Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser and Conjuration Spells

[incog64]

Globes of invulnerability don't prevent conjuration damage spells, i.e Hail of Stone or Melfs Acid Arrow, , just like conjuration spells aren't affected by Spell Resistance as the the damage is caused by something physical and not magical, correct?

[Khedrac]

I think otherwise - there is no reference to dispel magic or spell resistance. Instead the spell's area or effect cannot include the inside of the globe - so I think a Melf's acid arrow would cease to exists on entering the sphere, but then resume its existence the other side to continue to hit a target beyond the sphere.

[incog64]

I think otherwise - there is no reference to dispel magic or spell resistance. Instead the spell's area or effect cannot include the inside of the globe - so I think a Melf's acid arrow would cease to exists on entering the sphere, but then resume its existence the other side to continue to hit a target beyond the sphere.

The effect has ceased its not magical its just mundane as it is created outside the effect of the Globe. If created within the globes range, I'd agree.

PHB p 173
Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object
or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the
limits noted above). 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.

[Satinavian]

I would agree with Khedrac.

The spell description states "excludes all spell effects" and "Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe". While you might argue about the first, the second is pretty obvious : if the target of the acid arrow is in the globe, it is not affected. Similarly for target areas of area spells.

[incog64]

I would agree with Khedrac.

The spell description states "excludes all spell effects" and "Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe". While you might argue about the first, the second is pretty obvious : if the target of the acid arrow is in the globe, it is not affected. Similarly for target areas of area spells.

That contradicts the rules of creation magic phb, 173 which explicit states magic is not required for the items existence.

[Satinavian]

Doesn't convince me.
If the target is not affected by the spell, then it is not affected. Even if the spell works by creating something and tossing it at the target.

[Biggus]

That contradicts the rules of creation magic phb, 173 which explicit states magic is not required for the items existence.

Globe of Invulnerability doesn't say "magic" or "spells" are excluded, it says "spell effects", and things created by conjuration spells are definitely spell effects.

I'm not sure what the RAI is, but by RAW it excludes conjuration spell effects.

[ciopo]

I feel myself agreeing with Incog64 on this one. conjuration(creation) effects make permanent nonmagical (stuff), it follow that the (stuff) isn't popped out of existence any more that it isn't popped out of existence by an antimagic field.

That maybe the (lesser) orb of X should perhabs not be tagged as (creation) is a different matter altogether.


But now I'm wondering, how many casts of orb of acid does it take to fill a bucket with acid?


Globe of Invulnerability doesn't say "magic" or "spells" are excluded, it says "spell effects", and things created by conjuration spells are definitely spell effects.

I'm not sure what the RAI is, but by RAW it excludes conjuration spell effects.

if you walk toward a wall of X, assuming "X" is 3rd level or lower, does the "X" disappear into nothingness?

if you walk closer to an enemy that's buffed with a whatever (of 3rd or lower level, say, heroism), does that enemy stop being buffed with the whatever because you, the emanation point, moved closer than 10ft?

is every other buff you cast on yourself or an ally suppressed once you cast the globe?

I agree empirically that the orb spells should not bypass sphere of invulnerability, but I feel that's more a problem with the tag, rather than generalizing "spell effects" outside what the scope of the globe seems to be.


In magic parlance, I equate globe to the keyword hexproof. your 2/2 hexproof creature still dies to a pyroclasm

Or protection from white ... which doesn't prevent your creature from dying to a wrath of god.

Eh, I'm mixing stuff, but I hope I was clearish?

[incog64]

I feel myself agreeing with Incog64 on this one. conjuration(creation) effects make permanent nonmagical (stuff), it follow that the (stuff) isn't popped out of existence any more that it isn't popped out of existence by an antimagic field.

That maybe the (lesser) orb of X should perhabs not be tagged as (creation) is a different matter altogether.


But now I'm wondering, how many casts of orb of acid does it take to fill a bucket with acid?



if you walk toward a wall of X, assuming "X" is 3rd level or lower, does the "X" disappear into nothingness?

if you walk closer to an enemy that's buffed with a whatever (of 3rd or lower level, say, heroism), does that enemy stop being buffed with the whatever because you, the emanation point, moved closer than 10ft?

is every other buff you cast on yourself or an ally suppressed once you cast the globe?

I agree empirically that the orb spells should not bypass sphere of invulnerability, but I feel that's more a problem with the tag, rather than generalizing "spell effects" outside what the scope of the globe seems to be.


In magic parlance, I equate globe to the keyword hexproof. your 2/2 hexproof creature still dies to a pyroclasm

Or protection from white ... which doesn't prevent your creature from dying to a wrath of god.

Eh, I'm mixing stuff, but I hope I was clearish?

Nice MTG reference.

[Satinavian]

I feel myself agreeing with Incog64 on this one. conjuration(creation) effects make permanent nonmagical (stuff), it follow that the (stuff) isn't popped out of existence any more that it isn't popped out of existence by an antimagic field.
That is easy to solve by just assuming that stuff doesn't get created in the first place if the target of the spell is in the sphere.

[incog64]

That is easy to solve by just assuming that stuff doesn't get created in the first place if the target of the spell is in the sphere.

"Globe of Invulnerability
An immobile, faintly shimmering magical sphere surrounds you and excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower. The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability. Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe. Excluded effects include spell-like abilities and spells or spell-like effects from items. However, any type of spell can be cast through or out of the magical globe. Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast. The globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell, but not by an area dispel magic. You can leave and return to the globe without penalty.

Note that spell effects are not disrupted unless their effects enter the globe, and even then they are merely suppressed, not dispelled.

If a given spell has more than one level depending on which character class is casting it, use the level appropriate to the caster to determine whether lesser globe of invulnerability stops"

I think where we disagree is where the magic happens. To me, as per the PHB, the magic happens outside of the globe so the globe has no affect. The targeting mechanism for most conjuration spells is ranged touch so the targeting is not magic either like Magic Missel. Anyway agree to disagree but as always appreciate the perspective.

[Darg]

"Globe of Invulnerability
An immobile, faintly shimmering magical sphere surrounds you and excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower. The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability. Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe. Excluded effects include spell-like abilities and spells or spell-like effects from items. However, any type of spell can be cast through or out of the magical globe. Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast. The globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell, but not by an area dispel magic. You can leave and return to the globe without penalty.

Note that spell effects are not disrupted unless their effects enter the globe, and even then they are merely suppressed, not dispelled.

If a given spell has more than one level depending on which character class is casting it, use the level appropriate to the caster to determine whether lesser globe of invulnerability stops"

I think where we disagree is where the magic happens. To me, as per the PHB, the magic happens outside of the globe so the globe has no affect. The targeting mechanism for most conjuration spells is ranged touch so the targeting is not magic either like Magic Missel. Anyway agree to disagree but as always appreciate the perspective.

I've always imagined it as preventing the targeting of the, or anything in the, area. It doesn’t prevent magic or make it blink out of existence as portrayed by the allowance of area spells to still take effect or other spells being able to pass through it. I like to think of it as covering the peg hole in a game of battleship. Everything still works, you just can't pick any of those spots. It's affecting the spell before it's cast.


I feel myself agreeing with Incog64 on this one. conjuration(creation) effects make permanent nonmagical (stuff), it follow that the (stuff) isn't popped out of existence any more that it isn't popped out of existence by an antimagic field.

That maybe the (lesser) orb of X should perhabs not be tagged as (creation) is a different matter altogether.


But now I'm wondering, how many casts of orb of acid does it take to fill a bucket with acid?



if you walk toward a wall of X, assuming "X" is 3rd level or lower, does the "X" disappear into nothingness?

if you walk closer to an enemy that's buffed with a whatever (of 3rd or lower level, say, heroism), does that enemy stop being buffed with the whatever because you, the emanation point, moved closer than 10ft?

is every other buff you cast on yourself or an ally suppressed once you cast the globe?

I agree empirically that the orb spells should not bypass sphere of invulnerability, but I feel that's more a problem with the tag, rather than generalizing "spell effects" outside what the scope of the globe seems to be.


In magic parlance, I equate globe to the keyword hexproof. your 2/2 hexproof creature still dies to a pyroclasm

Or protection from white ... which doesn't prevent your creature from dying to a wrath of god.

Eh, I'm mixing stuff, but I hope I was clearish?

Spells already in effect are unaffected.

[Satinavian]

I think where we disagree is where the magic happens. To me, as per the PHB, the magic happens outside of the globe so the globe has no affect. The targeting mechanism for most conjuration spells is ranged touch so the targeting is not magic either like Magic Missel. Anyway agree to disagree but as always appreciate the perspective.
Doesn't matter whether the targetting is magical or not. The globe prevents any effect for any target in there. You might point at a target inside the globe four your ranged touch, but when you do, the spell fizzles out. Similar for hail of stones or whatever. Any stones that would hit a target inside just don't form.

[ciopo]

Eh, I see what you mean with the targeting, and that's a neat solving, or if not neat, then elegant.

Same for the already in effect.

I still mostly agree with Incog64 position more however, because I dom't see targeting a ray or thrown projectile or the likes being magical in any way, since it's "eyeballing it"


Also i find magic stone to be an amusing corner cass here, if it's cast later than the globe.

[Crake]

How would this work with say, a wall of iron that was cast outside of the globe and then pushed into it? (Ignore the issue of spell levels for now, if you have to make it work, pretend its a regular globe of invuln and the wall of iron was cast by a metal domain cleric as a sanctuary spell outside of the caster’s sanctuary, making it a 4th level spell)

Would the permanently made, no longer magical iron just wink out of existence for the area within the globe?

[Darg]

How would this work with say, a wall of iron that was cast outside of the globe and then pushed into it? (Ignore the issue of spell levels for now, if you have to make it work, pretend its a regular globe of invuln and the wall of iron was cast by a metal domain cleric as a sanctuary spell outside of the caster’s sanctuary, making it a 4th level spell)

Would the permanently made, no longer magical iron just wink out of existence for the area within the globe?

No.


The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability.

It's literally preventing the spell from targeting the area or targets within the globe's area. Think of it like not having LoE to the area itself. The spell simply doesn't affect that space. You can totally create the wall and if strong enough push it over into the globe. It's no longer part of the casting of a spell. A lesser orb of fire on the other hand is still part of the spell effect when targeting a target in the globe. The creature or target in the globe isn't a valid target.

[Crake]

No.



It's literally preventing the spell from targeting the area or targets within the globe's area. Think of it like not having LoE to the area itself. The spell simply doesn't affect that space. You can totally create the wall and if strong enough push it over into the globe. It's no longer part of the casting of a spell. A lesser orb of fire on the other hand is still part of the spell effect when targeting a target in the globe. The creature or target in the globe isn't a valid target.

There is no “targetting” in lesser orb of fire though, the spell doesnt have a target field. You throw it just the same as you would push the wall of iron.

[Darg]

There is no “targetting” in lesser orb of fire though, the spell doesnt have a target field. You throw it just the same as you would push the wall of iron.


An orb of acid about 2 inches across shoots from your palm at its target, dealing 1d8 points of acid damage. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target.

and? A spell doesn't need an effect field to have an effect does it? What about chill touch (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chillTouch.htm) having an effect that lasts longer than instantaneous? The whole entry is the spell description and just like how produce flame can modify the duration field after the fact, so can other spells modify any other field.

[RandomPeasant]

How would this work with say, a wall of iron that was cast outside of the globe and then pushed into it? (Ignore the issue of spell levels for now, if you have to make it work, pretend its a regular globe of invuln and the wall of iron was cast by a metal domain cleric as a sanctuary spell outside of the caster’s sanctuary, making it a 4th level spell)

Would the permanently made, no longer magical iron just wink out of existence for the area within the globe?

This is the issue, I think. The game has defined mechanisms for stopping magic, and they don't stop orbs. If "spell effects" means something different, you end up having to answer a whole bunch of weird questions. What exactly counts as a "spell effect"? Can something thrown by telekinesis (again, ignoring spell levels) be thrown at something in a globe of invulnerability? Can a ranged attack by a summoned creature? A called creature? If I use lesser planar ally to call up something with a 5th level equivalent SLA, can it hit something in the globe with the SLA or not? What if it's summoned with summon monster IV?


What about chill touch (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chillTouch.htm) having an effect that lasts longer than instantaneous?

What about it? A spell can do things that last longer than its listed duration (damage, for instance, lasts until it is somehow removed). That doesn't mean fireball has a secret duration of "until the damage is healed", it means the spell has created an effect that is not the spell.

[Darg]

This is the issue, I think. The game has defined mechanisms for stopping magic, and they don't stop orbs. If "spell effects" means something different, you end up having to answer a whole bunch of weird questions. What exactly counts as a "spell effect"? Can something thrown by telekinesis (again, ignoring spell levels) be thrown at something in a globe of invulnerability? Can a ranged attack by a summoned creature? A called creature? If I use lesser planar ally to call up something with a 5th level equivalent SLA, can it hit something in the globe with the SLA or not? What if it's summoned with summon monster IV?



What about it? A spell can do things that last longer than its listed duration (damage, for instance, lasts until it is somehow removed). That doesn't mean fireball has a secret duration of "until the damage is healed", it means the spell has created an effect that is not the spell.

And a spell effect can have a target beyond what's listed in the target entry. That doesn't mean it's not part of the effect.

You're reaching with the fireball example. Damage is damage. It has it's own set of rules that that the spell references and doesn't need to include in its own effect. Besides, fireball has an instantaneous duration.


Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

You would imply that even fireball isn't affected by the globe because the magic is already gone before the bead explodes.

[Wintermoot]

can you fire an arrow at someone in a globe of invulnerability?
can you throw a rock at someone in a globe of invulnerability?
if you telekinetically pick up a rock and throw it, can you throw it at someone in a globe of invulnerability?
can you hurl a flask of acid at someone in a globe of invulnerability?
Can you hurl a Molotov cocktail at someone in a globe of invulnerability?

Assuming your answers are "yes" to these questions, you should be able to infer what happens next.

With a conjuration spell like "orb of acid" you magically "conjure" an orb of acid which is basically a flask of acid without the flask. Then you send it hurling at a target exactly like throwing it if it was in that flask (and you were hurling it with your mind telekinetically). So the result is going to mirror what you believe happens when you throw a flask of acid at someone non magically.

[Chronos]

Quoth Crake:

There is no “targetting” in lesser orb of fire though, the spell doesnt have a target field. You throw it just the same as you would push the wall of iron.
If that were the case, you'd burn your hand every time you cast it. An orb spell does two things: It conjures the material of the orb into existence, and it magically launches the material at your target.

[Darg]

can you fire an arrow at someone in a globe of invulnerability?
can you throw a rock at someone in a globe of invulnerability?
if you telekinetically pick up a rock and throw it, can you throw it at someone in a globe of invulnerability?
can you hurl a flask of acid at someone in a globe of invulnerability?
Can you hurl a Molotov cocktail at someone in a globe of invulnerability?

Assuming your answers are "yes" to these questions, you should be able to infer what happens next.

With a conjuration spell like "orb of acid" you magically "conjure" an orb of acid which is basically a flask of acid without the flask. Then you send it hurling at a target exactly like throwing it if it was in that flask (and you were hurling it with your mind telekinetically). So the result is going to mirror what you believe happens when you throw a flask of acid at someone non magically.

The globe invalidates the spell's ability to target anything in the area, it doesn't prevent anything from going through the globe as it specifically mentions. Otherwise by your interpretation a fireball by the definition of instantaneous duration would be able to target the area of the globe.

[Crake]

If that were the case, you'd burn your hand every time you cast it. An orb spell does two things: It conjures the material of the orb into existence, and it magically launches the material at your target.

More accurately, it launches it from your hand. Whether it hits what you're aiming at depends on how good your aim is, as per the fact that it's a ranged touch attack. You also can aim it at a completely empty square, or at an object, or just throw it up into the air for fun. It has a "target" the same way shooting an arrow does, that's it.


The globe invalidates the spell's ability to target anything in the area, it doesn't prevent anything from going through the globe as it specifically mentions. Otherwise by your interpretation a fireball by the definition of instantaneous duration would be able to target the area of the globe.

except fireball's effect is magical the whole way through, wheras orb of X is explicitly nonmagical once it is finished being conjured.

It would be like saying create water's downpour option, used above the globe, would just wink out of existence as soon as it comes in contact with the globe, even though the water is completely nonmagical at that point. The orb, once it has been magically launched from your hand, no longer has any magic. It can literally be fired into an antimagic field. If you think that's not proof enough then I don't know what to tell you.

[Darg]

except fireball's effect is magical the whole way through, wheras orb of X is explicitly nonmagical once it is finished being conjured.

It would be like saying create water's downpour option, used above the globe, would just wink out of existence as soon as it comes in contact with the globe, even though the water is completely nonmagical at that point. The orb, once it has been magically launched from your hand, no longer has any magic. It can literally be fired into an antimagic field. If you think that's not proof enough then I don't know what to tell you.

Except globe of invulnerability doesn't care if it's magical or not. It only cares that it's a spell, SLA, or SLEffect. You're reading far beyond the words on the page.

[Crake]

Except globe of invulnerability doesn't care if it's magical or not. It only cares that it's a spell, SLA, or SLEffect. You're reading far beyond the words on the page.

And I think you're reading to too many degrees of separation. Your interpretation creates all sorts of strange edge cases that seem entirely unintended. The globe can delete walls of iron, or conjured water from existence, it can block telekinetically fired objects, and plenty more nonsensical results. I always limit my spell interactions at 1 degree of separation, because when you try to read too much into it like you're doing now, the whole thing just starts to fall apart.

[RandomPeasant]

Except globe of invulnerability doesn't care if it's magical or not. It only cares that it's a spell, SLA, or SLEffect. You're reading far beyond the words on the page.

No, you're the one reading beyond the words on the page! Saying the orb is the "effect" of an orb spell is like saying the damage is the effect of fireball. Does damage dealt you by 3rd level spells fall off when you walk into a globe of invulnerability?

[ciopo]

I gotta say, do the orb spells actually spell out that they are "nonmagical" once away from the caster hands?

For comparison, while staying under the umbrella of conjuration(creation), we have precedents of both magical (melf acid arrow) and nonmagical (minor creation), so since the orbs spell don't says anything on the matter of their matters (that I can find with a quick googling), where's the assumption on nonmagicalness coming from? Is it a property of the creation subachool?

[JNAProductions]

It's a question of how to view the rules.

Do you view the rules as the actual physics of the world? Or do you view them as an interface, but an imperfect one because it'd be impossible for the devs to cover everything that might happen?

[NontheistCleric]

Is it a property of the creation subachool?

It is indeed: (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Creation_Subschool)


A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). 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.

[RandomPeasant]

I gotta say, do the orb spells actually spell out that they are "nonmagical" once away from the caster hands?

Yes:


A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). 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.

Explicitly, instantaneous [Creation] effects do not depend on magic. acid arrow is not instantaneous and therefore does. If globe of invulnerability can suppress orbs, you have to answer all the weird questions about "what happens to a wall of iron" and "what happens to something thrown into the field with telekinesis" and "what happens if you are wearing pants created with fabricate", because all of those things are exactly as magical as the orb orb of fire makes. Could you write something so you have to re-answer all of those for "spell effects" separately from the ways they work for spells? Sure, I guess. But it seems far more reasonable to assume this is one of those cases where slightly different language is used to refer to the same thing.

[Satinavian]

No, you're the one reading beyond the words on the page! Saying the orb is the "effect" of an orb spell is like saying the damage is the effect of fireball. Does damage dealt you by 3rd level spells fall off when you walk into a globe of invulnerability?
That the globe moves towards a target clearly is an effect of the spell, even if the globe is nonmagical, the movement is not.

Sure, you could argue that orb cast at targets inside the globe should not fizzle completely and instead should create an orb and only the orb movement should get cancelled leading to the orb sitting in the casters hand and hitting him instead, but that does not really improve the situation and is too much inferrence.

As for telekinesis : That would not work on targets inside the sphere either, if it were low level enough.

It is not that difficult : Is it a spell of low enough level targeting anything in the globe ? -> doesn't work.


What would work is something like magic stone because it only targets the pebbles which get enchanted, while the hurling or shooting later is not related to the spell. But orbs are not that. with them the delivery of the damage is an important part of the spell.

[ciopo]

That the globe moves towards a target clearly is an effect of the spell, even if the globe is nonmagical, the movement is not.

Sure, you could argue that orb cast at targets inside the globe should not fizzle completely and instead should create an orb and only the orb movement should get cancelled leading to the orb sitting in the casters hand and hitting him instead, but that does not really improve the situation and is too much inferrence.

As for telekinesis : That would not work on targets inside the sphere either, if it were low level enough.

It is not that difficult : Is it a spell of low enough level targeting anything in the globe ? -> doesn't work.


What would work is something like magic stone because it only targets the pebbles which get enchanted, while the hurling or shooting later is not related to the spell. But orbs are not that. with them the delivery of the damage is an important part of the spell.
Eh, I would agree if it wasn't a ranged touch attack, because a ranged touch attack is resolved with a to-hit roll using dexterity, implying the magic involved is relative to imparting motive power to the projectile, rather than definying a target, and so it's an eyeball-mind coordination on the part of the caster.

Otherwise it would automatically hit, like every other "not touch, but save" spells, which to me works in a target-designation way.

So, if the caster sees the target, it can will the projectile to move toward said target, with the usual vagaries of doing a ranged attack.

I'd agree the caster would stop being able to impart locomotion to the projectile once it crosses to inside the globe, but that's the caster not being able to influence the projectile, rather than not being able to see the target. Would the projectile have enough acceleration? Up to the rulings I suppose, I'd give the globed individual either cover or concealment I think.


More inrerestingly to me is a situation like idk, the globed individual is invisible and a caster casts see invisibility on itself. Seems clear cut to me that he would see the globed just fine, except if the caster was also inside the globe I guess



Given that those orbs can be used against golems or other creatures "immune to magic", I see them bypassing globe of invulnerability for the sameish reasons they can damage golems and the likes

[Crake]

I gotta say, do the orb spells actually spell out that they are "nonmagical" once away from the caster hands?

For comparison, while staying under the umbrella of conjuration(creation), we have precedents of both magical (melf acid arrow) and nonmagical (minor creation), so since the orbs spell don't says anything on the matter of their matters (that I can find with a quick googling), where's the assumption on nonmagicalness coming from? Is it a property of the creation subachool?

The differentiation is whether or not it's instantaneous. Melf's acid arrow is not instantaneous, and neither is minor creation (you can't bring a minor creation into an AMF or a globe of invulnerability), but create water, true creation, and the lesser orb spells are instantaneous.

[incog64]

The differentiation is whether or not it's instantaneous. Melf's acid arrow is not instantaneous, and neither is minor creation (you can't bring a minor creation into an AMF or a globe of invulnerability), but create water, true creation, and the lesser orb spells are instantaneous.

Yup if its instantaneous GOI don't have an effect and that would include orbs, hail of stone, Melfs Unicorn and others.

[Satinavian]

Yup if its instantaneous GOI don't have an effect and that would include orbs, hail of stone, Melfs Unicorn and others.
Nothing in the wording of GOI states that. Or even hints at it.

It works on all spells targeting something within or having an AoE that overlaps with the Globes area. That's it. Doesn't metter whether the spell is instantanous or not or whether it produces magical or nonmagical effects.



You can all you want about the differences of evocation and conjuration (creation), saves and touch attacks, instantanous spells and those with duration and whatever else. None of that is mentioned in the text of GOI as a criterion whether GOI works or not, so none of that matters. And there is no other rulestext elsewhere making explicit new exceptions to GOI either.

[incog64]

Nothing in the wording of GOI states that. Or even hints at it.

It works on all spells targeting something within or having an AoE that overlaps with the Globes area. That's it. Doesn't metter whether the spell is instantanous or not or whether it produces magical or nonmagical effects.



You can all you want about the differences of evocation and conjuration (creation), saves and touch attacks, instantanous spells and those with duration and whatever else. None of that is mentioned in the text of GOI as a criterion whether GOI works or not, so none of that matters. And there is no other rulestext elsewhere making explicit new exceptions to GOI either.

If you want to ignore the fact that the thing doing damage isn't magical that's on you but the PHB disagrees. Have a nice day.

[Crake]

If you want to ignore the fact that the thing doing damage isn't magical that's on you but the PHB disagrees. Have a nice day.

Yeah im pretty over it, people want to make GoI into something its not.

[Satinavian]

If you want to ignore the fact that the thing doing damage isn't magical that's on you but the PHB disagrees. Have a nice day.
I ignore it because it is not relevant by RAW.

But i agree, we probably won't ever agree about the spell. Good day to you as well.


people want to make GoI into something its not.Finally something where we agree.

[RandomPeasant]

That the globe moves towards a target clearly is an effect of the spell, even if the globe is nonmagical, the movement is not.

Things move non-magically all the time. The rules are very explicit that once an instantaneous [Creation] spell is cast, the result is not dependent on magic. Does an object someone threw, that they were only able to lift because they were under the effect of bull's strength also stop? Of course not, that's absurd. But that's also an "effect" of a spell.


As for telekinesis : That would not work on targets inside the sphere either, if it were low level enough.

Combat Maneuver and Sustained Force wouldn't, but Violent Thrust would, provided you cast it on something that started outside the globe. Once the thing is in motion, the motion is non-magical.

[Chronos]

Quoth Crake:

And I think you're reading to too many degrees of separation. Your interpretation creates all sorts of strange edge cases that seem entirely unintended. The globe can delete walls of iron, or conjured water from existence, it can block telekinetically fired objects, and plenty more nonsensical results. I always limit my spell interactions at 1 degree of separation, because when you try to read too much into it like you're doing now, the whole thing just starts to fall apart.
There's a degree of separation for Wall of Iron, because nonmagical walls of iron are a thing, and can come into being through means other than spells. There is no separation for Orb of Fire, though, because Orbs of Fire only come into being via the spell, and are nowhere described anywhere other than in the spell. Not every iron wall is inherently a spell effect, but every orb of fire is.

And because it's inherently a spell effect, it's blocked by Globe of Invulnerability, because Globe of Invulnerability blocks spell effects. It might be a nonmagical spell effect, and yeah, that's a bit weird, but so what? Globe of Invulnerability doesn't work only against magical spell effects; it works against spell effects, period.

[Jay R]

The spell creates something at the hand, and then starts moving it to a target. By the time it reaches the target, it has become acid.

We don't know exactly when the magic stops directing its flight and lets mundane momentum take over, and we don't know exactly when the creation process is finished.

We know it isn't acid when it's touching the wizard's hand, because it doesn't burn the wizard. So the exact details of when and where it becomes acid are unclear.

After two days of discussion and rules-quoting, there is no answer that clearly convinces everybody.

Therefore, the DM will make a final decision. This is the kind of ambiguous decision that DM judgment is intended for.

So in some games the attack will work, and in other games the globe will stop it.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

[RandomPeasant]

It might be a nonmagical spell effect, and yeah, that's a bit weird, but so what?

So the game does not explain how that would work. The contention of the "it blocks orbs" side is that the game is so precise that it differentiates "spell" from "spell effect", but so imprecise that it has answer precisely none of the questions that raises. Why would we assume that? Why not just assume that, like the inconsistencies around whether bonus feats are listed as requiring prerequisites or not, this is simply a case where the rules do not always use the exact same term to refer to the same thing?

[Darg]

And I think you're reading to too many degrees of separation. Your interpretation creates all sorts of strange edge cases that seem entirely unintended. The globe can delete walls of iron, or conjured water from existence, it can block telekinetically fired objects, and plenty more nonsensical results. I always limit my spell interactions at 1 degree of separation, because when you try to read too much into it like you're doing now, the whole thing just starts to fall apart.

Where do you get the idea that it deletes walls of iron? Or blocks telekinetically fired objects from what I've said?


The globe invalidates the spell's ability to target anything in the area, it doesn't prevent anything from going through the globe as it specifically mentions.


The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability. Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe.

Spells can pass through the area just fine:


However, any type of spell can be cast through or out of the magical globe.

The spell is literally telling you that all it does is prevent spells from outside from including the area in the effect or a target in within the globe. If you manually pick up an iron wall and throw it in the globe, the globe does nothing because it's not the spell's area or target. A telekinetically fired object can hit a target on the other side of the globe no problem; you just can't target anything within the globe.


No, you're the one reading beyond the words on the page! Saying the orb is the "effect" of an orb spell is like saying the damage is the effect of fireball. Does damage dealt you by 3rd level spells fall off when you walk into a globe of invulnerability?


Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]
Level: Sorcerer 1, Wizard 1, Warmage 1,
Components: V, S,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One orb of acid
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

An orb of acid about 2 inches across shoots from your palm at its target, dealing 1d8 points of acid damage. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target.

For every two caster levels beyond 1st, your orb deals an additional 1d8 points of damage: 2d8 at 3rd level, 3d8 at 5th level, 4d8 at 7th level, and the maximum of 5d8 at 9th level or higher.


Yes, the orb is part of the effect of the spell.


A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.

Dealing damage is the effect. The state of being damaged is not. So no, the orb does not heal you from spell damage. Nor does it prevent previously cast effects from entering the globe. Cast mage armor and then walk into the globe? It still works because the target wasn't in the globe at the time.


The contention of the "it blocks orbs" side is that the game is so precise that it differentiates "spell" from "spell effect", but so imprecise that it has answer precisely none of the questions that raises. Why would we assume that? Why not just assume that, like the inconsistencies around whether bonus feats are listed as requiring prerequisites or not, this is simply a case where the rules do not always use the exact same term to refer to the same thing?


excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower.

Excluded effects include spell-like abilities and spells or spell-like effects from items.

I'd say it defines it well enough by specifying that it means spells, SLAs, and spell-like effects from items.

[Crake]

A telekinetically fired object can hit a target on the other side of the globe no problem; you just can't target anything within the globe.

So how does that work from an in-universe perspective then? Does the telekinetically fired object just wink out of existence while passing through the sphere?

[Satinavian]

So how does that work from an in-universe perspective then? Does the telekinetically fired object just wink out of existence while passing through the sphere?
In universe the area of the Globe is just the area that is protected by the globe. It is not the area of stuff the globe can influence. The effect of the globe stretches way beyond its boundaries and messes with spells and casters that target the globe area.

The globe is not some kind of force-field that magic missiles and fireballs can't penetrate. Because it allow both kind of projectiles to go through perfectly fine as long as the actual target is behind the globe, not inside. In case of a fireball you could even throw it into the center of the globe but all the actual fire and explosion will only happen in a ring outsidide/around it, even if it technically "goes off" in the middle.

[Crake]

In universe the area of the Globe is just the area that is protected by the globe. It is not the area of stuff the globe can influence. The effect of the globe stretches way beyond its boundaries and messes with spells and casters that target the globe area.

So you're implying that the globe has infinite range? That seems far less reasonable than "the globe does what the globe says it does".


The globe is not some kind of force-field that magic missiles and fireballs can't penetrate.

Actually, not true. The bead created by fireball is a spell effect, so as soon as it enters the Globe of Invulnerability, it is suppressed. Same goes for the missiles of magic missile. If they pass through the globe, they are suppressed, and so both fireball and Magic Missile would be halted by the globe until it ends, at which poing those spells would presumably complete their effect.


Because it allow both kind of projectiles to go through perfectly fine as long as the actual target is behind the globe, not inside.

It does no such thing. It says that spells can be cast through it or even from inside to outside, which is to say, that the globe does not block line of effect for spells, but if those spells produce a spell effect that originates within the globe, it is still suppressed by the globe. On the other hand, a spell like charm person could be cast from inside the globe on a target outside, or from one side of the globe to the other, because there is no travelling spell effect that needs to pass into the globe, and thusly get suppressed.


In case of a fireball you could even throw it into the center of the globe but all the actual fire and explosion will only happen in a ring outsidide/around it, even if it technically "goes off" in the middle.

As above, the fireball's bead is suppressed, and so it cannot detonate at the center of the globe to produce said effect.

If we look at the rules for creation magic, we can see the following:


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

So with this, we can take to understand that the spell effect of "One orb of acid" is actually more implicitly written as "the magical assembly of one orb of acid". The orb is not a spell effect, the ASSEMBLY of the orb is.

[Satinavian]

So you're implying that the globe has infinite range? That seems far less reasonable than "the globe does what the globe says it does".Basically yes. It influences spells that target the globe area. Which means it basically inserts itself into the spellcasting process. It is also not infinite range, only higher range than all lv 3 and below spells.


Actually, not true. The bead created by fireball is a spell effect, so as soon as it enters the Globe of Invulnerability, it is suppressed. Same goes for the missiles of magic missile. If they pass through the globe, they are suppressed, and so both fireball and Magic Missile would be halted by the globe until it ends, at which poing those spells would presumably complete their effect.
Ruletext :
Any type of spell, however, can be cast through or out of the magical globe.

So yes, if the target is on the other side of the globe, the magic missile or fireball bead passes through undisturbed.



It does no such thing. It says that spells can be cast through it or even from inside to outside, which is to say, that the globe does not block line of effect for spells, but if those spells produce a spell effect that originates within the globe, it is still suppressed by the globe. On the other hand, a spell like charm person could be cast from inside the globe on a target outside, or from one side of the globe to the other, because there is no travelling spell effect that needs to pass into the globe, and thusly get suppressed.
Ruletext :
The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability.

So for all AoE spells, only the area of the globe is cut from the area that the spell would otherwise affect. That is why a fireball would not be completely suppressed and instead still burn the outside.

The globe influences most spells not in the was that all spell effects are suppressed, but that no spell effects can influence a target or target area inside the globe. The fireball bead is allowed to explode just fine inside, but fire, flames etc manifest only beyond this area. It works the same as an archmages mastery of shaping.


So with this, we can take to understand that the spell effect of "One orb of acid" is actually more implicitly written as "the magical assembly of one orb of acid". The orb is not a spell effect, the ASSEMBLY of the orb is.If that was all, you would hold an orb of acid in your hand and had to throw it independently of the spell with your own power. Which is clearly not the case. The spell does the assembly of the orb which then is nonmagical. This assembly is why it is in the creation subschool. But that is not all the spell does, it also moves the orb to its target and this part is what triggers the globe if the target is inside.

[Darg]

So you're implying that the globe has infinite range? That seems far less reasonable than "the globe does what the globe says it does".

It's more like chaff. You can't get a lock on the area of the globe and you don't need any outsized effect.


Actually, not true. The bead created by fireball is a spell effect, so as soon as it enters the Globe of Invulnerability, it is suppressed. Same goes for the missiles of magic missile. If they pass through the globe, they are suppressed, and so both fireball and Magic Missile would be halted by the globe until it ends, at which poing those spells would presumably complete their effect.

Only if the bead or magic missile targets within the area of the sphere. If their target is outside of the sphere on the other side it doesn't suppress them unless it spreads into the sphere, like the fireball explosion. Even then it would only be the part of the area of the fireball spell that competes with the globe. Suppression does not stop durations. Time still ticks down so instantaneous effects or short durations would just be out of luck.


It does no such thing. It says that spells can be cast through it or even from inside to outside, which is to say, that the globe does not block line of effect for spells, but if those spells produce a spell effect that originates within the globe, it is still suppressed by the globe. On the other hand, a spell like charm person could be cast from inside the globe on a target outside, or from one side of the globe to the other, because there is no travelling spell effect that needs to pass into the globe, and thusly get suppressed.

The wording says you agree but you say you disagree? Sounds like you think that projectiles get suppressed when passing through even though the spell specifically says that's not the case?


As above, the fireball's bead is suppressed, and so it cannot detonate at the center of the globe to produce said effect.

This is something we agree on.


If we look at the rules for creation magic, we can see the following:



So with this, we can take to understand that the spell effect of "One orb of acid" is actually more implicitly written as "the magical assembly of one orb of acid". The orb is not a spell effect, the ASSEMBLY of the orb is.

What? No. The effect line is a category of information, nothing more. The spell effect is the spell in its entirety. To say that the effect category is the extent of the spell's effect, then by your own admission the spell can't shoot the orb because the spell doesn't do that nor says you can throw it. There's no magic to propel the orb after all.

[Crichton]

People keep saying the globe prevents a caster form targeting someone inside the globe. That's entirely untrue, and completely unsupported by the spell's text. You can target them and cast at them just fine. The spell just fails to affect them if they're in the globe. There's nothing about it that prevents you from casting Scorching Ray or whatever at them, and rolling your ranged touch attack (and even rolling a hit), but the fiery rays wont hit them, they'll stop at the edge of the globe's area as the spell's effect is 'excluded' and 'fails to affect any target located within the globe'.


This doesn't really change the debate about instantaneous creation spells and if their nonmagicalness lets them still hit a target inside the globe or not, but we need to be clear that Globe of Invulnerability does not in any way interfere with an outside caster's ability to successfully target a creature inside the globe and cast any spell at them.