Spell: Correspondence

[Strill]

Correspondence
5th-level Conjuration (Ritual)

Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: Touch
Components: V,S,M (An ornate silver mirror worth at least 200gp, which cracks and crumbles to dust)
Duration: Until Dispelled

You draw the reflection of a non-magical object out of a mirror and into the real world. As long as both the object and its reflection exist, any physical changes made to one item are also made to the other. For example, if either item is dented, broken, written on, bent, or melted down, the other one is as well. In addition, neither the object nor its reflection will appear in a mirror.

This spell was originally intended to be used on books as a method of long-distance communication. Each party writes in their book, and sees what the other has written (albeit mirrored). However, the spell can be used on any non-magical item, provided it is no larger than 3 feet in any dimension.

While the original object remains completely mundane, the reflection is magical, and will fade away if dispelled, returning to the other side of the mirror.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Pretty cool, like a Simulacrum for items. When I saw the name, I wondered if it had something to do with Fallen London, but I guess not.

[Strill]

Pretty cool, like a Simulacrum for items. When I saw the name, I wondered if it had something to do with Fallen London, but I guess not.

Hmm... It wasn't quite supposed to be like Simulacrum. I mean for both the object and its reflection to affect one another. If either one is broken or written on, the other is too. I'll edit the OP to make it more clear.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Oh, I guess I missed that part. Yeah, that's a nice spell. Do you think it would be overpowered to let it copy a magic item if juiced up to 9^th-level?

[Strill]

Oh, I guess I missed that part. Yeah, that's a nice spell. Do you think it would be overpowered to let it copy a magic item if juiced up to 9^th-level?

Hmmmm... It would be ok for something like a Magic staff, if you assume that both items share the same charge pool. However, for magic items with passive benefits, it's just free magic items with no drawback. For example, if you copy a Holy Avenger, your party now has two of those at very little cost.

Even if you add a rule that says they share the same attunement, and only one person can attune to either of them, you can still copy items that don't require attunement, like +3 Shields.

That really hamstrings the DM in terms of what items he can give you, if he knows that every item is going to be duplicated.

Then again, it is a 9th-level spell, but I still think it opens the door for a lot of unexpected shenanigans, especially for items with non-standard mechanics. If I were including a spell like that, I'd just write it as a separate spell, rather than an upgrade from this existing one.

[Prince Zahn]

I like it!

In addition to it's practical uses, the concept of an half of an object missing is campaign fuel, more so with something innocent, like a reflection.
I'd love to see what else you could make with a mirror
Cheers!

[Ninja_Prawn]

Hmmmm... It would be ok for something like a Magic staff, if you assume that both items share the same charge pool. However, for magic items with passive benefits, it's just free magic items with no drawback. For example, if you copy a Holy Avenger, your party now has two of those at very little cost.

Even if you add a rule that says they share the same attunement, and only one person can attune to either of them, you can still copy items that don't require attunement, like +3 Shields.

That really hamstrings the DM in terms of what items he can give you, if he knows that every item is going to be duplicated.

Then again, it is a 9th-level spell, but I still think it opens the door for a lot of unexpected shenanigans, especially for items with non-standard mechanics. If I were including a spell like that, I'd just write it as a separate spell, rather than an upgrade from this existing one.

True. Maybe cap it at 'uncommon' items?

And Prince Zahn's right, it could be a great plot twist... "hey, you know that MacGuffin you've been carrying since the start of the game? It's actually just a reflection of the real one!" Villain casts Dispel Magic!

[Strill]

What do you think of the name? I chose it because I originally thought of the idea of tying two identical objects together for the purposes of writing letters back and forth, and only afterwards thought of pulling the copy out of a mirror. "Correspondence" can refer to writing letters, or to the bond between the item and its reflection, but the mirror aesthetic leaves the name a little too off-the-mark I think.

I know that D&D has a history of terrible spell names, so it's probably not the biggest thing in the world, but perhaps "Mirrored Correspondence" would be a better name.

[Ninja_Prawn]

My first thoughts would be Sympathetic Reflection or maybe Clone Item.

Correspondence is actually a very good name. It's quite mystical-sounding - in the same way Simulacrum is. And I think it adds to the character of the spell if it was named for one potential use, before people found other ways of using it.

[Strill]

My first thoughts would be Sympathetic Reflection or maybe Clone Item.

Sympathetic Reflection's a pretty accurate name.

Correspondence is actually a very good name. It's quite mystical-sounding - in the same way Simulacrum is.

I agree it does sound mystical, it's just that it's a very broad term that could refer to the concept of sympathy in general.

And I think it adds to the character of the spell if it was named for one potential use, before people found other ways of using it.

That is a good point.

[Prince Zahn]

Then again, it is a 9th-level spell, but I still think it opens the door for a lot of unexpected shenanigans, especially for items with non-standard mechanics. If I were including a spell like that, I'd just write it as a separate spell, rather than an upgrade from this existing one.

Speaking of shenanigans, It occured to me that nothing is explicitly prohibiting repeated castings on the same object, is it?

[Strill]

Speaking of shenanigans, It occured to me that nothing is explicitly prohibiting repeated castings on the same object, is it?

Yes there is. Until the spell ends, there's no longer any reflection to pull out of the mirror. Maybe I should add a bit describing the mage reaching into the mirror and grabbing the object that he's pulling through.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Another thought: are you sure this is a conjuration? I am tempted to argue that it's an illusion, given that it's basically a cross between Mirror Image and Creation.

And the 5e spellbook is woefully short of illusions...

[Strill]

Another thought: are you sure this is a conjuration? I am tempted to argue that it's an illusion, given that it's basically a cross between Mirror Image and Creation.

And the 5e spellbook is woefully short of illusions...

It's a good point. I chose conjuration because conjuration involves defying distance and and summoning things from other places, so I figured that a spell which summoned an object from inside a mirror and tied two objects together across distance would fit conjuration. I also intended that the reflection be "real" in every way except magically. Illusions tend to have a way to disbelieve them, which I didn't think was appropriate here.

It's also because my original concept for the spell just involved two identical objects, which the spell simply tied together.

I'll think about it.

[Nifft]

I like the idea of making the spell Illusion, like a specialized Shadow Conjuration.

It occurs to me that a good use would be to have several Reflections of a single book -- each Reflection would have the writing the right-way around, and the master book (with the backwards writing) would be kept in some central, safe location. You could communicate with a large number of other parties in this way.

(The safe location later becomes a vault in a dungeon and the PCs can find the book.)

[Ninja_Prawn]

Oooh, what happens if you try to Locate Object the book? Does it give you both locations, or only one (and if so, does it home in on the closest, the one you asked for, or the original)? Does the spell get confused and fail entirely?

[Prince Zahn]

Oooh, what happens if you try to Locate Object the book? Does it give you both locations, or only one (and if so, does it home in on the closest, the one you asked for, or the original)? Does the spell get confused and fail entirely?

I'd imagine the best answer for this would be "whatever's best for the DM at the time". Just as long as the answer stays consistent.

Call me crazy, but I get a transmutation vibe out of this spell, if not Conjuration, since you take an object's reflection and make it real - you are changing the object to bear it's relection on the same "dimension", if you will.

I also think Correspondence is a fantastic spell name as is, and vote against changing it.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Call me crazy, but I get a transmutation vibe out of this spell, if not Conjuration, since you take an object's reflection and make it real - you are changing the object to bear it's reflection on the same "dimension", if you will.

Maybe. I can see the logic there. Fabricate is a transmutation, after all.

Perhaps they should allow spells to belong to two schools at the same time? I can think of several in the book that clearly transcend the boundaries of the schools.

[Nifft]

Honestly, it could be any damn school, because D&D schools are really poorly specified.

Necromancy: "You smear the victim's blood on the cover of both volumes; from then on, there is a morose ghost which haunts both books, keeping their contents in sync."

Evocation: "With a flash of energy, you make each book's contents mutually contingent upon the contents of the other. This paradox of mutual dependency is only resolved when the contents are identical, so the entropic pressure of the universe forces any change in one to percolate into the other. Basically it's a modified Contingency spell."

Abjuration: "It's a modified Shield Other spell, duh."

... and so on.

The fact that you used a mirror in the description is what made it seem like an Illusion spell, not the actual effect itself, because most effects could be from several schools, and some effects could be from any school at all.

Don't stress about the school too much.

[Prince Zahn]

Honestly, it could be any damn school, because D&D schools are really poorly specified.

The fact that you used a mirror in the description is what made it seem like an Illusion spell, not the actual effect itself.

I beg to differ on both these points, mirrors are not a true indication to an illusion spell (scrying, anyone?) Nor does blood and necromancy necessarily have anything to do with the spell being discussed (forming a tangible reflection of an inanimate object. It would be different if we're talking about something that is/was alive). Abjuration has no reason to even be brought up about a spell like this, either (just what is being shielded by a mirrored object exactly? What is being prevented or negated?). Enchantment does not fit either, as there are several points from the original poster that indicate this reflection is not "all in one's head" (no evidence pointing to mind or body control either, which are the general motors of enchantment spells)". That's at least 4 schools that thematically and conceptually suit neither the description of the spell's effect nor the OP's vision of his spell.

while the mirror is a visual association in the spell's description, it is not merely a part of the description. It is a key to the spell's conceptt - to have a tangible reflection of an inanimate object (any object, not strictly a book)taken from the mirror/have both the object and it's mirrored reflection tangible on the same plane of existence. Since you brought up necromancy, The corpse used for animate dead plays a similar role in the spell in terms of theme and function - one can not replace it with anything else and reasonably call it the same effect. I.e. the spells Summoning elementals and summoning fey are worded very similarly, but you don't have a spell at all if you separate what happens from how the spell works.

While we are discussing schools, we are looking at the spell from everything it is - both in description and mechanics, to figure out the ideal category for it to fall under. Saying "anything will do" is contributing very little, if at all, to that.

I will not deny one thing however - a spell can fit the bill for more than one school, though it nevertheless only gets one, as per the current 5e format - that school is the what the creator thinks is most sensible and true to his vision. (which I sure as heck hope is not necromancy, unless some big changes are made )

[Nifft]

I beg to differ on both these points, mirrors are not a true indication to an illusion spell (scrying, anyone?)

Yes, it's a lot like scrying. The image of a thing far away is reproduced on an object nearby. That's the opposite of the point you thought you were making, but that's just an indication that your point was bad.

Nor does blood and necromancy necessarily have anything to do with the spell being discussed (forming a tangible reflection of an inanimate object.

So, what happened there was that I replaced the cosmetic dressing of ("mirror") with a different but equally relevant cosmetic dressing ("blood and ghost"). I thought that was obvious.

Abjuration has no reason to even be brought up about a spell like this, either (just what is being shielded by a mirrored object exactly?

Shield Other distributes damage to two targets.
Correspondence distributes writing to two targets.

That was also supposed to be really obvious.

Am I just being too subtle here?

Did anyone else fail to understand this stuff?

while the mirror is a visual association in the spell's description, it is not merely a part of the description. It is a key to the spell's conceptt

No, the thing that's key to the concept is that WRITING gets COPIED over a long DISTANCE.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The school would be HERMETIC, but that's not a school in D&D, so there isn't any one school for the effect.

So the author can just pick one, because it doesn't really matter.

[Strill]

For the name, what do you think of "Mirrored Correspondence"? It's a little bit more descriptive. I was also thinking of adding the term "sympathetic correspondence" somewhere in the description, to make the double-meaning apparent.