Perhaps an interesting question? Perhaps not...

[Max Caysey]

Hello...

So I was thinking that an instantaneous conjuration (creation) spell like Orb of Acid (http://kmalloy.cloudapp.net/dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/orb-acid--4607/index.html) would not count as magic against stuff like demi-liches, golems or other creatures that has some sort of magic immunity... But what about divine or primordial beings? Who might have immune to mortal magic or specifically immune to conjuration magic? I would say that unless such a creature could pass throug a wall of stone/iron such a creature would be harmed by the orb spell in question...

Would you guys agree?

[Psyren]

Basically it depends on the wording of their immunity. Only the spell immunity ability (e.g. the one possessed by golems) functions like "unbeatable spell resistance"; other types of immunity that do not specify this are basically true immunity. For example, Globe of Invulnerability will shut down/suppress orbs of 4th level and lower - it doesn't care whether something can beat SR, nor does it care whether something can exist in an AMF, it simply excludes effects. Similarly, a black dragon will not blink even if you throw an orb of acid right in its face - it simply won't care. (Actually, it might care a great deal and eat you, but it won't be harmed, at least.)

Also, I'd avoid posting links from you-know-where around here.

[Firest Kathon]

The immunities section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#immunities) of the divine rules only mentions spell resistence, so spells with SR: No (such as the Orb line) work normally. However, it also says:


Energy Immunity
Deities of rank 1 or higher are immune to electricity, cold, and acid, even if the attacker is a deity of higher divine rank. Some deities have additional energy immunities.
[...]
Energy Resistance
A deity has fire resistance of 5 + its divine rank.

and they can get additional immunities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#extraEnergyImmunity) as Salient Divine Abilities.

I'm not aware of other immunities, but I think it depends on the exact wording of the ability in question. If it is just a "standard" magic immunity, it translates as "infinite spell resistance" and as such does not apply to spells with "SR: No". Keep in mind that "real" magic immunity existed in the 3.0 rules, so older books which were not updated to 3.5 might still have the old version.

Edit: Swordsage'd, and by Psyren no less ... I feel honored :smallwink:.

[Max Caysey]

Basically it depends on the wording of their immunity. Only the spell immunity ability (e.g. the one possessed by golems) functions like "unbeatable spell resistance"; other types of immunity that do not specify this are basically true immunity. For example, Globe of Invulnerability will shut down/suppress orbs of 4th level and lower - it doesn't care whether something can beat SR, nor does it care whether something can exist in an AMF, it simply excludes effects. Similarly, a black dragon will not blink even if you throw an orb of acid right in its face - it simply won't care. (Actually, it might care a great deal and eat you, but it won't be harmed, at least.)

Also, I'd avoid posting links from you-know-where around here.

So a falling wall of iron will not affect someone inside a globe of invulnerability (which incomepass the level of the spell), even though its just normal iron? Is this RAW or RAI?

Its clear that acid immunity will make one unaffected by acid. Mundane or magic...

The specific wording was this: "They are immune to non-epic magic and all abjuration, conjuration, enchantment, illusion, necromantic and transmutation magic from beings of equal or lesser power to themselves."

What I am posing is that since its normal acid or iron or whatever... the immunity wont help, since its not magical when it hits. And so one could affect the above being with an wall of iron or orb of acid.

[Psyren]

So a falling wall of iron will not affect someone inside a globe of invulnerability (which incomepass the level of the spell), even though its just normal iron? Is this RAW or RAI?

EDIT: Actually, this is irrelevant, a globe can't beat a 6th-level spell regardless.

[Max Caysey]

EDIT: Actually, this is irrelevant, a globe can't beat a 6th-level spell regardless.

Thats what I meant by (if the glome incomapassed the spell level of wall of iron) as a thought experiment... Lets say a globe that incompassed levels 1-9... whould it then block the falling wall of iron? and would that be a RAW ruling or a RAI ruling?

[Karl Aegis]

A falling wall of iron isn't particularly dangerous to someone with that kind of ability.

[atemu1234]

A falling wall of iron isn't particularly dangerous to someone with that kind of ability.

Also, making it fall like that is more difficult than it's worth. Apocalypse from the Sky is a fun spell to have a scroll of.

[Max Caysey]

A falling wall of iron isn't particularly dangerous to someone with that kind of ability.

The important thing is wether or not they are struck by the wall or not... not so much the damage. Would you say that they are struck by the wall or not?

[Deox]

as a thought experiment... Lets say a globe that incompassed levels 1-9... whould it then block the falling wall of iron

For the sake of your argument, let's assume the above.

Globe of Invulnerability, lesser (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/globeOfInvulnerabilityLesser.htm), to me, has a key piece of information:


Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast.

The Wall of Iron, being instantaneous, could be considered already in effect, and thus would not be stopped by the globe. Additionally, the Wall of Iron is also no longer a spell, as the effect has already happened after casting.

Also, nowhere does it state that it prevents any mundane thing from entering.

[Max Caysey]

For the sake of your argument, let's assume the above.

Globe of Invulnerability, lesser (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/globeOfInvulnerabilityLesser.htm), to me, has a key piece of information:



The Wall of Iron, being instantaneous, could be considered already in effect, and thus would not be stopped by the globe. Additionally, the Wall of Iron is also no longer a spell, as the effect has already happened after casting.

Also, nowhere does it state that it prevents any mundane thing from entering.

Indeed... My point exactly! It is my view, that The orb spell line, is the same thing,

[Deox]

Indeed... My point exactly! It is my view, that The orb spell line, is the same thing,

I would say this is correct - the orb line conjures real things that are lobbed at the target.

If the target were immune to the mundane thing in question (black dragon being immune to acid), that is something else altogether.

[Psyren]

For the sake of your argument, let's assume the above.

Globe of Invulnerability, lesser (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/globeOfInvulnerabilityLesser.htm), to me, has a key piece of information:



The Wall of Iron, being instantaneous, could be considered already in effect, and thus would not be stopped by the globe. Additionally, the Wall of Iron is also no longer a spell, as the effect has already happened after casting.

Also, nowhere does it state that it prevents any mundane thing from entering.

The part you bolded refers to casting the globe after {targeted spell}. For example, trying to use Globe of Invulnerability to suppress a Bestow Curse that is already on you wouldn't work. It doesn't refer to casting the globe, then someone casting an orb at you.

I agree the wall might be wonky, but the fact still remains that the globe says nothing about instantaneous conjurations being exempt the way AMF does, so it should block an orb regardless.

[Max Caysey]

The part you bolded refers to casting the globe after {targeted spell}. For example, trying to use Globe of Invulnerability to suppress a Bestow Curse that is already on you wouldn't work. It doesn't refer to casting the globe, then someone casting an orb at you.

I agree the wall might be wonky, but the fact still remains that the globe says nothing about instantaneous conjurations being exempt the way AMF does, so it should block an orb regardless.

I disagree... If you hurl the iron wall at someone or hurl the orb of acid at someone should be the same. What I'm saying is, that since the effects of instantaneous conjuration (creation) spell does not light up on detect magic, is means that its no longer magic, only the casting/conjuration is magical and since the globe blocks magic it cant in any way block the conjured mundane wall or orb. IMO.

[Psyren]

All it says though is the effects of a spell. Not the magical effects of a spell. AMF cares about the effect being magical, I won't deny that, but the Globe does not.

Also, there is actually a potential reason why the globe would treat an orb and a wall differently:


Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe.

Orbs are attacks and thus have a target - tipping a wall over does not.

[Max Caysey]

All it says though is the effects of a spell. Not the magical effects of a spell. AMF cares about the effect being magical, I won't deny that, but the Globe does not.

Also, there is actually a potential reason why the globe would treat an orb and a wall differently:



Orbs are attacks and thus have a target - tipping a wall over does not.

Is the orb not a ranged touch attack? Thats does not have a target. That would indicate that spellturning would stop ranged touch attacks... and it doesnt. I would say that the magic of the globe cant read/know when the acid from the spell originates from a spell or from alchemical prossesses, since both is mundane. It makes no sense that the globe could differ between one instantaneous conjuration (creation) spell (Iron) and another instantaneous conjuration (creation) (acid) spell. The effect is identical. IMO And neither materials disapears after they are conjured.

[Psyren]

Is the orb not a ranged touch attack? Thats does not have a target. That would indicate that spellturning would stop ranged touch attacks... and it doesnt.

Of course it does - are you saying that spell turning wouldn't stop scorching ray?

When it says "effect spells" it means that it won't stop, say, a Summon Monster from hitting you.

And attacks do have targets:


If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

[Max Caysey]

Of course it does - are you saying that spell turning wouldn't stop scorching ray?

When it says "effect spells" it means that it won't stop, say, a Summon Monster from hitting you.

And attacks do have targets:

Ok... so spell turning says a lot of things, but one of the things I think is this: "Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster." To me that tells me that only spells that auto hit, like feeblemind. I can see how rays could be thought of as "targeting", but since the same mechanics are included in melee touch-attacks, which the spell do not include, I for one think that tells me that no ranged touch attacks, melee touch attacks nor area spells are turned by spell turning. So no, I would not think it reflexted Scorching ray.

[Deox]

The part you bolded refers to casting the globe after {targeted spell}. For example, trying to use Globe of Invulnerability to suppress a Bestow Curse that is already on you wouldn't work. It doesn't refer to casting the globe, then someone casting an orb at you.

I agree the wall might be wonky, but the fact still remains that the globe says nothing about instantaneous conjurations being exempt the way AMF does, so it should block an orb regardless.

Agreed. However, it's merely the way my tables have ruled it to speed up the game.

[Max Caysey]

Agreed. However, it's merely the way my tables have ruled it to speed up the game.

indeed... at our table it has always been "a spell is a spell", but the wall exable came up last session, and so now I am trying to get to the bottom of this, so to speak.

[goto124]

The idea of an otherwise mighty wizard getting crushed by a falling Wall of Iron is amusing me rather a lot.