Magic Stone + Giants Wrath?

[Cowboy_ninja]

Can you combine the druid spells Magic Stone and Giants Wrath to get a magically enhanced Boulder?

[BobVosh]

What is giant's wrath in?

[Cowboy_ninja]

What is giant's wrath in?

Spell Compendium. Its the spell that allows you to throw a pebble and it becomes a boulder.

[Starbuck_II]

I'd say yes.

[ericgrau]

Magic stone says the pebbles may be no larger than sling bullets. Arguably the magic stone spell might be suppressed when the pebbles get bigger.

[Jack_Simth]

Magic stone says the pebbles may be no larger than sling bullets. Arguably the magic stone spell might be suppressed when the pebbles get bigger.

This is probably the sanest interpretation, I think.

[Worira]

I'm pretty sure this works, since the pebbles were a legal target when Magic Stone was cast. Although by strict RAW, Giant's Wrath is absolutely worthless, since it uses the stones as material components and therefore annihilates them.

[Starbuck_II]

I'm pretty sure this works, since the pebbles were a legal target when Magic Stone was cast. Although by strict RAW, Giant's Wrath is absolutely worthless, since it uses the stones as material components and therefore annihilates them.

So how does the spell work? Does it create new boulders after destroying old?

[Worira]

By RAW, it flat-out doesn't work. It's a level three spell that could be called "Destroy Pebbles." Any sane DM would rule otherwise, of course. If they were particular about rules, they might houserule that the pebbles are focuses.

[lvl 1 sharnian]

Perhaps the pebbles are not consumed until they turn into boulders?

Besides it likely wouldn't matter as a focus or material component since ammo has a 50% chance of being destroyed on a miss or is destroyed on a hit.

Ex. 50ton boulder of Indestructium tossed at a goblin 10ft away. It hits and the ammo is consumed... Ridiculous

[DueceEsMachine]

Or throw it at the ground in front of you for instant rubble. I don't know, maybe you could use that tactic to make difficult terrain or something.

[Jack_Simth]

Perhaps the pebbles are not consumed until they turn into boulders?

Besides it likely wouldn't matter as a focus or material component since ammo has a 50% chance of being destroyed on a miss or is destroyed on a hit.

Ex. 50ton boulder of Indestructium tossed at a goblin 10ft away. It hits and the ammo is consumed... Ridiculous

Ammo does... but many thrown weapons don't. If you throw a dagger at someone, it doesn't shatter on impact - likewise, a javelin. Then the question becomes: Which is a boulder "more like" - ammo, or a thrown weapon?

[faceroll]

By RAW, it flat-out doesn't work. It's a level three spell that could be called "Destroy Pebbles." Any sane DM would rule otherwise, of course. If they were particular about rules, they might houserule that the pebbles are focuses.

I don't see why having the pebbles be material components is so outrageous, seeing as how it's magic. Having the boulders disappear after 1round/level seems like a really good way to prevent abuse, imo.

[taltamir]

I don't see why having the pebbles be material components is so outrageous, seeing as how it's magic. Having the boulders disappear after 1round/level seems like a really good way to prevent abuse, imo.

material components don't disappear when the spell ends, they disappear when the spell is cast.

that is, you have a spell whose entire effect is to destroy a pebble with no actual effect. this is because the person who wrote it made an ERROR and misinterpreted the rules.
it should have said "focus" not "material component" because of the difference between the two. The spell is basically self contradictory with the result being that "nothing happens" when you cast it by the raw. kind of like how monks are (by the raw) not proficient with their own fists.
However, every sane DM will rule against that. So the spell actually works.

[faceroll]

material components don't disappear when the spell ends, they disappear when the spell is cast.

that is, you have a spell whose entire effect is to destroy a pebble with no actual effect. this is because the person who wrote it made an ERROR and misinterpreted the rules.
it should have said "focus" not "material component" because of the difference between the two. The spell is basically self contradictory with the result being that "nothing happens" when you cast it by the raw. kind of like how monks are (by the raw) not proficient with their own fists.
However, every sane DM will rule against that. So the spell actually works.

Doesn't specific trump general, so in this case the components aren't consumed?

[Jack_Simth]

Doesn't specific trump general, so in this case the components aren't consumed?

Yes, but doesn't apply, as the spell description doesn't specify that the components don't vanish on casting.

[taltamir]

Yes, but doesn't apply, as the spell description doesn't specify that the components don't vanish on casting.

exactly. had the specifically specifically said that in this case it is a material component that isn't consumed, then this would have been the case.

there are several spells that DO specifically say that the "focus" is destroyed when the spell end, or that the "material component" is consumed later on or in a specific manner. This one doesn't... but we assume that they meant to say that and rule by RAI that it works instead of the spell doing nothing.

[lvl 1 sharnian]

Ammo does... but many thrown weapons don't. If you throw a dagger at someone, it doesn't shatter on impact - likewise, a javelin. Then the question becomes: Which is a boulder "more like" - ammo, or a thrown weapon?

Ammo according to catapult operators and giants