Shape Water and swim speeds

[Segev]

I know there’s a thread from 2016 or so on optimizations ideas for this spell, but I want to look at its “animated simple shapes” function and the possibilities with aquatic familiars and/or aquatic PCs.

The key question being: if you make the five foot cube of water animate as a blob, how fast can it move on it’s own, and what can it’s animations be?

For example, could you instruct it to keep a creature at the center of its mass, and have it just move at that creature’s swim speed?

Can it fly? (I will assume it can’t, but that it can reach a height of five feet off the ground with its base in the ground.)

A forest gnome or a sea elf or a triton could befriend a bunch of quippers, especially if they had a quipper familiar. Could they have their shaped blob of water house the swarm and move with their familiar onto other creatures’ spaces so the swarm can attack while the creature tries to keep its head out of the water?

Could a pet octopus grapple someone inside a blob of water to keep them immobile? (Familiars can’t, as that’s an attack.)

Could a sea elf or triton ride in the blob that’s moving at his quipper’s speed, or treat the blob like a controlled mount, or just have it move at his speed?

[col_impact]

You could "slinky" a column of water up Storm Giant sized steps with multiple castings of Shape Water.

Speed is 5 feet per 6 seconds.

[LibraryOgre]

Shape water into swim fins.

[Segev]

When animating simple shapes, how cohesive are they? If you order a blob of water to become a sphere 6inches in diameter, can you pick it up? Scoop it up? Would it stay put on a table? Would it roll around or would it flatten a bit like a lump of dough?

I don’t think a sphere is beyond a “simple shape.” Can it move around within the five foot cube it started in?

Can it BE moved out of there and retain its shape?

[col_impact]

You can freeze a sculpture of ice. Let us say a gnome/Starfish simple shape. You can have 2 effects of Shape Water going. So animate that gnome!

[JoeJ]

Reading the spell, it looks to me like it the animate function doesn't give it any movement. It just thrashes around, under your control, in the same spot. If you want it to change locations you have to use the instantaneous movement function, which moves it 5' for every action you spend.

[Segev]

Reading the spell, it looks to me like it the animate function doesn't give it any movement. It just thrashes around, under your control, in the same spot. If you want it to change locations you have to use the instantaneous movement function, which moves it 5' for every action you spend.

It's arguable, but I would tend to agree that that's sensible, since the "redirect flow" option would be pointless otherwise.

What I'm considering now is just how coherent the shapes are. Make it assume a cube; can you set the cube on a table? in a basket? In a bag? Will it stay cube-shaped, or deform a bit? Will it soak through, or hold itself together and not "leak?" Can you hand a grapefruit-sized sphere of water told by this spell to be a sphere to somebody and let them carry it in their hand? Is a shawl a "simple shape," and if so, could you wear a shawl shaped from water by this spell?

[col_impact]

A cantrip that produces a snow golem and moves it around at 5" is not bad at all.

Makes it easy to drop a heavy object on someone or provide full cover. Defuse a trap.

[col_impact]

Also worth mentioning is the ability to move the full cover ice shield up 5 feet each turn in case you are laying siege to an army of archers and want to close distance without exposing yourself.

[kazaryu]

Also worth mentioning is the ability to move the full cover ice shield up 5 feet each turn in case you are laying siege to an army of archers and want to close distance without exposing yourself.

if you're 'laying siege to an army of archers' a 5 foot cube of water isn't going to give you full cover against...most of them. certainly not for long enough to close range in any useful way. think about it. either they have a fortified position, which means they have height, so your 5 foot tall wall isn't gonna give full cover anyway. or they don't have a set position, and are therefore able to be mobile....6x as mobile as you are...in which case you're not closing range.

and all of that is even assuming the ice doesn't just...break as it tries to stop multiple arrows. leaving you completely exposed.

[col_impact]

if you're 'laying siege to an army of archers' a 5 foot cube of water isn't going to give you full cover against...most of them. certainly not for long enough to close range in any useful way. think about it. either they have a fortified position, which means they have height, so your 5 foot tall wall isn't gonna give full cover anyway. or they don't have a set position, and are therefore able to be mobile....6x as mobile as you are...in which case you're not closing range.

and all of that is even assuming the ice doesn't just...break as it tries to stop multiple arrows. leaving you completely exposed.

This would an army of wizards vs an army of archers. Interlocking ice shields. The ice block can be curved at top to providr full cover from above.

Combine with mold earth if you want more trench cover or advance line with groundhog tactics.

[kazaryu]

This would an army of wizards vs an army of archers. Interlocking ice shields. The ice block can be curved at top to providr full cover from above.

Combine with mold earth if you want more trench cover or advance line with groundhog tactics.

thats...even worse. army vs army you're committing to slowing yourself to a crawl. just asking to get hammered. by a cavalry charge...or infantry charge since they'll be moving 6x faster than you anyway.

i mean..its an interesting thought. but if you're in a position to make this work, then you've already won the battle, this tactic would just be for like...style.

[col_impact]

thats...even worse. army vs army you're committing to slowing yourself to a crawl. just asking to get hammered. by a cavalry charge...or infantry charge since they'll be moving 6x faster than you anyway.

i mean..its an interesting thought. but if you're in a position to make this work, then you've already won the battle, this tactic would just be for like...style.
Correct. Properly executed this manuever cannot be defeated. Nod. Wink. Wink.

[Segev]

"You choose an area of water that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube." This is an interesting statement.

It can be interpreted as choosing a five foot cube and being able to manipulate any water that happens to be in and stay in it (moving the whole control cube as you move the water up to five feet).
This is the most restrictive reading, but still permits causing any shapes you want that qualify as "simple" (I've seen at least one youtube video tacitly claim "a tiger" is a simple shape). This is probably the safest guess if you're working with an unknown DM.
It can be interpreted as seizing control of all the water in a five foot cube, and manipulating it as you see fit according to the parameters of the spell.
This will permit more flexibility, though you're still limited to one continuous color and opacity change. You can make simple shapes that extend outside the five foot cube, potentially in different directions, so long as they don't move more than five feet to do so. Alternatively, you can cause the water to flow out of the five foot cube in each direction, splitting it in whatever proportion you want.
If, for example, you've already got a 5x5x5 cube of water you've slowly been flowing along with you, and told to hold still in a cube shape, you could use one casting to cause 1/9 of the cube to flow into each of the 8 squares around the central cube. Now, you're going to lose control of all but the one you've got holding its shape in the middle next round, and can only reassert control over one of them with another casting, but you CAN spread the water around in such a fashion!
Alternatively, you could order the water to assume a shape that is a 5/9-foot tall, 15x15 foot square tile, as that will not cause the water to flow more than five feet and is a simple shape. You now have it holding a simple shape and covering the ground to a depth of about 7 inches. I know this isn't terribly useful by itself, but it's an example of the control this affords you, and the flexibility with its shape and space. Note that, with this interpretation, you won't be able to take control of much more than one of the 5-foot-squares with a single additional casting, so molding it back into a shape you can move the whole sum with is going to take a bit of work. (You can turn the cube on its corner or edge to maximize the amount in the middle you could grab, but that's still not all of it.)
It can be interpreted as choosing an area of water that could fit in a five foot cube, and manipulating it as you like within the parameters of the spell.
This is the most permissive reading. With this version, as long as your target water is within 60 feet, more or less contiguous (note is says "an area of water," singular), and all would fit within a five foot cube, you can control all of it even if it's not all within the SAME five foot cube. You still only get one of the effects of the spell (coloring, moving, forming simple shapes, freezing) per casting, but you can command the water to do various things.
Again, you can flow the water in any directions you want, as long as none of the water moves more than five feet. Only now, that 7-inch-or-so-deep 15x15 foot square of water can all be moved at once, because the water is within your volume limit. You can move it all together in one direction, or you could split it up, spreading it further, as long as no water moves more than five feet. And, as long as it stayed contiguous and within 30 feet of you, you could target it all again next round.
Water all over your 30 foot range can be commanded to rise up into shapes and animate, so long as the total volume fits within a 5 foot cube. That's a lot of shapes spread over a 30 foot radius, especially if you've got a body of water you can draw from so that "an area" covers the whole expanse. (A bunch of separate puddles probably falls afoul of the singular nature of "an area," so you'd have to collect it together to work with it all at once.)


Now, even with the first, most restrictive interpretation, you can make a hollow cube - or hollow cube with no floor - of water, and then, next round, freeze it. If you're taller than 5 feet, to avoid crouching, turn the cube on a corner, and just leave the bottom corner open so you can walk.

If your DM says that ice = water, you can actually make it solid on all sides an give yourself a nice seat, then make it transparent for viewing, and move it on its own power five feet per round, carrying you along with it.

If your DM rules that ice is not water (and thus is not a valid target for shape water), you can take advantage of having two effects active at once. With two five foot cubes' worth of water, you form up one into your ice fortress-cube. Then flow the other blob of water forward. Then shape it (you now have two effects - one frozen, one shaped; the transparency on your ice has faded). Then freeze it. (Now you have two effects: ice and ice on two different water blobs.) Make the forward one transparent; the one you're in now unfreezes; move foward into the one ahead of you. Move the water forward next round, repeat.

This won't be invincible. But it's not a terrible tactic for slow motion across dangerous terrain if you're otherwise not a threat.

The big key is that it's going to be subject to the DM determining how many hp the ice barrier has, and you having to keep reforming it as it's broken.

Note that with the third interpretation, you're working with a lot less than a full five foot cube to make your barrier, so you can make it bigger since you only need the whole volume of the ice itself to fall within a five foot cube's worth of volume. A 30-foot, 3-inch outer-radius, 29-foot, 3-inch inner-radius hollowed hemisphere of ice (with no floor) would have a 1 foot thick outer casing and be 124.8 cubic feet of water. A 5x5x5 cube of water is (hopefully obviously) 125 cubic feet. This actually falls outside your maximum range for the spell by .3 inches. So you could make a hollow hemisphere whose outer radius is exactly at maximum range and is a little over a foot thick with this spell. Assuming interpretation number 3.

As a DM, if I were allowing interpretation 3, I'd also probably allow any fire damage from a source equivalent to a 1st-level spell or higher to basically ignore the ice, melting it instantly and denying those inside cover, using the same logic that higher-level light spells dispell lower-level darkness spells.

[col_impact]

A DM that rules that ice is not water should have his DM license revoked.

[JNAProductions]

A DM that rules that ice is not water should have his DM license revoked.

A DM that rules differently than you is not an inherently bad DM.

[col_impact]

A DM that rules differently than you is not an inherently bad DM.

A DM who bends the rules to punish intelligent moves is a bad DM. Intelligent moves deserve reward.

[JNAProductions]

A DM who bends the rules to punish intelligent moves is a bad DM. Intelligent moves deserve reward.

Where in the rules does it state water=ice?

I don't see it as a bad ruling, to say water changed into ice can still be moved by Shape Water. But I see no rules that FORCE that to be the case, and it's something that, if you hinge an important part of your character on, you should ask your DM how they're gonna rule.

[col_impact]

Where in the rules does it state water=ice?

I don't see it as a bad ruling, to say water changed into ice can still be moved by Shape Water. But I see no rules that FORCE that to be the case, and it's something that, if you hinge an important part of your character on, you should ask your DM how they're gonna rule.

Is ice frozen water? Yes or no.

[JNAProductions]

Is ice frozen water? Yes or no.

According to real-life physics? Yes.

Does ice behave the same way water does? No.

Does ice have the same arcane resonance that water has, or does the freezing process make it less malleable to spells? In real life, yes, since magic doesn't exist. In D&D, it's up to the DM.

[col_impact]

According to real-life physics? Yes.

Does ice behave the same way water does? No.

Does ice have the same arcane resonance that water has, or does the freezing process make it less malleable to spells? In real life, yes, since magic doesn't exist. In D&D, it's up to the DM.

It's real straightforward. Is ice frozen water, yes or no? Pick one answer.

[JNAProductions]

It's real straightforward. Is ice frozen water, yes or no? Pick one answer.

Yes.

Is an opposite left the same as a left? Because if your answer to that is "No," you should acknowledge that "Adjective Noun" does not always equal the same thing as "Noun".

Plus, you can't have it both ways. Either you can claim "By RAW, Firebolt can melt rocks!" which... Isn't even accurate, but even if it was, you'd then need RAW to support you saying water=ice. You cannot simultaneously hold that "RAW is the be-all end-all, even when it doesn't make sense," and "Common sense should hold sway."

[Boci]

It's real straightforward. Is ice frozen water, yes or no? Pick one answer.

That's not how D&D works. Yes, scientifically speaking you should be able to cast stone to flesh to turn ice into flesh, since ice is a mineral , and stone is a non-metalic mineral. But not every DM will allow that, and nor should every DM allow it.

[col_impact]

That's not how D&D works. Yes, scientifically speaking you should be able to cast stone to flesh to turn ice into flesh, since ice is a mineral , and stone is a non-metalic mineral. But not every DM will allow that, and nor should every DM allow it.

Ice is a mineral only if it is naturally occuring. So turning naturally frozen lake into flesh is a legit play.

[Segev]

Does control flames let you control smoke?


Regardless of your answer, this is not really on-topic. DMs will rule how they rule, and I'm not going to disparage them for it. You work with what they give you. Let's discuss possibilities either way, please.

[col_impact]

Does control flames let you control smoke?


Regardless of your answer, this is not really on-topic. DMs will rule how they rule, and I'm not going to disparage them for it. You work with what they give you. Let's discuss possibilities either way, please.

If you control flames you control where smoke is emmitted. But, the smoke is harmless smoke that has no game consequence beyond the fact that it is there. You see the smoke, smell the smoke, feel the smoke. Real smoke as opposed to illusionary smoke. You could use produce flame to boost illusions with a feeling of reality for example. But you need a 2nd level spell to get a concentration free smoke cloud.

[Segev]

If you control flames you control where smoke is emmitted. But, the smoke is harmless smoke that has no game consequence beyond the fact that it is there. You see the smoke, smell the smoke, feel the smoke. Real smoke as opposed to illusionary smoke. You could use produce flame to boost illusions with a feeling of reality for example. But you need a 2nd level spell to get a concentration free smoke cloud.

If you cannot control smoke with control flames, then you can't control ice with control water for the same reason.

Flame is just smoke that's so hot its luminescing in the visible spectrum. If you couldn't see reds and yellows, you'd just see smoke.

The moment you say, "but fire is different," you can also say, "but ice is different." And I won't disagree with you, for purposes of D&D. I won't disagree with you if you say one's different and the other isn't, either. It really doesn't matter as long as you're consistent about it, in terms of believability.

In the end, arguing over whether ice can be moved or reshaped or colored by shape water is pointless; it'll be the DM's call. Discussing how you can work with it in either case is more useful.

[col_impact]

If you cannot control smoke with control flames, then you can't control ice with control water for the same reason.

Flame is just smoke that's so hot its luminescing in the visible spectrum. If you couldn't see reds and yellows, you'd just see smoke.

The moment you say, "but fire is different," you can also say, "but ice is different." And I won't disagree with you, for purposes of D&D. I won't disagree with you if you say one's different and the other isn't, either. It really doesn't matter as long as you're consistent about it, in terms of believability.

In the end, arguing over whether ice can be moved or reshaped or colored by shape water is pointless; it'll be the DM's call. Discussing how you can work with it in either case is more useful.

Fire is a chemical reaction that ignites fuel. Smoke is one of the the waste products of that reaction along with charcoal, etc.

Water is water. Ice is frozen water. Steam is gaseous water.

The wording of Create or Destroy Water proves me right. The spell can be used to Destroy sections of fog.

[Segev]

Fire is a chemical reaction that ignites fuel. Smoke is one of the the waste products of that reaction along with charcoal, etc.

Water is water. Ice is frozen water. Steam is gaseous water.

I didn't ask about fire. I asked about flame. Which is what control flames manipulates. And if you say they're the same thing, then you're wrong about fire. Fire is not a chemical reaction if it is the flames. Flames are just smoke that are so hot that they emit visible photons, the same way a filament in an incandescent light bulb gets so hot it emits photons, but is still a metal wire.

I'd be fine with (and may even, as a DM, agree with) a ruling that steam can be manipulated with shape water (though there's nothing in the spell that would permit condensing it to liquid form), and that ice can also be shaped, colored, and moved (but not turned back into water without using another casting to make a third effect that causes the ice to "drop off" early).

But I'd also accept that a DM ruling that ice is not water and thus cannot be shaped, colored, nor moved by the spell (but it still can be turned back into water if it was frozen by the spell by coloring two other things, for example, and forcing the ice effect to end).

Personally, if I'm allowing manipulation of ice, I'd also allow the caster to end his ice maintenance without having to do the silliness of deliberately "wasting" two castings to get a third non-instantaneous effect up. But that is a house rule, as nothing in the RAW permits this.

[col_impact]

I didn't ask about fire. I asked about flame. Which is what control flames manipulates. And if you say they're the same thing, then you're wrong about fire. Fire is not a chemical reaction if it is the flames. Flames are just smoke that are so hot that they emit visible photons, the same way a filament in an incandescent light bulb gets so hot it emits photons, but is still a metal wire.

I'd be fine with (and may even, as a DM, agree with) a ruling that steam can be manipulated with shape water (though there's nothing in the spell that would permit condensing it to liquid form), and that ice can also be shaped, colored, and moved (but not turned back into water without using another casting to make a third effect that causes the ice to "drop off" early).

But I'd also accept that a DM ruling that ice is not water and thus cannot be shaped, colored, nor moved by the spell (but it still can be turned back into water if it was frozen by the spell by coloring two other things, for example, and forcing the ice effect to end).

Personally, if I'm allowing manipulation of ice, I'd also allow the caster to end his ice maintenance without having to do the silliness of deliberately "wasting" two castings to get a third non-instantaneous effect up. But that is a house rule, as nothing in the RAW permits this.

Read Create or Destroy Water.

[col_impact]

I didn't ask about fire. I asked about flame. Which is what control flames manipulates. And if you say they're the same thing, then you're wrong about fire. Fire is not a chemical reaction if it is the flames. Flames are just smoke that are so hot that they emit visible photons, the same way a filament in an incandescent light bulb gets so hot it emits photons, but is still a metal wire.

I'd be fine with (and may even, as a DM, agree with) a ruling that steam can be manipulated with shape water (though there's nothing in the spell that would permit condensing it to liquid form), and that ice can also be shaped, colored, and moved (but not turned back into water without using another casting to make a third effect that causes the ice to "drop off" early).

But I'd also accept that a DM ruling that ice is not water and thus cannot be shaped, colored, nor moved by the spell (but it still can be turned back into water if it was frozen by the spell by coloring two other things, for example, and forcing the ice effect to end).

Personally, if I'm allowing manipulation of ice, I'd also allow the caster to end his ice maintenance without having to do the silliness of deliberately "wasting" two castings to get a third non-instantaneous effect up. But that is a house rule, as nothing in the RAW permits this.

Flames is chemical reaction that produces heat. Smoke is remnant waste particle of fuel source. Do you have Control Wood?

[Segev]

Read Create or Destroy Water.

No. You're not a professor, and you're not right enough often enough for me to accept you in that role. You do have some really creative ideas, and even the ones that are iffy in whether they work or not within the RAW are good for inspiring more ideas on how to use things. You come at problems sideways rather nicely. But you're not always right in your interpretations of the RAW. I am happy to discuss the rules with you, but I am not going to read the rules and try to guess your argument nor the point you're trying to make. It rarely is as obvious as you think it is, and I have disagreed with your interpretation often enough that I might not "get" it just by reading it.

Which is to say, if you want to make a point, spell it out. Don't command people to read something and accept that you're right based on an interpretation of the RAW you send them to read that they may not even interpret the same way you do.

This is also very much off-topic. This thread is about shape water and its uses. "If your DM is allowing you to control ice with it" is a valid way to start your sentences. We can probably assume anything you say about tricks involving manipulating ice directly have that caveat, even if we don't agree that all DMs are compelled to allow it under penalty of being accused of house ruling against the RAW.

Frankly, as I said, you're creative, and your ideas on how to use the spell are something I'm interested in, but your tendency to tease and hint as if you know a great secret is...frustrating. Again, because you're often clever, but not always right, and you have an assumption that everyone MUST agree with your interpretations. And not a few of your ideas rely on those interpretations, which if people don't share them, they won't see without you spelling them out.

You'll get a lot better reception around here if you spell out your ideas and provide backing, rather than asserting that you're right and that others must figure out why.


Flames is chemical reaction that produces heat. Smoke is remnant waste particle of fuel source. Do you have Control Wood?
You are incorrect. Flames are smoke. The exothermic reaction that causes the smoke to be so hot that it luminesces and the decomposition of wood into CO2 and loose carbon is a chemical reaction. The literal composition of flame is the same as that of smoke, save for temperature.

[col_impact]

No. You're not a professor, and you're not right enough often enough for me to accept you in that role. You do have some really creative ideas, and even the ones that are iffy in whether they work or not within the RAW are good for inspiring more ideas on how to use things. You come at problems sideways rather nicely. But you're not always right in your interpretations of the RAW. I am happy to discuss the rules with you, but I am not going to read the rules and try to guess your argument nor the point you're trying to make. It rarely is as obvious as you think it is, and I have disagreed with your interpretation often enough that I might not "get" it just by reading it.

Which is to say, if you want to make a point, spell it out. Don't command people to read something and accept that you're right based on an interpretation of the RAW you send them to read that they may not even interpret the same way you do.

This is also very much off-topic. This thread is about shape water and its uses. "If your DM is allowing you to control ice with it" is a valid way to start your sentences. We can probably assume anything you say about tricks involving manipulating ice directly have that caveat, even if we don't agree that all DMs are compelled to allow it under penalty of being accused of house ruling against the RAW.

Frankly, as I said, you're creative, and your ideas on how to use the spell are something I'm interested in, but your tendency to tease and hint as if you know a great secret is...frustrating. Again, because you're often clever, but not always right, and you have an assumption that everyone MUST agree with your interpretations. And not a few of your ideas rely on those interpretations, which if people don't share them, they won't see without you spelling them out.

You'll get a lot better reception around here if you spell out your ideas and provide backing, rather than asserting that you're right and that others must figure out why.


You are incorrect. Flames are smoke. The exothermic reaction that causes the smoke to be so hot that it luminesces and the decomposition of wood into CO2 and loose carbon is a chemical reaction. The literal composition of flame is the same as that of smoke, save for temperature.

Funny you should say I am not a Professor. Are you sure?

Flame is ignited gas, in this case the oxygen in air. The smoke is particulate charcoal in the case of a wood fire.

[Segev]

Funny you should say I am not a Professor. Are you sure?

Flame is ignited gas, in this case the oxygen in air. The smoke is particulate charcoal in the case of a wood fire.

You’re right, I don’t know what you do for a living. You do not write as my experience indicates to me that professors tend to. My apologies if my assertion about your lack of professorial standing was incorrect and thus caused insult.

You remain factually wrong about the composition of flame. The fact you term it “ignited gas” gives it away, as that’s like saying “a painting is brush on canvas.” You’re naming the cause of flame, not the flame itself.

And smoke is not just particulate charcoal; it is also various gasses released or created by the chemical reaction that also produces the charcoal.

The flame is the particulate charcoal and various released gasses (the exact composition of which depends on the fuel and the atmosphere) heated to the point they emit visible light.

To say that the flame is “ignited gas” is exactly as accurate as saying a car’s motion down the highway is “ignited gas.” The ignition of the fuel does, indeed, produce the flames, just as the ignition of the car’s fuel produces motion.

[col_impact]

You’re right, I don’t know what you do for a living. Lest this get personal, I will not go into detail as to why I made that assertion, beyond, “You do not write as my experience indicates to me that professors tend to.” My apologies if my assertion about your lack of professorial standing was incorrect and thus caused insult.

You remain factually wrong about the composition of flame. The fact you term it “ignited gas” gives it away, as that’s like saying “a painting is brush on canvas.” You’re naming the cause of flame, not the flame itself.

And smoke is not just particulate charcoal; it is also various gasses released or created by the chemical reaction that also produces the charcoal.

The flame is the particulate charcoal and various released gasses (the exact composition of which depends on the fuel and the atmosphere) heated to the point they emit visible light.

To say that the flame is “ignited gas” is exactly as accurate as saying a car’s motion down the highway is “ignited gas.” The ignition of the fuel does, indeed, produce the flames, just as the ignition of the car’s fuel produces motion.

{Scrubbed}

How do you get flame in outer space? {Scrubbed}

[Segev]

Having slept on it, I realize that this is getting very off-topic, and I apologize for my participation in it.

The topic had drifted a bit, but I think remained interesting and reasonably close with the discussion of how to utilize shape water. Can we please return to discussing that, with the understanding that DMs may interpret the rules in various ways?

We can certainly discuss whether certain interpretations are balanced, or concerns they may raise, but I'd rather not discuss whether somebody is "wrong" for an interpretation unless it blatantly flies in the face of the obvious RAW. (i.e. please don't take this as an invitation to suggest that shape water permits you to do ridiculous things like create a water elemental and command it with your action.)

I am interested in discussing how reasonable the interpretation that permits controlling 125 cubic feet of water spread over the 30-foot radius sphere is to other people, or if I'm being overly generous in my reading of "that fits in a five foot cube," and whether it is overpowered or not if done that way.

[col_impact]

Flame is ignited oxygen. In order to get flame in the vacuum of space, rocket fuel typically provides liquid oxygen for the combustion reaction.

That should put the false equivalency argument (ice is in the same boat as flame) to rest.

Ice is frozen water.

Flame is ignited air (oxygen).

[Segev]

Flame is ignited oxygen. In order to get flame in the vacuum of space, rocket fuel typically provides liquid oxygen for the combustion reaction.

Still off-topic. I'm not discussing flames and fire with you in this thread any further.

This is a thread on shape water.

[col_impact]

Still off-topic. I'm not discussing flames and fire with you in this thread any further.

This is a thread on shape water.

I can use shapewater to form full cover ice shields and move those ice shields 5" a turn.

Completely legal play.

Also, remote control snowman is now a thing.

[Segev]

Also, remote control snowman is now a thing.

Dunno about "is now," because either it's doable or it isn't, but it is a fun idea for if ice is an allowable target. Making snowmen who go through some simple animations would be well within the "simple shapes that animate" clause.

Fun for combination with disguise self, since snowmen have a similar basic arrangement of limbs (okay, you're "wearing a dress" that happens to look like the lower part of a snowman), so your set of snowmen and you look like a grouping. "Simple animation" might include the kind of shuffling and shifting of a mirror image, too.

[col_impact]

Dunno about "is now," because either it's doable or it isn't, but it is a fun idea for if ice is an allowable target. Making snowmen who go through some simple animations would be well within the "simple shapes that animate" clause.

Fun for combination with disguise self, since snowmen have a similar basic arrangement of limbs (okay, you're "wearing a dress" that happens to look like the lower part of a snowman), so your set of snowmen and you look like a grouping. "Simple animation" might include the kind of shuffling and shifting of a mirror image, too.

Remote control snowman means you can clear rooms of traps with impunity.

Ice is frozen water by definition so ice is definitely an allowable target. Create and Destroy Water is not named Create and Destroy Water or Fog.

[Segev]

Remote control snowman means you can clear rooms of traps with impunity.

Ice is frozen water by definition so ice is definitely an allowable target. Create and Destroy Water is not named Create and Destroy Water or Fog.

Fog is just liquid water suspended in air. Control water probably doesn't let you create whirlpools in ice.

You need to stop arguing this. If a DM allows ice to be controlled by shape water, this works, so it's a valid topic for discussion. Trying to insist that it must work at every table is picking a fight for no reason. Cut it out.

[col_impact]

Fog is just liquid water suspended in air.
The word you are looking for is gaseous.

[Segev]

The word you are looking for is gaseous.

No. It is not. That's not how the phases of matter work. And I'm not debating physics nor chemistry with you, as neither of us have the ability to prove our bona fides and I don't feel that it's productive to do so.

If your DM allows ice to be controlled by shape water, it works. If he doesn't - whether you think he's a house-ruling fool or totally justified within the RAW doesn't matter - then it won't. And please don't further derail this by trying to pretend that not allowing shape water to affect ice outside of freezing the water it targets is in any way creating ambiguity; if the DM tells you it doesn't work on ice, that's a clear qualification and doesn't require that he rule on seventy other things and has no implications beyond what he says. (I say this because I'm familiar with how this sort of derail goes.)

The snow men thing is cool if the DM permits it. It works if the DM allows ice to be affected.

Let's focus on actually creatively using shape water and not on trying to assert that rulings which enable any given trick must be the one true ruling.

[col_impact]

No. It is not. That's not how the phases of matter work. And I'm not debating physics nor chemistry with you, as neither of us have the ability to prove our bona fides and I don't feel that it's productive to do so.


Provide a link to an article or articles that describes the phases of matter as you do. I am open to deepening my understanding and incorporating your knowledge. I sincerely want to understand where you are coming from.

[LibraryOgre]

Provide a link to an article or articles that describes the phases of matter as you do. I am open to deepening my understanding and incorporating your knowledge. I sincerely want to understand where you are coming from.

Water is the inner plane opposite Fire. Ice is the plane which lies between Air and Water, and is thus, not part of Water.

[col_impact]

Water is the inner plane opposite Fire. Ice is the plane which lies between Air and Water, and is thus, not part of Water.

What about a Slurpee?

[Segev]

What about a Slurpee?

It would depend on the DM, but (ignoring the question of ice for a moment) if you had a slurry of water and suspended solid particles, either the water moves as a whole sufficiently to keep the particles suspended (and thus moving with it), or it leaves the particulate matter behind. Some DMs will rule one way or the other and only allow that. I, personally, would allow it to work either way at the caster's will. If you want to just pull the water out of the slurry, you can; if you want to pull the whole slurry along, I'd also let you do that. You won't have fine control over the motion of the particulate matter, but you can generally choose whether it's moved in continued suspension within the water or not.

[JoeJ]

Water is the inner plane opposite Fire. Ice is the plane which lies between Air and Water, and is thus, not part of Water.

I've never liked that arrangement. I have water and earth opposing, as they represent, respectively, the principles of fluidity and solidity. Fire, the principle of heat, opposes air, the principle of cold. Thus, they are truly opposites: a thing is hot to precisely the degree that it is not cold, and fluid to precisely the degree that it is not solid.

Ice in this scheme is still on the border of air and water, while steam is on the border of water and fire.

[LibraryOgre]

What about a Slurpee?

The Border Elemental between Ice and Water is made entirely of Slurpees.


I've never liked that arrangement. I have water and earth opposing, as they represent, respectively, the principles of fluidity and solidity. Fire, the principle of heat, opposes air, the principle of cold. Thus, they are truly opposites: a thing is hot to precisely the degree that it is not cold, and fluid to precisely the degree that it is not solid.

Ice in this scheme is still on the border of air and water, while steam is on the border of water and fire.

It works, but it's not the standard cosmology. I'd also say that, arguably, air is more fluid than water, given that it does not even maintain volume under pressure. Air is up, Earth is down; air is fluid, Earth is solid. The opposition of Water and Fire is intuitive, though.

[Segev]

The Border Elemental between Ice and Water is made entirely of Slurpees.



It works, but it's not the standard cosmology. I'd also say that, arguably, air is more fluid than water, given that it does not even maintain volume under pressure. Air is up, Earth is down; air is fluid, Earth is solid. The opposition of Water and Fire is intuitive, though.

Not D&D cosmology, but incidentally, Exalted has the North be Air/cold, the South be Fire/hot, the West be Water/ocean, and the East be Wood/forested/plains/farmland. The Center of Creation is the Imperial Mountain, which is associated with Earth, and the Blessed Isle on which it sits is the best and most fertile and richest land in the world.


So, in anotehr thread, I've posited buffing the weakest familiars with unique traits. For Seahorses, I've suggsted giving them create water as a cantrip. This is essentially letting the master get a cantrip for a first level spell, since the seahorse doesn't do anything else useful. But it's a self-using cantrip. On the other hand, 5 ft. per round is so slow that even though the seahorse can now move itself about on land, it's too slow to do so very effectively. Certainly not at travel speeds.

Anything likely to break the game with such an ability on a familiar?

[Boci]

Not D&D cosmology, but incidentally, Exalted has the North be Air/cold, the South be Fire/hot, the West be Water/ocean, and the East be Wood/forested/plains/farmland. The Center of Creation is the Imperial Mountain, which is associated with Earth, and the Blessed Isle on which it sits is the best and most fertile and richest land in the world.

Are the creators of Exalted aware that Earth at least has two hemispheres?

[Segev]

Are the creators of Exalted aware that Earth at least has two hemispheres?

Irrelevant, because Creation is not Earth; it's its own very much flat-world setting with 5 poles (one for each element). Go too far off the map and you wind up either at one of the four non-Earth Poles or in the Wyld, which is an infinite and increasingly-nonsensical land of chaos that makes Limbo look staid, eventually making about as much sense as the Far Realms of D&D.

[Boci]

Irrelevant, because Creation is not Earth

Not irrelevant, because the creators are from Earth, and North = Cold likely came from earth, specifically the Northern Hemisphere where the creators lived. Its not a problem, I'm just noting what does and doesn't get into a fantasy world created by people from Earth (as far as we know).

[JoeJ]

It works, but it's not the standard cosmology. I'd also say that, arguably, air is more fluid than water, given that it does not even maintain volume under pressure. Air is up, Earth is down; air is fluid, Earth is solid. The opposition of Water and Fire is intuitive, though.

Water is also down; the ocean is lower than most of the land people can occupy. And that big ball of fire in the sky is even higher up than the air. So in my scheme, the high opposed high and low opposes low. (Like magnetism; opposites attract, likes repel.) I know it's not the standard D&D cosmology, but it's what I use.

However, to get back a little closer to the topic of this thread, in both cosmologies, ice is as much air as it is water. So if spells that control water affect ice, spells that control air should do so as well.

[Segev]

I don’t think I’ve seen this answered yet: can you pick up and carry water shaped into something? For instance, could a mage hand carry a10-lb sphere of water?