raw based question

[Raishoiken]

So there's a third party metamagic feat ( mask signature from Alderac Feats) that is meant to remove a descriptor from a spell (stupid powerful for it's +1 cost), the problem is that it says it removes one "aspect " of the spell such as fire, mind affecting and the like. A friend of mine is trying to use this to basically alter control water into control liquids, saying that removing the water aspect from it turns the "allows you to control water and liquids similar to water " line into allowing you to control any liquid. My initial reaction is to say that doesn't work, but I'm only like 90% on that. What say you?

Aspect definition by google: a particular part or feature of something.

Edit: there is no dm involved

[AvatarVecna]

Without seeing the feat in question (could you link to it maybe?), and only going on what it says here, the answer (by RAW and RAI) is no. This lets you remove mechanical descriptors, not fluff-based limitations.

[Flickerdart]

No, that's nonsense - removing a descriptor from a spell doesn't alter what the spell actually does. A fireball that isn't [fire] still deals fire damage until something says otherwise.

[Psyren]

No, that's nonsense - removing a descriptor from a spell doesn't alter what the spell actually does. A fireball that isn't [fire] still deals fire damage until something says otherwise.

In fact, it would be even worse, because now it won't work with Searing Spell! :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

[Necroticplague]

Sounds like a poorly written feat. Just going on what you said: No. Something's descriptors are separate from its effects. A spell can do fire damage without the fire descriptor, and it can have the fire descriptor without doing fire damage. Heck, far as the rules care, you can have the fire descriptor and do cold damage (and I can think of at least one RAW way to do so, though it would do fire and ice damage and have the cold and fire descriptors). It seems like it's mostly useful for getting rid of descriptors you can be immune to, like fear, mind effecting, or language-dependent.

[Raishoiken]

the feat in question says the word aspect specifically rather than descriptor, and he's using that raw reading rather than rai. Would it work by raw?

[Flickerdart]

the feat in question says the word aspect specifically rather than descriptor, and he's using that raw reading rather than rai. Would it work by raw?
"Aspect" is not a rules term. There is no RAW adjudication of it beyond "it can remove a descriptor" which stems from the examples given.

[Necroticplague]

the feat in question says the word aspect specifically rather than descriptor, and he's using that raw reading rather than rai. Would it work by raw?


"Aspect" is not a rules term. There is no RAW adjudication of it beyond "it can remove a descriptor" which stems from the examples given.

This. If you use a non-defined term, the you can't compile. Once a definition of aspect becomes provided, this becomes a trivial question.

[Raishoiken]

"Aspect" is not a rules term....

I would assume at that point we would use the definition of the word?


a particular part or feature of something.

[ComaVision]

"Aspect" is not a rules term. There is no RAW adjudication of it beyond "it can remove a descriptor" which stems from the examples given.


I would assume at that point we would use the definition of the word?

In that case, I remove the aspect of requiring a saving throw.

[Necroticplague]

I would assume at that point we would use the definition of the word?

That definition is so vague as to be useless. If we use that one, how about removing the "other creatures are invulnerable to your spells and attacks" from Time Stop? The "but doing so is dangerous" from Wish?

[Raishoiken]

In that case, I remove the aspect of requiring a saving throw.

Less expensive than irresistible :P

[BowStreetRunner]

I would assume at that point we would use the definition of the word?
RAW the rules do not tell the DM what to assume and what not to assume, nor do the rules clarify which definition of a word to use if it is not specifically defined in the rules. So where there is no specific written rule then it is the DM and not the player who makes the determination. The DM runs the game, not the player - that much is RAW.

[AvatarVecna]

Without an in-game definition of "aspect" we must rely not on vague google definitions, but on the examples given in the feats description. Furthermore, even when an aspect of the rules is poorly defined in-game, and there are no examples to work off of, it is not carte blanche to do whatever you please; rather, it becomes an aspect of the rules that has no RAW function, and requires interpretation to do anything at all.

As an example of the latter, wish is not limited to the effects described in the PH, only to things of that relative power level...and it can exceed that limit if you're willing to accept the consequences. But pushing that limit at all is straying outside of RAW, and requires you to work with the DM to determine what's a fair use of Wish.

[eggynack]

I think you're correct, that things do proceed off of English by the rules. However, the ramifications of that are stupid, so you shouldn't make it work as written. So, give him a less stupid version of the feat, probably one that runs off of descriptors. But don't let him remove "aspects", because it just doesn't make any sense, and the result is nigh on limitless power.

[Sacrieur]

No, that's nonsense - removing a descriptor from a spell doesn't alter what the spell actually does. A fireball that isn't [fire] still deals fire damage until something says otherwise.

^^^^ This.

It uses descriptors as examples which means it meant descriptors.

[Raishoiken]

I think you're correct, that things do proceed off of English by the rules. However, the ramifications of that are stupid, so you shouldn't make it work as written. So, give him a less stupid version of the feat, probably one that runs off of descriptors. But don't let him remove "aspects", because it just doesn't make any sense, and the result is nigh on limitless power.

If thiss were for a game you bet your sweet bippy i wouldn't let him, but it's more for a trick he's trying to pull for a TO build involving the creation of a giant magma based earth node

[graeylin]

well, if you are going to battle semantics... technically, the feat allows you to REMOVE on effect.

So, let the guy remove water from the control water spell.

Now, what is it? Control nothing? it certainly isn't "control any liquid", because that would be an additive effect, not a removal of an effect.

it doesn't say REPLACE an effect, just remove it.

[eggynack]

If thiss were for a game you bet your sweet bippy i wouldn't let him, but it's more for a trick he's trying to pull for a TO build involving the creation of a giant magma based earth node
Yeah, but it's not a trick. That's my point. You can do just about anything with this feat, so saying that you can do this specific thing barely qualifies as interesting. It's not stupid because this player figured out his way to manipulate the game. It's just intrinsically stupid.

Edit:
well, if you are going to battle semantics... technically, the feat allows you to REMOVE on effect.

So, let the guy remove water from the control water spell.

Now, what is it? Control nothing? it certainly isn't "control any liquid", because that would be an additive effect, not a removal of an effect.

it doesn't say REPLACE an effect, just remove it.
You're not removing an effect. You're removing an aspect. The spell states, "This causes water or similar liquid..." Therefore, in order to control any liquid in the way defined by the spell, you merely need to eliminate the aspect of the spell that defines the liquid in terms of water. So, the new writing would be, "This causes... liquid..." allowing the desired impact. This feat would also, incidentally, enable you to remove any component from a spell, including expensive or complicated ones, or pick up high HD creatures with lesser planar binding, or hell, change a ridiculous amount of stone with stone shape. Most everything can be defined as an aspect, if you want. This reads a lot like an inexplicably more ludicrous form of IHS cheese.

[Raishoiken]

well, if you are going to battle semantics... technically, the feat allows you to REMOVE on effect.

So, let the guy remove water from the control water spell.

Now, what is it? Control nothing? it certainly isn't "control any liquid", because that would be an additive effect, not a removal of an effect.

it doesn't say REPLACE an effect, just remove it.

Thisssssss is what I've been thinking, but his argument is exactly the latter. Basically "well since the water aspect i removed the "liquids similar to water' becomes just liquids".

[Curmudgeon]

Thisssssss is what I've been thinking, but his argument is exactly the latter. Basically "well since the water aspect i removed the "liquids similar to water' becomes just liquids".
No, it would be "liquids similar to —". If you can find liquids similar to that, you're good. Otherwise, you've removed the aspect of intelligibility. :smallbiggrin:

[Troacctid]

Eh. Anyone can make up broken stuff and publish it in unlicensed d20 books; it still won't have any more pull than my personal houserules as far as RAW is concerned.

We could probably give you an entertaining theoretical discussion wherein we pick apart spells to figure out which would be the most broken if you could delete one "aspect" from them. (How about removing the "of 3rd level or lower" restriction from Shadow Conjuration? Eh? Eh?) I don't think anyone would count it as a real TO trick, though, and there's not really any RAW to discuss. It's more akin to something like "My DM said I can use any race and any one template and ignore LA and RHD! Best choice?" or "Starting with 10 million gp at level 1, what do I buy?"

[oxybe]

No, it would be "liquids similar to —". If you can find liquids similar to that, you're good. Otherwise, you've removed the aspect of intelligibility. :smallbiggrin:

Hm... liquid nothingness.

I guess you could rename it to Control Goth?

Unfortunately for him D&D tends to have far fewer Hot Topics then Wayne Reynolds' artwork would imply, and Faerun lacks any Germanic tribes.

[Jay R]

So there's a third party metamagic feat that is meant to remove a descriptor from a spell (stupid powerful for it's +1 cost), the problem is that it says it removes one "aspect " of the spell such as fire, mind affecting and the like.

I wouldn't even try to adjudicate this without knowing the source, and the exact wording.


Aspect definition by google: a particular part or feature of something.

All English words have multiple meanings, depending on context. There are 13 definitions for "aspect" in the Oxford English Dictionary. So you can't assume that this one is intended. Does the source use the word "aspect" elswhere? Does it give examples of the spell's use?

You haven't given us the information needed to answer your question.


Edit: there is no dm involved

What does this mean? Somebody's running the game, or there's no game.

[graeylin]

At normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures, allowing someone to control liquids without water being an aspect of it leaves how many thing?

Mercury
Many of the hydrocarbons (although, you could be pedantic, and mention that by removing water from the spell control, you removed hydrogen and oxygen from spell control.. and thus, oils, gasolines, etc., are no longer controllable by the spell).

So... how often does one need to control mercury in a game?

[atemu1234]

I would assume at that point we would use the definition of the word?

No. That is a bad idea, in any rules discussion.

I think the book was probably printed elsewhere and descriptor was mistranslated into aspect. Though a source would be nice.

[Jay R]

I think the book was probably printed elsewhere and descriptor was mistranslated into aspect. Though a source would be nice.

Not merely nice, but essential.

According to the thread title, this is a "raw based question". To interpret the rule as written, we need to know how the rule is written.

[Raishoiken]

Not merely nice, but essential.

According to the thread title, this is a "raw based question". To interpret the rule as written, we need to know how the rule is written.

Much true, i probably should have Just put it in the op and will do so now... Mask signature from Alderac: Feats

[LTwerewolf]

So it removes descriptors and damage type of the descriptor if there is one according to the examples given. To me it seems like it was written by someone that didn't understand that the descriptor is unimportant to the effect of the actual spell (see: deathwatch) and decided to throw that in there. It would really only be useful to make it so clerics could cast an opposed alignment spell, or turn a damage spell into untyped damage. Also it should be pointed out the prereq is 3 other metamagic feats.


A masked spell removes any one aspect to a
spell, such as evil, chaotic, fire, light, mind-affecting, and
so on. By removing this signature, the spell can now
bypass the defenses of certain monsters. For example,
a masked cone of cold spell cast on a nightshade by a 14th
level wizard deals 14d6 damage that cannot be blocked by
the nightshade's cold resistance.A masked spell takes up
a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

[daremetoidareyo]

Replace the word "aspect" with "descriptor". Context clearly points that they meant descriptor.


The only utility I see in this feat is to cast vile and evil spells as a "good" aligned player. Although untyped energy damage is nice also. Maybe you meet something that is immune to all the energy types, (except, of course, city) so you add this little number.


It does boggle my mind that your cone of cold can be all icy, but not technically actually be icy, so you're gonna need to find a way around that fluffwise.

[Urpriest]

Aspect here is pretty clearly being used with a game-mechanical meaning in mind. Either they defined it in the book, or they are planning to in the errata. If the latter, the book shouldn't be used until the relevant errata is released.

[Necroticplague]

Well, even if it doesn't let you change any of the text of the spell, removing descriptors indeed does let you bypass defenses. If you remove Mind Effecting, Language-dependent, Fear, or Death from a spell, it can now effect more creatures. Sounds useful to an enchanter or a necromancer. Or those who want to get around the problems of casting wrongly aligned spells (say you're Exalted, but a Sadism spell would provide a nice bonus right now).

[Raishoiken]

Well, even if it doesn't let you change any of the text of the spell, removing descriptors indeed does let you bypass defenses. If you remove Mind Effecting, Language-dependent, Fear, or Death from a spell, it can now effect more creatures. Sounds useful to an enchanter or a necromancer. Or those who want to get around the problems of casting wrongly aligned spells (say you're Exalted, but a Sadism spell would provide a nice bonus right now).

This, imagine mind raping Vecna (somehow)..


Replace the word "aspect" with "descriptor". Context clearly points that they meant descriptor...


Of this I'm aware and so is he, but he's trying to use strict raw which is why there is a question

[Necroticplague]

Of this I'm aware and so is he, but he's trying to use strict raw which is why there is a question

Well, by strict RAW, "aspect" isn't a game defined term, so the metamagic does nothing, and it's examples are wrong.

[Jay R]

So it removes descriptors and damage type of the descriptor if there is one according to the examples given. To me it seems like it was written by someone that didn't understand that the descriptor is unimportant to the effect of the actual spell (see: deathwatch) and decided to throw that in there. It would really only be useful to make it so clerics could cast an opposed alignment spell, or turn a damage spell into untyped damage. Also it should be pointed out the prereq is 3 other metamagic feats.


A masked spell removes any one aspect to a
spell, such as evil, chaotic, fire, light, mind-affecting, and
so on. By removing this signature, the spell can now
bypass the defenses of certain monsters. For example,
a masked cone of cold spell cast on a nightshade by a 14th
level wizard deals 14d6 damage that cannot be blocked by
the nightshade's cold resistance.A masked spell takes up
a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

Based on that description of the spell, it doesn't change anything other than bypassing specific defenses of certain monsters. There is no suggestion anywhere that it has any other effect.

Since water has no defenses, it would have no effect.

[AvatarVecna]

This, imagine mind raping Vecna (somehow)...

My body mind is ready. Be gentle, I'm fragile.