in real life) are immune to acid.

Oh, they're not?

Dear me, did they forget that they have a big puddle of acid in the middle of their guts, filling their stomach?

I would think they'd feel very silly, once they hear that comparison. It's MAGIC. Magic doesn't give a damn who casts it. If you are in its radius, mister fireball is NOT your friend.

[Ettina]

I'd like to point out that it's a fallacious belief that a snake isn't harmed by its own venom. Yes, it carries its venom inside its body, but the venom is located in venom sacs and secreted via fangs/saliva, depending on the species of snake. If the snake's own venom enters its bloodstream, as is usually needed in order for it to be affected - it tends to suffer ill effects.

Depends on the species, actually.

I believe most snakes are immune to their own venom (eg cobras have oddly-formed receptors on their motor neurons so cobra venom can't bind to them). But Gila monsters (a type of venomous lizard) aren't immune to their own venom. So having venom doesn't automatically mean you're immune to that kind of venom.

Incidentally, even non-venomous creatures have bodily fluids that are toxic if they come into contact with the wrong body region. Blood, for example, is toxic to neurons, which is why we have a blood-brain barrier that allows only certain selected things to get from our blood to our neurons. (This is why bleeding in the brain is so devastating, even when only small amounts of blood leak out.)

[(Un)Inspired]

Ya know I brew my own beer and I'm definitely not immune to its effects.

[lord_khaine]

Ya know I brew my own beer and I'm definitely not immune to its effects.

Does IMO wins the thread.

Please come back with the next amusing problem you find :smallbiggrin:

[Killer Angel]

Ya know I brew my own beer and I'm definitely not immune to its effects.

I hope so. Otherwise, it would be very sad. :smallbiggrin:

[Oko and Qailee]

If this is how they want to play then send an AMF cleric at them. It should change their minds pretty quick.

Seconded. Show them precisely why this is a dumb rule.

[Troacctid]

If they're just using it to be immune to stuff like fireballs, it's not overpowered, but if you start looking at things that mess with terrain and such, it could get silly fairly quickly.

[Tvtyrant]

I would probably allow it specifically for evocation effects. There aren't that many good ones, and you are ostensibly still in control of the spell when it leaves your hands (IE it isn't real stuff). Ask the player to lose a feat slot in return to keep it mostly balanced.

I'm personally of the opinion that the optimization meta-game, while fun, doesn't add much to the gaming experience. Here we have an ability that someone with years of rules memorization could do, so simply imposing a similar penalty seems fine to me as long as the effect is not too broken.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I could have sworn evocation was explicitly real stuff. It just came in and out in a flash. Maybe I am just being confused by the word "evocation." So few evocations can target the user (and would require the user to have gotten themselves into a real bind to necessitate it) that I would say let the normal rule stand.

[Red Fel]

I could have sworn evocation was explicitly real stuff.

You're probably thinking Conjuration (Creation) with a duration of Instantaneous. Spells from the creation subschool carry this convenient note (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#creation):
If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.

Evocation... Isn't necessarily explicitly real. It's magic. You're creating a semi-stable ball of fire, or some floating lights, or a wall made out of wind, or a "circular plane of force." Most of that stuff pretty much can't exist without animating magical force.

That said, I wouldn't allow it, even for Evocation effects. Don't get me wrong, there are some pretty cool things, like if you conjured a wall of fire and parted it like a curtain around you. That's awesome. But that's also not RAW. There are ways to accomplish that, as previously mentioned. But it basically means you're taking a caster and making him even more powerful.

Let me give you an illustration. It's been mentioned several times in this thread: Fireball (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm). If you have at least 10 CL, everyone in range has to save or take 10d6 (except for those dirty, dirty Rogues). For obvious reasons, this is a spell best cast at range, away from the party. It is highly situational.

Now give a Wizard automatic immunity to his own spells. Or even just to his Evocation spells (of which Fireball is one). He is surrounded by enemies. Ordinarily, this would require tactical thinking on his part - how can he escape unharmed? Now? Now he can detonate a Fireball right on top of himself. Your Wizard can basically become a suicide bomber, detonating high-powered AoE spells on top of himself at no personal risk. Spells which carried the warning label of "Do not use this in close quarters, or you will die," lose any hazard.

And the Fighter still dies if he gets poked too hard with a spear.

[Troacctid]

Escaping from enemies who surround you isn't really a tactical puzzle for a Wizard. You just cast Dimension Door. Bamf, problem solved.

[Psyren]

Escaping from enemies who surround you isn't really a tactical puzzle for a Wizard. You just cast Dimension Door. Bamf, problem solved.

Mage Slayer is a monster feat too.

[Troacctid]

Mage Slayer is a monster feat too.

Well, if they have that, it'll hurt the fireball plan just as badly.

[Curmudgeon]

The house rule I tend to use here is just the opposite: casters take double the harmful effect from their spells. Spellcasters already have plenty of nice things; they don't deserve more.

[Nightingale]

Oh no,I suggest you go the other way around.Tell your players that their unassailable logic convinced you.Make the casters immune to their spells.ALL of them.No invisibility, fly, polymorphing, mage armoring, teleporting and all those other silly stuff that "their souls are too attuned to affect them".And please bring photos of their expressions.The backpedaling should be fast enough for scorchmarks on the floor.
Seriously though, this houserule makes the most powerful classes in the game disgustingly more powerful, and the fact that the players want to force a houserule on the dm is a serious breach of gaming protocol. Either rule zero it, or have every spellcaster enemy walk around with amfs.If those are the rules of magic they'd be stupid not to, right?

[Jeff the Green]

Note that it's possible to get a lesser version of this without spending much in the way of build resources. The (Improved) Friendly Fire Evasion teamwork benefits give you exactly what it sounds like: (Improved) Evasion for spells your teammates cast. It's irritating to get, though. You need someone with both Evasion and Spellcraft ranks (your familiar can count as this for the Improved version) and everyone else needs a base Reflex save of +2 (+3 for the Improved version). A Wizard won't get the save needed unless they either go into a class with a good Reflex save (Ruathar's nice for this) or takes two or three sets of three levels from the same class.

They're both in Heroes of Battle; the lesser version was reprinted (though not, I believe, changed) in PHBII.