bartleby1982's page

Hi Jorshamo,

Fabricate bullets actually specifies that, "You convert 1 pound of lead into bullets." VRMH's interpretation would indicate that the 1 pound of lead indicated by the spell as a material component would become annihilated and a second pound of lead would be needed for the conversion process.

I don't think that's what the designers had in mind when they wrote the spell, but I have to categorize my thought here as opinion like I would similarly categorize Weirdo's assertion that the value of the gem, if not the gem itself, is gone. It just isn't supported by the RAW.

I don't see any text or component of the RAW suggesting a new gem is created by the spell. I do agree that needing a second gemstone to hold the creature is a valid interpretation of the RAW.

According to an online dictionary annihilate means;
To destroy completely
To reduce to nonexistence

The gem is not annihilated. It is a gem containing a soul until it is broken. The word "broken" is used twice in the description of the spell. The section for breaking items is titled "broken," and proceeds to describe what that means mechanically.

Bless Water has a material component of 5 pounds of powdered silver worth 25 gp. The spell turns regular water into holy water. How is this spell a precedent?

Fabricate Bullets actually appears to support the concept of re-using material components; the spell turns the material component into an item that can be used, sold, broken, etc.

Hi Hendelbolaf,

The PRD says the material components are annihilated "during the casting process." The spell has a casting time of one standard action or a trigger object. In either case, the text specifies the material component survives after the casting process is completed.

I could posit that the designers meant for the gems to be a focus instead of a material component based on the text of the spell, but I do not have supporting evidence from the RAW. Thus, that idea is based on opinion or an appeal to common sense.

To clarify my question: Is there evidence from the RAW that supports the idea of a material component becoming annihilated after the casting process is completed?

Thanks for your responses!

Isil-zha, your position is that the game designers said broken but meant destroyed.

LazarX, it appears you concur with Isil-zha

Hendelbolaf and Weirdo, it appears your position is that the material component of the spell is annihilated after the spell is cast as opposed to annihilated during the casting process

Are your positions based on opinion, derived from a part of the RAW not mentioned in your post, or do they represent a common sense argument?

Rules As Written (RAW) notes that, "A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process." The text for Trap the Soul specifies that, "The gem holds the trapped entity indefinitely or until the gem is broken and the life force is released."

Does this mean that, unlike other spells, the material component for Trap the Soul is not annihilated in the casting process?

RAW notes that, "Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item..." Trap the Soul specifies the release condition for a soul is that the gem must be "broken."

Does this mean that a gem used as a material component for a Trap the Soul spell can potentially be repaired and reused after it has been broken?

*but did not cover non-instantaneous effects of the same strength

bartleby1982 wrote:

What about acid fogs of the same strength?

For continuious effect spells, like acid fog, that would mean that only one has any effect in the overlapping area.

Your two acid fogspells would only combine to make a bigger bank of caustic vapors in an area defined by the two effects combined.

The clause is specific to non-instantaneous effects of different strength - it does not govern non-instantaneous effects of the same strength. I was hoping for an official ruling because it appears that;

The designers did not intend this rule to govern damaging spells or;
The designers did intend this rule to govern damaging spells but did cover non-instantaneous effects of the same strength.

Just compare it to other damaging spells.

If you were to get hit by two Fireballs in one turn, only the stronger of the two spells would do damage, right?

Wait...

Fireball has an instantaneous duration

Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target

What about acid fogs of the same strength?

The scenario is that two acid fog spells are effecting a target. One interpretation of the rules is that only the strongest acid fog deals acid damage because;

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.

The counter argument is that;

1. The clause is under a section about stacking magical effects like bonuses or penalties, and should not be interpreted as also effecting damage

2. Two acid fog spells effecting the same target, that are also the same strength, should both damage the target because the clause does not apply (Same effect and different strength for the rule vs. same effect and same strength for scenario).

- It makes no sense, however, that a 7d6 acid fog and 7d6 acid fog deal 14d6 while a 10d6 acid fog and a 4d6 acid fog deals 10d6. On the other hand, it also makes no sense that a 10d6 acid fog and a 4d6 acid fog do not deal 14d6 damage.

3. If energy substitution were applied to one of the acid fogs, changing its energy type to fire, then both should deal damage because it is no longer the same effect. This demonstrates that the amount of damage dice is unchanged, and supports the logical argument that if you have a bunch of acid in a cloud, and then create an effect that adds more acid, that additional acid would also cause damage.

The Rebuttal to those three points is that;

An invalid rules placement concern. The larger section, of which the rules fall under, clearly applies to all magic. There is no indication (especially given rules that did not contain elemental substitution as a concern when they were written) that there is any conflict here. Two or more spells operating in the area that are otherwise the same, only the strongest ONE applies. You get to pick which strongest ONE means in the event there are more than one contender for the role.