|
1) Are you able to create water 'in thin air' above someone's head (sans container)?
2) What would be the concentration check DC for having 2 gallons/level of the caster of water dropped on you?
Thanks!
1) Since the range is "close", yes. At worst you may rule it has to be an empty square, but that could still be the square above them.
2) Probably not that high. I'd (at most) give it "violent motion" for 15 + spell level, but more like 10 + spell level. Unless they make the reflex save to dodge it, of course (like DC15 for falling objects IIRC).
3) This tactic is a very good way to interrupt an otherwise great card game :'(
It says you can create a downpour, so I see no RAW reason not to create it above a person's head.
In the Magic chapter, under Concentration, it says the following:
Spell
If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting.If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell's saving throw DC + the level of the spell you're casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it's the DC that the spell's saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster's ability score).
Since Create Water is a level 0 spell, you would use your own Save DC for level 0 spells and add the level of the spell your enemy is casting, and that becomes the DC for his Concentration check.
|
|
It says you can create a downpour, so I see no RAW reason not to create it above a person's head.
In the Magic chapter, under Concentration, it says the following:
Spell
If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting.If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell's saving throw DC + the level of the spell you're casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it's the DC that the spell's saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster's ability score).
Since Create Water is a level 0 spell, you would use your own Save DC for level 0 spells and add the level of the spell your enemy is casting, and that becomes the DC for his Concentration check.
Hmm... didn't know about that rule. It does end up somewhere between my two guesses, though, so at least I'm a good guesser ^.^
1) Are you able to create water 'in thin air' above someone's head (sans container)?
2) What would be the concentration check DC for having 2 gallons/level of the caster of water dropped on you?
Thanks!
Generally, no. It's Conjuration (Creation).
"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."
|
1) Are you able to create water 'in thin air' above someone's head (sans container)?
2) What would be the concentration check DC for having 2 gallons/level of the caster of water dropped on you?
Thanks!
Generally, no. It's Conjuration (Creation).
"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."
However, it's neither a creature nor an object it's an effect. Otherwise how could you ever create water inside of an empty urn or flask or whatever?
2) If I were feeling generous as a GM I might compare it to wind with rain or sleet while casting. Requiring a concentration check of 5 + Spell Level. But it probably shouldn't even be that high.
As far as I can tell it should qualify as:
Spell: If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting.
If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell’s saving throw DC + the level of the spell you’re casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it’s the DC that the spell’s saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster’s ability score).
As far as I can tell it should qualify as:Spell: If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting.
If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell’s saving throw DC + the level of the spell you’re casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it’s the DC that the spell’s saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster’s ability score).Yeah. I don't think so. The spell in no way interferes with the target. The target isn't in the area of effect. The target isn't targeted by the spell. Create water has no interaction at all with the target.
The best create water can do is temporarily alter the environment for the target by causing a down pour. The effect of casting in a down pour, I would judge to be closest to wind and sleet (though probably not even that much).
Hmmm, except the text doesn't say "If you are targeted by a spell..."
It only says "If you are affected by a spell..." Further, later, it says "If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way..." which, at least the distraction bit, seems awfully relevant here.
Sure, there is nothing explicit in the rules saying "Create Water can be used to distract spellcasting." Lacking that explicit rule, it now falls into the area of judgment call and each DM is going to have his or her own judgment on the matter.
That said, I don't imagine that having a minimum of two gallons of water crashing into your head, into your mouth while you're incanting a spell, possibly resulting in sputtering or even coughing, is easy to ignore. Hence, I would count that, IMO, as "the spell distracts you in some other way".
An interesting concern might arise here though.
Assuming this is something that can distract, if we take a worst case scenario of a wizard duel between two equal wizards (equal level, equal spells known, equal INT (let's say 20), etc.).
One tries to cast, the other tries to distract with Create Water (using a readied action). The DC = 10 + 5 + 0 = 15. The Concentration check is 1d20 + 1 + 5 = 1d20 + 6. So the caster will make his Concentration check on a 9 or higher, which means he will fail 40% of his spells.
That's not great. But, a few bad Concentration checks and suddenly he may be running low on spells (especially if he's a low-level wizard, or if he prepared mostly non-combat spells today). Meanwhile, his enemy still has all of his spells and can continue soaking the the casting wizard every round forever since he's using a cantrip and has unlimited use of it.
So the smart wizard will try to fake out the other guy by not risking his important spells to a 40% chance of failing a Concentration check. He might cast a few of his own Create Water spells, just so that he won't care if his opponent distracts him.
We may end up with two wizards casting endless Create Water spells until one of them drowns, washes away in the flash floods, or gets such bad "prune hands" that he gives up and goes home.
Alternatively, they may resort to Ray of Frost, a spell they can afford to cast all day long, so if it gets interrupted they won't lose anything valuable.
Will wizard duels simply come down to who kills the other guy first using Ray of Frost doing 1d3 damage until someone turns into a wizardsickle?
|
|
I always imagined that wizard duels would be indirect things designed to test their relative ability (ie, more of an event like track than a sport like football).
Probably something like "Do X" with rules like "Use only spells of < Y level" or "Use as few spells as possible" etc. The more efficient caster being the winner.
Direct battles between wizards are reserved for real conflict.
|
|
An interesting concern might arise here though.
Assuming this is something that can distract, if we take a worst case scenario of a wizard duel between two equal wizards (equal level, equal spells known, equal INT (let's say 20), etc.).
One tries to cast, the other tries to distract with Create Water (using a readied action). The DC = 10 + 5 + 0 = 15. The Concentration check is 1d20 + 1 + 5 = 1d20 + 6. So the caster will make his Concentration check on a 9 or higher, which means he will fail 40% of his spells.
That's not great. But, a few bad Concentration checks and suddenly he may be running low on spells (especially if he's a low-level wizard, or if he prepared mostly non-combat spells today). Meanwhile, his enemy still has all of his spells and can continue soaking the the casting wizard every round forever since he's using a cantrip and has unlimited use of it.
So the smart wizard will try to fake out the other guy by not risking his important spells to a 40% chance of failing a Concentration check. He might cast a few of his own Create Water spells, just so that he won't care if his opponent distracts him.
We may end up with two wizards casting endless Create Water spells until one of them drowns, washes away in the flash floods, or gets such bad "prune hands" that he gives up and goes home.
Alternatively, they may resort to Ray of Frost, a spell they can afford to cast all day long, so if it gets interrupted they won't lose anything valuable.
Will wizard duels simply come down to who kills the other guy first using Ray of Frost doing 1d3 damage until someone turns into a wizardsickle?
mmmm Sorcerer's Apprentice anyone?
|
|
Dump two gallons of water on your head just to see how disruptive it is. We tried it to great effect :-). As far as I'm concerned, this works, incredibly well.
The spell may be overpowered, but the mechanics are sound until an errata is released that fixes it.
No, the spell is subject to DM interpretation until it is clarified by someone official.
|
|
Dump two gallons of water on your head just to see how disruptive it is. We tried it to great effect :-). As far as I'm concerned, this works, incredibly well.
The spell may be overpowered, but the mechanics are sound until an errata is released that fixes it.
2 gallons falling at once on approximately 1 square foot (your head) is definitely distracting.
2 gallons falling over 6 seconds over 25 square feet (5x5) is less so.
I would allow a concentration check, but at a relatively low DC (one of the possibilities above).
However, I am also very interested in what the Designers' input is.
|
|
Assuming this is something that can distract, if we take a worst case scenario of a wizard duel between two equal wizards (equal level, equal spells known, equal INT (let's say 20), etc.).One tries to cast, the other tries to distract with Create Water (using a readied action). The DC = 10 + 5 + 0 = 15. The Concentration check is 1d20 + 1 + 5 = 1d20 + 6. So the caster will make his Concentration check on a 9 or higher, which means he will fail 40% of his spells.
The 40% is assuming the targeted caster is 1st level, as you add CL to concentration checks. I think that I could live with that DC (which would also vary with the relative ability bonuses of the 2 casters).
It only says "If you are affected by a spell..." Further, later, it says "If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way..." which, at least the distraction bit, seems awfully relevant here.All the spell does is create water. You can't impart velocity to it. After the spell is finish, the water can fall but the falling water isn't a spell effect.
Again, the quoted RAW doesn't say "If you are the target of a spell's effect". Instead, it only says "If you are affected by a spell..."
Affect. Not Effect.
This paragraph in the RAW is not talking about the Effect of a spell. It's simply talking about being distracted if you're affected by a spell Effect.
There is a difference.
Seriously. Free precision aiming with create water to insider the mouth. Ok. Well shove it into their eyes, ears, nose too. I am sure we can impart enough force to permanently damage the targets ears drums, and eyes rendering them blind and deaf too. And well, once all that water hits the ground surely they would fall prone from the force of the water hitting their feet.
That said, I don't imagine that having a minimum of two gallons of water crashing into your head, into your mouth while you're incanting a spell, possibly resulting in sputtering or even coughing, is easy to ignore.
Wow.
Obviously you are reading too much into this spell. You should probably reconsider; I think you're giving this spell too much of an effect for a simple cantrip.
I mean, really, any spell that can knock someone prone while permanently blidning and deafening them, well, that's at least a 1st level spell, don't you think?
Oh and this water is as spell. So the target has to keep making concentration checks for the next 24 hours or at least until he completely dries himself off right.
Good point.
I hadn't considered the effects of the west clothing. So now they are prone, blind, deaf (all permanent, even the prone I assume) and unable to cast spells for at least 24 hours.
I think we're talking about a level 2 spell now. No way this is just a cantrip!
Because yeah. Being hit with a non-targeted, no save spell is far more distracting than being hit with an acid splash or ray of frost which actually requires a to hit roll and a damage roll.
Actually, leaving your silly hyperbole aside, I already said that the Create Water cantrip would be as distracting as a damaging spell that deals no damage. Clearly, Acid Splash and Ray Of Frost are damaging spells that deal damage, and therefore are actually more distracting, based on what I said and based on the Concentration Check formulas.
So where are you getting this final piece of nonsense?
Did you actually read anything I wrote? I mean, "read" it. Actually divining the meaning of the words themselves. Did you do that?
Because it seems to me that you glanced and the concept I presented and escalated that concept, in your own mind, to something wildly different than that which I actually wrote, and then you ripped my post apart based on your silly concept rather than on the actual words in the post.
Bravo.
|
|
Because it seems to me that you glanced and the concept I presented and escalated that concept, in your own mind, to something wildly different than that which I actually wrote, and then you ripped my post apart based on your silly concept rather than on the actual words in the post.
Fun fact. This description here? Matches the textbook definition of strawman exactly.
Step 1, form up a slightly related but essentially completely different case. Check.Step 2, argue against that case. Check.
Step 3, claim that what was done in steps 1 & 2 reflects back on the original argument. Check.
So yeah, either follow what the book says (10 + spell level(0) + attribute + spell being "interrupted") like DM_Blake or make up your own (like my previous suggestion of 10 + spell level being interrupted). Don't make senseless strawman arguments.
Oh, and btw, that "2 gallons" is most likely more than 2 gallons, that's just the starting value. Either way, having 2+ gallons dumped on you head bucket-style is going to be distracting in some manner. Just try it sometime. Have someone dump that much water on you while reciting something simple and see if you don't f!%& up somewhat.
The downpour effect you describe seems more of an afterthought than the main effect.
Hmmm, except the text doesn't say "If you are targeted by a spell..."It only says "If you are affected by a spell..." Further, later, it says "If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way..." which, at least the distraction bit, seems awfully relevant here.
Sure, there is nothing explicit in the rules saying "Create Water can be used to distract spellcasting." Lacking that explicit rule, it now falls into the area of judgment call and each DM is going to have his or her own judgment on the matter.
Yes, I think it's up to the GM's judgment. I might allow Create Water to distract, but I wouldn't allow a barking dog summoned via Summon Monster I or using Disguise Self to impersonate a woman with lots of cleavage to distract (no matter how distracting those things are in real life).
For those interested who have not also posted in or read the other thread that started this discussion, this is it. The other thread was in the Pathfinder Society section, where rulings generally have to be stricter than for regular games, so mileage may vary. Anyway, I am going to repeat one of my posts from there, since in a regular game it is much more open to interpretation:
What people have failed to mention is that the spell is two gallons PER level. Maybe at first level that two gallons in the form of a downpour is not much by your ruling, but a 5th level character is creating 10 gallons in the form of a downpour and a 10th level character is creating 20 gallons. The spell also specifically says that a cubic foot of water is 8 gallons and weighs 60 pounds. Now if you could not use the spell to form that solid cube of water, then they would not have put that in the description. So a high level caster should be perfectly capable of making that water cube above an enemy's head and having 60+ pounds fall down onto them. That will not only break concentration, that will knock your ass to the ground.
I think there is a bit of a red herring in this.
The spell caster is neither targeted nor affected by "the spell".
The spell creates real, non-magical water and the spell is done. At this point, nothing has happened which in any way interacts with the enemy caster.
Obviously, 1/4 second later the water crashes down on the caster's head.
In effect it becomes a ranged touch attack, somewhat as if a fighter had readied an attack to disrupt spellcasting.
One could easily argue that 50+ pounds of water should do a significant amount of damage. But one could also easily make a case that 50 pounds of conjured water need not strike a target as cleanly or as forcefully as a 50 pound stone.
Certainly it is not the intent from a flavor point of view nor from a balance point of view that a cleric should wander around crushing kobolds at will with 0 level water hammers.
To me, a decent ruling is that it certainly COULD work as an attack. But it should be less effective than simply readying a ray of frost for the same result. Maybe call it 1d3 nonlethal. For hand-waving say that even if summoned in a minimal space, the conjured water tends to rapidly fall into drops and blobs, more like a really sudden intense rain, unless it is contained somehow.
Yes, it could work, imo. But the solution should be consistent with not water hammering kobolds.
|
It seems the core rules bear repeating:
Spell: If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting.
If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell’s saving throw DC + the level of the spell you’re casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it’s the DC that the spell’s saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster’s ability score).
"If the spell interferes or distracts you in some other way..." is the important part of this. You may rule that create water doesn't distract - but the fact that conjuration (creation) spells don't target creatures has no bearing on the applicability of this rule. Only whether or not the spell in some way can interfere with or distract the caster.
THAT is up to the individual DM.
That is a fair point.
But summoning a stirge in the same square, but above a target is allowed. So conjuring the water there probably should be as well.
I'm not at all convinced that conjured and then falling water needs to maintain a form any greater than a mist. And I certainly don't want the flavor or balance of a L0 spell to change. So I don't really disagree with you.
But it is an interesting, fun conversation.
By similar logic you could summon a dog or a snake on a casters head or under a foot. Or you could summon a stirge already on someone's back.
Conjuration spells don't allow targeting creatures.
Frankly, I am hoping that the people who posted in both this thread and the other one about targeting an enemy with this spell were joking, but as for myself and some of the others, we are not saying anything about targeting, but rather are creating the water in the air and it just happens to be above the head of an enemy caster. Then we let gravity and the weight of the water and the surprise and shock of getting dumped on from literally nowhere take over.
THAT is up to the individual DM.
Of course, the falling of the water is not an effect of the spell. "The Spell" has NOT interfered or distracted in any way.
Falling water has, but the water could just as well have been from an overturned rain barrel held by a flying barbarian.
|
Frankly, I am hoping that the people who posted in both this thread and the other one about targeting an enemy with this spell were joking, but as for myself and some of the others, we are not saying anything about targeting, but rather are creating the water in the air and it just happens to be above the head of an enemy caster. Then we let gravity and the weight of the water and the surprise and shock of getting dumped on from literally nowhere take over.By similar logic you could summon a dog or a snake on a casters head or under a foot. Or you could summon a stirge already on someone's back.
Conjuration spells don't allow targeting creatures.
Similarly I'm suggesting creating a snake that just happens to be on the head of the enemy caster. All the spell says is "Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them." since a caster is capable of supporting a viper it's just as legal as summoning water is. In for a penny, in for a pound.
The point is again... summoning cannot be targeted at a creature.
|
|
By similar logic you could summon a dog or a snake on a casters head or under a foot. Or you could summon a stirge already on someone's back.
Conjuration spells don't allow targeting creatures.
This is a poor choice of words perhaps.
A) It's already been well established what conjuration allows for with respect to creatures and objects.
B) Cure spells are conjurations and they certainly do target creatures.
Now for a non-specific rant...I'm largely very disappointed by this discussion. In both threads. There is a TON of overly reactionary nonsense being thrown around. My point in starting a RULES thread about this topic was that it seemed very clear from the concentration rules and the spell description that this 0 level cantrip would actually be used very effectively to disrupt spell casting. What I was hoping for was some well though out and reasoned discussion about why, mechanically this might not work. Further investigation and though on the subject points out that only having 10 + spell level + caster bonus + spell level being cast is probably getting off EASY as the volume of water increases. But I'm not even asking to take that into consideration. And yes, ray of frost is a 'better' disruption because you get to add damage dealt to the formula. But since you are doing damage you have to make a hit roll, so there you go. Balance.
Is it overpowered? Quite probably. Should it get errata? Quite probably. Should GMs stick to the RAW in Organized Play? You bet! Do I care whatever kind of arbitrary nonsense you do in your home game? As long as I'm not playing in it, not a bit.
[/rant] :)
Similarly I'm suggesting creating a snake that just happens to be on the head of the enemy caster. All the spell says is "Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them." since a caster is capable of supporting a viper it's just as legal as summoning water is. In for a penny, in for a pound.The point is again... summoning cannot be targeted at a creature.
Which means that a creature cannot be summoned into a vacuum or an air-breathing creature cannot be summoned underwater and vice versa for water-breathing creatures. A creature cannot be summoned into a place where it would automatically die. This is what it means by environment, not whether it has something to stand on or not.
Also, the Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally spells both say this:
"It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn."
So, no you cannot summon a snake or something similarly small inside the clothing of an enemy, but there is nothing that says that snake cannot appear on top of the enemy's head. Sure, it may fall off before it gets to attack, but it may not. On the other end of the scale, if you summon an elephant or dinosaur into the same square that contains an enemy, there is a good chance it will crush the enemy on arrival just because of the amount of space it takes up. And you are not targeting the enemy at all with this, it just happens.
|
|
By similar logic you could summon a dog or a snake on a casters head or under a foot. Or you could summon a stirge already on someone's back.
Conjuration spells don't allow targeting creatures.
This is a poor choice of words perhaps.
A) It's already been well established what conjuration allows for with respect to creatures and objects.
Please, elucidate, where? This is exactly my point.
All this is based on common experience and unwritten rules. I'm not sure what makes summoning water on a creatures head any different from summoning a dog.
B) Cure spells are conjurations and they certainly do target creatures.
Now for a non-specific rant...I'm largely very disappointed by this discussion. In both threads. There is a TON of overly reactionary nonsense being thrown around. My point in starting a RULES thread about this topic was that it seemed very clear from the concentration rules and the spell description that this 0 level cantrip would actually be used very effectively to disrupt spell casting. What I was hoping for was some well though out and reasoned discussion about why, mechanically this might not work. Further investigation and though on the subject points out that only having 10 + spell level + caster bonus + spell level being cast is probably getting off EASY as the volume of water increases. But I'm not even asking to take that into consideration. And yes, ray of frost is a 'better' disruption because you get to add damage dealt to the formula. But since you are doing damage you have to make a hit roll, so there you go. Balance.
Is it overpowered? Quite probably. Should it get errata? Quite probably. Should GMs stick to the RAW in Organized Play? You bet! Do I care whatever kind of arbitrary nonsense you do in your home game? As long as I'm not playing in it, not a bit.
[/rant] :)
You are wrong. It doesn't need errata, it's not overpowered. You are just trying to use a spell that has no targeting mechanism as a targeted spell. If you want to rule it's ranged touch or reflex save, feel free. But as it's written it has no effect because it can't hit anything any more than a summoned dog can.
|
|
What people have failed to mention is that the spell is two gallons PER level. Maybe at first level that two gallons in the form of a downpour is not much by your ruling, but a 5th level character is creating 10 gallons in the form of a downpour and a 10th level character is creating 20 gallons. The spell also specifically says that a cubic foot of water is 8 gallons and weighs 60 pounds. Now if you could not use the spell to form that solid cube of water, then they would not have put that in the description. So a high level caster should be perfectly capable of making that water cube above an enemy's head and having 60+ pounds fall down onto them. That will not only break concentration, that will knock your ass to the ground.
Except that it also specifically says that using it in the open air causes a downpour, so you cannot form an unsupported "cube" of water. And I would hope that a 10th level caster could come up with a more effective way of disrupting a spell :)
I agree that it could be possible to force a concentration check, just not at as high a difficulty as some seem to think.
|
|
Similarly I'm suggesting creating a snake that just happens to be on the head of the enemy caster. All the spell says is "Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them." since a caster is capable of supporting a viper it's just as legal as summoning water is. In for a penny, in for a pound.The point is again... summoning cannot be targeted at a creature.
Which means that a creature cannot be summoned into a vacuum or an air-breathing creature cannot be summoned underwater and vice versa for water-breathing creatures. A creature cannot be summoned into a place where it would automatically die. This is what it means by environment, not whether it has something to stand on or not.
Also, the Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally spells both say this:
"It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn."
So, no you cannot summon a snake or something similarly small inside the clothing of an enemy, but there is nothing that says that snake cannot appear on top of the enemy's head. Sure, it may fall off before it gets to attack, but it may not. On the other end of the scale, if you summon an elephant or dinosaur into the same square that contains an enemy, there is a good chance it will crush the enemy on arrival just because of the amount of space it takes up. And you are not targeting the enemy at all with this, it just happens.
At least you are consistent in how you handle summoning, Ziz thinks summoning water works one way and creatures another.
What is the DC for casting when an elephant is sitting on your head?
|
|
Please, elucidate, where? This is exactly my point.
All this is based on common experience and unwritten rules. I'm not sure what makes summoning water on a creatures head any different from summoning a dog.
If you can't be bothered to scroll up and read the words already in this thread, why am I bothering?
You are wrong. It doesn't need errata, it's not overpowered. You are just trying to use a spell that has no targeting mechanism as a targeted spell. If you want to rule it's ranged touch or reflex save, feel free. But as it's written it has no effect because it can't hit anything any more than a summoned dog can.
It certainly does have a targeted component, otherwise how would you be able to create water inside an empty container? The effect of the spell has to manifest somewhere.
|
|
What people have failed to mention is that the spell is two gallons PER level. Maybe at first level that two gallons in the form of a downpour is not much by your ruling, but a 5th level character is creating 10 gallons in the form of a downpour and a 10th level character is creating 20 gallons. The spell also specifically says that a cubic foot of water is 8 gallons and weighs 60 pounds. Now if you could not use the spell to form that solid cube of water, then they would not have put that in the description. So a high level caster should be perfectly capable of making that water cube above an enemy's head and having 60+ pounds fall down onto them. That will not only break concentration, that will knock your ass to the ground.Except that it also specifically says that using it in the open air causes a downpour, so you cannot form an unsupported "cube" of water. And I would hope that a 10th level caster could come up with a more effective way of disrupting a spell :)
I agree that it could be possible to force a concentration check, just not at as high a difficulty as some seem to think.
Except that the spell specifies an or on that one. It says you can make the water in as small an area as will contain it, *or* spread it out. The downpour part is a listed possible consequence of the latter action.
Here's my argument: Since the water is no longer magical (duration:instantaneous) after creation, the water has the same effect as non-magical water would. At low levels this might only be 5-10 + spell level being disrupted (practically auto-success), but at high levels it may hit as high as 20 + spell level (also close to auto-success for a high-level caster, but not for a low). This is to match the increasing DCs for more and more violent "weather" listed in the concentration check.
|
|
At least you are consistent in how you handle summoning, Ziz thinks summoning water works one way and creatures another.
Yes, very sorry I'm trying to have a nuanced approach here since...you know the RULES actually take a nuanced approach to it. They even like bothered to write stuff down about it.
Conjuration
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the spell’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range.Calling: A calling spell transports a creature from another
plane to the plane you are on. The spell grants the creature the one-time ability to return to its plane of origin, although the spell may limit the circumstances under which this is possible. Creatures who are called actually die when they are killed; they do not disappear and reform, as do those brought by a summoning spell (see below). The duration of a calling spell is instantaneous, which means that the called creature can’t be dispelled.
Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. 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.
Healing: Certain divine conjurations heal creatures or even bring them back to life.
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically
indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again. When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have.
Teleportation: A teleportation spell transports one or more creatures or objects a great distance. The most powerful of these spells can cross planar boundaries. Unlike summoning spells, the transportation is (unless otherwise noted) one-way and not dispellable. Teleportation is instantaneous travel through the Astral Plane. Anything that blocks astral travel also blocks teleportation.
|
|
Dump two gallons of water on your head just to see how disruptive it is. We tried it to great effect :-). As far as I'm concerned, this works, incredibly well.
The spell may be overpowered, but the mechanics are sound until an errata is released that fixes it.
2 gallons falling at once on approximately 1 square foot (your head) is definitely distracting.
2 gallons falling over 6 seconds over 25 square feet (5x5) is less so.
The spell's duration is instantaneous, not 1 round. The effect of the spell is applied during and only during that instant. In this case, the water (all the water) is created the instant the casting of the spell is complete.
As for conjurations affecting people, stinking cloud is a conjuration (Creation) just like create water, and I really hope you'd make any caster inside of the cloud trying to cast a spell need a concentration check to succeed.
Errr... I have been agreeing that a concentration check may be justified. Just disagreeing about the DC.
On another tack, the DC of concentration while being damaged in an attack is 10+damage+spell level. Some here seem to think that Create Water should exceed this. Are you therefore implying that the spell also does damage?
|
|
Yes, very sorry I'm trying to have a nuanced approach here since...you know the RULES actually take a nuanced approach to it. They even like bothered to write stuff down about it.At least you are consistent in how you handle summoning, Ziz thinks summoning water works one way and creatures another.
Conjuration
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the spell’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range.
All the above applies to both creatures and objects. I would note that "In an open location" generally implies a location not occupied by a creature. That would suggest that neither spell would work on a caster. Regardless, however you interpret it it is the same for both spells.
The different bits:
Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. 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.
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again. When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have.
Thanks for posting that. All it does is show that, there is no difference between summoning or creation with regards to placing upon another creatures head. As long as the 'surface' can support it it's all good, since the dog or snake weighs far less than the water it should be an easier shot.
Targeting a summoned dog is no different than targeting created water.
|
|
Thanks for posting that. All it does is show that, there is no difference between summoning or creation with regards to placing upon another creatures head. As long as the 'surface' can support it it's all good, since the dog or snake weighs far less than the water it should be an easier shot.
Targeting a summoned dog is no different than targeting created water.
You are going to have to dumb it down for me since I don't seem to recall equating these two things.
I am not sure that the volume of created water qualifies as an 'object'. But I do believe that a 3" column of water can be supported on anyone's head. A riding dog, not so much.
I posted this in the other thread just now, but I think it fits more the general discussion here and addresses things being posted in this thread also:
Alright, I have no clue where people are getting this six second rule, but the spell's description says the duration is instantaneous, meaning it all happens in an instant, a single second, not six seconds. The water drops all at once, hence the downpour, not over several seconds as a mist or normal rain. The spell also says that the water can be made to appear in as small a space as will hold it or in an area three times as large, which is the size that refers to a downpour. Which means that if a 1 foot cube contains 8 gallons of water, per the spell description, you could instead make that into a 3 foot cube and be a downpour. That is a lot of water to be dumped into a 3 foot by 3 foot area and would have more than enough force to disrupt a spell caster or an archer or anything that requires concentration to accomplish.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Heh. I love that the "if no other rule, use this guideline" language is being cited as an absolute, clear cut ruling for this spell. It's not. That's in there as a suggestion for how to resolve a spell that causes a concentration check and which isn't otherwise addressed in the rules. There is no guidance on what spells should use that rule, or what spells should require a concentration check, because that requires DM discretion.
So, no, it's not in the rules. It's an interpretation.
The whole "it creates 60 lbs of water" argument is worthless. If you want a 0 level spell to inflict damage and knock people to the ground, guess what, that's no longer an appropriate 0 level spell. The fact that 60 lbs of water disrupts someone's concentration in the real world is about as relevant as the fact that a person who falls 50' is almost certainly going to die. On top of that, there's no clear consensus on how the created water even takes shape (downpour v. cube of water), so you're already several layers of assumption in when you conclude that the water weighs x amount and is shaped in y way.
So, to recap: this isn't covered by the core rules, this is a matter of DM interpretation on the questions of (1) whether Create Water disrupts concentration to begin with and (2) if it does disrupt concentration, what's the correct rule to use - falling rain or not otherwise specified concentration DC.
These are questions about which people can reasonably disagree. Alternately, they can whine and cry and insist it's the RAW and try to bludgeon everyone else into agreeing with them. Good luck with that. To help you, I've provided the following additional rebuttal, which fully addresses such arguments. I'll copy and paste in further posts as necessary:
You're wrong.
Thanks for posting that. All it does is show that, there is no difference between summoning or creation with regards to placing upon another creatures head. As long as the 'surface' can support it it's all good, since the dog or snake weighs far less than the water it should be an easier shot.
Targeting a summoned dog is no different than targeting created water.
You are going to have to dumb it down for me since I don't seem to recall equating these two things.
I am not sure that the volume of created water qualifies as an 'object'. But I do believe that a 3" column of water can be supported on anyone's head. A riding dog, not so much.
Water certainly qualifies as an object. From the World English Dictionary: "a tangible and visible thing "
The case wasn't a riding dog, it was a normal dog, and I think quite the reverse than what you do. If you put a cylinder of water on someones head, it's gonna hit the ground very soon, thus it isn't supported. If you put a small dog on someone's head, it could possibly stay there for a while. A snake definately could.
Anyway, this clearly isn't how the conjuration (summoning) and (creation) texts are meant to be, or Death By Elephant On Head would be a common sight. I'm quite certain that the intention of the rules is that you have to create it on a surface that can support the weight, shape, and concistency of the object without it falling of or breaking the surface for some time. Creating a wall of stone anchored in a pebble someone is holding would otherwise be possible.
Create Water has a specific exception in this, in that it can be used to create a downpour. I hadn't seen that line before, which was why I said "no" initially. However, I think the downpour is the exception and that the spell, outside of the downpour, can't create the water in empty air. I'd allow for it to cause a concentration check as for that of rain, but nothing more.
Ooooh, so authoritative. So powerful! I'm positively giddy!
Heh. I love that the "if no other rule, use this guideline" language is being cited as an absolute, clear cut ruling for this spell. It's not.
So you have a better idea? Because it sounds to me like you are advocating that, instead of using this guideline, we should ignore it. Gosh, that's handy. They gave us this guideline but Sebastian has wisely pointed out that we'd be better off not using it.
Any other stuff in the core rulebook we should ignore? I'm all ears.
That's in there as a suggestion for how to resolve a spell that causes a concentration check and which isn't otherwise addressed in the rules. There is no guidance on what spells should use that rule, or what spells should require a concentration check, because that requires DM discretion.
So, no, it's not in the rules. It's an interpretation.
Thanks for the tip. I think everyone's been saying that all along.
The whole "it creates 60 lbs of water" argument is worthless. If you want a 0 level spell to inflict damage and knock people to the ground, guess what, that's no longer an appropriate 0 level spell.
Another good tip. Aside from one guy who was probably just trolling anyway, I don't think anyone advocated this.
The fact that 60 lbs of water disrupts someone's concentration in the real world is about as relevant as the fact that a person who falls 50' is almost certainly going to die.
Yes, you're right. It's a fantasy game. There are elves and dragons and fireballs in it, so it's utterly pointless to try to use the real world for any sense of relevance whatsoever.
So, longswords in your game are made out of dandelions and humans are blue with 12 arms and 7 heads and you cannot cook a roast duck over a campfire because only ice cubes can roast meat.
No?
So, maybe some things in our fantasy game actually seem, marginally, occasionally, to resemble things that might actually happen in our real world?
So this whole "don't use real world" argument is about as relevant as citing the fact that a person who falls 50' is almost certainly going to die?
On top of that, there's no clear consensus on how the created water even takes shape (downpour v. cube of water), so you're already several layers of assumption in when you conclude that the water weighs x amount and is shaped in y way.
Ah, now this I agree with.
However, at least for myself, I don't think the sidetrack about the shape of the created water has any relevance to the OP's question. I think a few posters may have lost their way arguing about the shape, and you're astute to have pointed that out.
So, to recap: this isn't covered by the core rules, this is a matter of DM interpretation on the questions of (1) whether Create Water disrupts concentration to begin with and (2) if it does disrupt concentration, what's the correct rule to use - falling rain or not otherwise specified concentration DC.
Very good recap. That is, in fact, pretty much what people have been saying. Well done.
These are questions about which people can reasonably disagree.
And they are, with our without your reasonable permission.
Alternately, they can whine and cry and insist it's the RAW and try to bludgeon everyone else into agreeing with them.
Somehow, I feel bludgeoned into agreeing with you that I shouldn't try to get others to agree with me...
Uh, wait...
The circular reasoning is making me dizzy. Or maybe it's the bludgeoning.
Good luck with that. To help you, I've provided the following additional rebuttal, which fully addresses such arguments. I'll copy and paste in further posts as necessary:You're wrong.
Thanks for the tip.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm really confused. Are you agreeing with me or not? I got that you're Really Angry and, gosh darn it, You're Gonna Show Me How Awesome You Are and I really liked the way you picked apart the minutae of my post - I don't think many doctoral dissertations receive so much attention - but, was there any point to your post other than some clumsy attacks aimed in my general direction?
Just curious. If you want, I can grade it. I'm going to go with C. You were really reaching to find something to disagree with me about (I think, it's really hard to tell), and mostly just threw together a bunch of ad hominems. I could probably flag it and the mods would rightfully remove it, but it's not really worth the effort. I think it's better to stand as a testament to Very Angry Badly Aimed Attacks.
Maybe next time, try "Sebastian, you're totally right, I agree with everything you say and think you're awesome. Will you please tell me what else to think." I like it because, while it may seem sarcastic, it's also true.
Anyway, this clearly isn't how the conjuration (summoning) and (creation) texts are meant to be, or Death By Elephant On Head would be a common sight. I'm quite certain that the intention of the rules is that you have to create it on a surface that can support the weight, shape, and concistency of the object without it falling of or breaking the surface for some time. Creating a wall of stone anchored in a pebble someone is holding would otherwise be possible.
Create Water has a specific exception in this, in that it can be used to create a downpour. I hadn't seen that line before, which was why I said "no" initially. However, I think the downpour is the exception and that the spell, outside of the downpour, can't create the water in empty air. I'd allow for it to cause a concentration check as for that of rain, but nothing more.
+1.
It's a zero-level spell. It shouldn't be more disruptive than someone using a magic missile if a caster starts to cast.
Being pedantic:
... possibly creating a downpour ...
Downpour: Treat as rain
Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Seems about right to me both in the spirit and guidelines of the rules. Worth a flyer if you have little else to do, but you'd be better off with acid splash as a cheapo counterspell attempt.
|
|
Awesomeness
You might have thought you were being pedantic, but I found that to be a well-thought citation of the text.
That is what I would use at my table in the absence of further input from the designers (or in the case of PFS, the Josh).
It is true. I'm not sure the use of 'downpour' and 'rain' are interchangeable but that difference in language seems to amount to a +5 difference in the DC. At a 2 gallon downpour 10 + spell level might be a little high, but at 6+ gallons 10+ spell level is starting to get off easy IMO :)
However I'm not that interested in inventing NEW mechanics. I'm interested to understand the mechanics as they already exist. Which seems like it should fall under: Affected by a non-damaging spell while casting DC of the spell + spell level
At least to me anyway :)