With prep there is no world any sel'llf respecting wizard would lose to a fighter even if that prep was a single round. Stop talking about prep the fighter auto loses as soon as prep is mentioned since the wizard just casts Wish for a Simulacrum or literally ANYTHING and the fighter loses.
Of course, "prep" doesn't mean "an unreasonable amount of time" No 70,000 clones. We've already beat that dead horse quite severely.
It takes nowhere near as long as you think. Even if you say it takes the normal simulacrum time, use wish alongside simulacrum for exponential growth.
In 12 hours, they'll make 2. But 12 hours is way more than reasonable prep time. So, they won't even have that much.
This is true. But then at that point just cast true polymorph into a dragon or something
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Contingency is genuinely disallowed because there's nothing the fighter can do about it; the wizard just instantly wins in this situation if they are allowed Contingency.
It can't even be counterspelled because you can only counterspell the initial casting of a spell, which in this case the Eldritch Knight would have been like a week too late.
Thus, most of us have agreed to disregard all prep, including things like Mage Armor, because otherwise there's no reason to exclude Contingency, and then there's not much the fighter can do. Also, dimension door isn't the only option, Resilient Sphere would also have basically the same effect (you can drop concentration on your turn without an action).
But yeah, not to say illusionist is bad, just that compared to other options it's hard to consider it optimized because it just doesn't add anything (to this specific combat situation) that a wizard with all their resources couldn't already do.
Contingency is genuinely disallowed because there's nothing the fighter can do about it; the wizard just instantly wins in this situation if they are allowed Contingency.
It can't even be counterspelled because you can only counterspell the initial casting of a spell, which in this case the Eldritch Knight would have been like a week too late.
Thus, most of us have agreed to disregard all prep, including things like Mage Armor, because otherwise there's no reason to exclude Contingency, and then there's not much the fighter can do. Also, dimension door isn't the only option, Resilient Sphere would also have basically the same effect (you can drop concentration on your turn without an action).
But yeah, not to say illusionist is bad, just that compared to other options it's hard to consider it optimized because it just doesn't add anything (to this specific combat situation) that a wizard with all their resources couldn't already do.
It is rather pointless to do a competition which has no relationship to characters who can appear in a game.
There's no need to optimize a character for a battle which will never be fought.
Just plain, straight theory crafting is pure mental *********ion.
Yeah, but let's be real this thread has been plain straight theory crafting for like the entire duration of the thread.
Even the tournament idea suggested earlier was itself a battle that'd never be fought in a "realistic sense", with a wizard going through many combats and having zero prep time outside of short rests.
Yeah, but let's be real this thread has been plain straight theory crafting for like the entire duration of the thread.
Even the tournament idea suggested earlier was itself a battle that'd never be fought in a "realistic sense", with a wizard going through many combats and having zero prep time outside of short rests.
It really hasn't. I've very consistently been focused on comparing characters and situations that would be close to actual games.
Yeah, but let's be real this thread has been plain straight theory crafting for like the entire duration of the thread.
Even the tournament idea suggested earlier was itself a battle that'd never be fought in a "realistic sense", with a wizard going through many combats and having zero prep time outside of short rests.
It really hasn't. I've very consistently been focused on comparing characters and situations that would be close to actual games.
Yes it has. The entire time. Including when you were posting. Until two people make characters and duel them, it’s still theory crafting and nothing anyone says short of changing the definition of the term can change that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Yeah, but let's be real this thread has been plain straight theory crafting for like the entire duration of the thread.
Even the tournament idea suggested earlier was itself a battle that'd never be fought in a "realistic sense", with a wizard going through many combats and having zero prep time outside of short rests.
It really hasn't. I've very consistently been focused on comparing characters and situations that would be close to actual games.
Yes it has. The entire time. Including when you were posting. Until two people make characters and duel them, it’s still theory crafting and nothing anyone says short of changing the definition of the term can change that.
Nevertheless, there is a BIG difference between comparing two characters in such artificial context that the results are useless to playing the actual game vs. striving to stay as true as possible to what would exist in an actual game.
Besides, it's not vague wording, possess in this context means to have complete power and control over something, which is not the same as to become something (I possess and control a car, it doesn't mean I am a car. When controlling it, for all intents and purposes we move as one, but I'm still not a car). That is the crux of the issue, but there are further reasons it won't work RAW, which is also why Death Ward and destroying the jar won't work.
Answer: Hey that one heck of a false equivalency if I ever saw one compounded by you twisting the definition of possession as well. 1) Possession refers to the act of a spirit or in this case a soul inhabiting/occupying a body, while to possess refers to ownership/property of an person place or thing/object. 2) But were both techniqually right in that both definitions are a way to describe the same word but the difference between the two definitions is that yours doesn't take into context the situation while the other (mine) does as it refers to the spirit inhabiting the creature's body as opposed to yours which refers to just owning an person place or thing/object... so yeah...
Do you actually know what a false equivalency is? I don't think so, seeing as you accuse me of using one by actually using one.
Possess in this case of Magic Jar means exactly what I said, 'to have complete power and control over something'. Want proof? Here's the Oxford dictionary definition of possess for exactly the context we are talking about -
(of a demon or spirit, especially an evil one) have complete power over (someone) and be manifested through their speech or actions. "she was possessed by the Devil"
You claiming that possess and possession mean different things is pure nonsense. Possession is based on the meaning of to possess, which in turn is based on the context in which it is used. Don't take my word for it, let's see what definition should apply to the RAW for Magic Jar -
Answer: That's laughable anyone could pull a definition for a word from anywhere and you know it, it doesn't prove anything no matter where you pull it from. But no matter where you look you'll find three main definitions of possess/possession that being Ownership, Control, and Occupancy. So like I said it fully depends on where you go to grab your definition as all that you definition proves is that you can find a definition that puts what you think into words then you use that word as some type of proof.
As for you saying that I "claimed that possess and possession mean different things is pure nonsense" is utterly wrong as I quite literally said "but were both techniqually right in that both definitions are a way to describe the same word" I literally said they both described the same word. So we are both right and wrong, especially when you consider that the wizard's soul both occupies and controls the victim so what's your point I'm still techniqually right.
The only action you can take is to project your soul up to 100 feet out of the container, either returning to your living body (and ending the spell) or attempting to possess a humanoid's body.
You can attempt to possess any humanoid....
So the caster is attempting to own the target's body and make it their property? Or are they attempting to have complete power over someone and be manifested through their speech or actions? In fact, don't see any mention of the word possession at all, so by using your definition of to possess, Magic Jar doesn't involve a spirit entering a body, it's all about a spirit owning a body...
Doesn't matter, because either way they do not become target's body , they either own it or have complete power over it, either of which give them control over it. Don't believe me? Here's the RAW -
Once you possess a creature's body, you control it.
While possessing a body, you can use your action to return from the host body to the container if it is within 100 feet of you, returning the host creature's soul to its body. If the host body dies while you're in it, the creature dies
Answer: Hey another fallacy but this time a Straw Man: "So the caster is attempting to own the target's body and make it their property? Or are they attempting to have complete power over someone and be manifested through their speech or actions?"
You quite literally supplied your own definition of possess/possession then defined that as my position so you could disprove it so nice Fallacy there.
Now as for the "Doesn't matter, because either way they do not become target's body" is laughable because that means If the wizard (in the possessed body) say casted the Blur spell which mind you has a range of Self and is quoted as "Your body becomes blurred" that means using your logic since it's not considered the wizard's body (the possessed body) that means when the wizard casts the Blur spell, the wizard's catatonic body would get the effects of the spell instead, meaning you would be able to cast range of self spells with infinite range but that would make no sense since Blur has a range of self...
So I'll let you think that through and please don't say something like "b-but since it's his body it is his self and therefore it would work" because we both know (hopefully) that doing so would utterly break spellcasting and make it inconceivable to say the least.
Look at the wording used. Possess. Control. Host. Notice no mention of transform, new forms or anything like that, which are the words used by Polymorph and Shapechange. Looks like my example was right, to possess something isn't to be something, especially as you can possess a car as a spirit, but it still doesn't make the spirit a car. So, yeah, as you say.
That's why Clone doesn't work with Magic Jar, the host body is never your body, you are never the original creature cloned. What's more, killing the host body to get clone to activate doesn't work either.
Answer: Why you bringing up transform that is for something else concerning clone and is honestly quite unrelated even if adjacent. And then again as for the "the host body is never your body, you are never the original creature cloned" I have already addressed it because with your logic you would have infinite range, range of self spells not to mention it would mess up so much it's not even funny. So your point still doesn't stand and makes things even worse.
If the host body dies while you're in it, the creature dies, and you must make a Charisma saving throw against your own spellcasting DC. On a success, you return to the container if it is within 100 feet of you. Otherwise, you die.
Simply put (which you even state later), you die means your soul and your body die. To prevent your death, you'd need a clone of your body, because that's what makes up the you that dies, not you in the creature's body. Furthermore, you've actually cloned the host body, which is the creature's body. They can use the clone to cheat death because it's a duplicate of their body. You can't even claim you can die first and take the duplicate, RAW means whilst they die, you're busy trying to get back to the container. You can't even claim that you don't try if you aren't in range, the sequence of words 'must make a check, if check succeeds return if in range' prevents this. The range check only occurs after you succeed at the saving through. Can you voluntarily fail the check? Probably not, as must is a specific rule that overrides the general rule, plus you still need to make a check to fail it.
If the container is destroyed or the spell ends, your soul immediately returns to your body. <= The material component to the spell has been destroyed. Spell ends because one of it's components that it requires to function no longer exists. Thus, caster is forced to leave host body to return their body. In order to retain possession, the spell needs to be active. In this case, that'll be the spell that ended and is no longer active because it's required component was destroyed. Furthermore, the act of returning to your point of origin means you leave where you were, irrespective of whether or not you can actually get back to where you originally started from.
While your soul inhabits the container, you are aware of your surroundings as if you were in the container's space. You can't move or use reactions. The only action you can take is to project your soul up to 100 feet out of the container, either returning to your living body (and ending the spell) or attempting to possess a humanoid's body. <= To possess a creature, the caster needs to be in the jar. Once they have left the host body, the can't possess it unless that are in the jar. In this case, that'll be the destroyed jar that the caster isn't in because it no longer exists.
If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die. <= The caster dies because they aren't in a body and they can't return to their body. Death Ward would only prevent this death if it was cast on the caster's body, because it stops the touched creature from dying (even that is debatable, RAW as it stops effects of spells and this is an effect of the spell being finished, not the spell itself). It does not provide the caster with the ability to possess a creature that was due to a spell that is no longer in effect that requires a component that no longer exists.
If another creature's soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet. Otherwise, that creature dies. <= Creature only dies if it can't return to it's body. Not be able to return does not stop the caster from being forced to leave the host body, nor does it allow them to possess the body once they have left. Furthermore, if a creature dies, it's body and soul both die, as one cannot live without the other (The above plus If the host body dies while you're in it, the creature dies... In order to for a creature to be alive, the body needs to be alive and the soul needs to be able to return to it if it has left). A caster can't possess a dead creature, because when the body dies, the caster is forced to leave.
Answer: Honestly I've read this part multiple times and it just makes no sense to me (sorry) but anyways it looks like your trying to argue that... I don't even wanna try it's all over the place... so instead I'll just show you why my double casting of Magic Jar works by going through each part of the last paragraph
"If the container is destroyed or the spell ends, your soul immediately returns to your body. If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die."
When the wizard breaks the Jar #1 in the strategy the wizard is already in his own body so it's fine and his body isn't dead it was only ever catatonic for a bit so he doesn't die.
"If another creature's soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet. Otherwise, that creature dies."
As for this part, since in the strategy the wizard moves the creature away so that it can't return back o it's body it dies as normal and you are fine.
now as for the people who say "but when you use your second Magic Jar the wizard's main body doesn't have a soul to swap" to that I say True Polymorph. The reason the wizard would cast True Polymorph on his body is to make his body into some random humanoid creature so you can swap it's soul into Jar #2. After doing that you have the True Polymorph cancelled and you return to your catatonic body and while you are essentially in a coma your Simulacrum goes and moves Jar #2 away and smashes it destroying the soul and makin you return to the body you cast the second Magic Jar spell on. As such you are now in your new body permanently.
So if it was too confusing as to what happened I'll say it again but what happened is that the original body was transformed into a form with a soul and that soul was used to swap again with Magic Jar then the transformation was cancelled so the wizard reverted to a essentially comatose (catatonic) body and has his simulacrum move away and break Jar #2 as to make the wizard return to the body he cast the second Magic Jar on. I don't know if that made it easier to understand but it's here if it does help.
Another false equivalency, you're not even making any attempt address anything, you are attacking my style and then repeating that it'll work with another example of ignoring RAW.
Answer: What's the false equivalency in fact where is it, the closest I think you could try to get me with is a with fallacy by saying I was using the Straw Man Fallacy but that would be easily refuted since I quite literally couldn't comprehend what meaning you were trying to say beyond "it don't work' while reciting quotes from the Magic Jar.
If you think me saying this is a slight against your writing style then I say while I'm sorry you feel that way (and my writing isn't the best either but at least I can understand it) I say fair I can see why you might feel that way but it's not my problem it sounds as if you were "reciting quotes from the Magic Jar" because well... you were but I'm not here to say your post is bad and that you should stop doing it I'm just saying I couldn't follow it beyond what I said and that I'd appreciate it if you reformatted it or something and I say this sincerely even if that sentiment isn't heard through writing as I honestly want a civil discussion even if I'm not the best at it.
Two Magic Jars doesn't work.
Answer: Already disproved your premise on possess/possession and such.
You are moving container #1 away from the creature's body to destroy it so the creature dies because it's soul cannot get back to it's body. You even state this 'the wizard moves the creature away so that it can't return back to it's body it dies as normal and you are fine'. This is correct, if a soul can't return to it's body, it dies, both body and soul. This applies to both the creature and the caster.
Answer: It never said the body dies read it again "If another creature's soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet. Otherwise, that creature dies." that means if the body is alive but it is not within 100 feet the soul dies but the body is alive as the soul is dead yet the body lives so the body is essentially an empty husk of a creature that will no doubt starve to death or whatever effectively in a coma essentially. Now your probably gonna say "b-but it says 'Otherwise, that creature dies' so that means..." and I'll say this the "Otherwise, that creature dies" is in reference to the creatures soul dying if one of those conditions aren't met those condition of course being the body is alive and within 100ft then if it isn't the creature dies referring to it's soul.
If the container is destroyed or the spell ends, your soul immediately returns to your body. If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die.
So you are destroying container #2 to return the the creature's body, which is dead as a result of destroying container #1. Doesn't work. RAW, you can't return to a dead body. That actually doesn't matter, because at no point does the creature's body become your body. In fact, it's referred to as the host body to make it clear that it is different to your body. Returning to the body you are in at the time of casting isn't mentioned either. It says your soul immediately returns toyour body. Even if it did say something different, it wouldn't matter because the body you are attempting to return to is dead at this point and you can't return to a dead body, you die instead. Not that you can avoid returning to your body, which I'll deal with in a bit, but even if you could, you'd then not leave your body for the creature's. Having a soul or not in container #2 doesn't change these facts. (That's before we even get to True Polymorph and souls, which is solely dependent the claim the your body is no longer your body).
Answer: Host body is to differentiate who's who and if the possessed body isn't your body that means the wizard can cast infinite range, range of self spells as I have said multiple times now. As for the rest of this part of your post the only problem with the double cast Magic Jar was the fact that your original body doesn't have a soul but that was fixed and as for the creature supposedly dying I already refuted that so no need to repeat myself on that front.
What Death Ward would do is stop the host body dying whilst the caster was possessing it.
Answer:
1) Cast Magic Jar on yourself, your body falls catatonic, and your soul enters Jar #1.
2) You project your soul and possess a humanoid. The humanoid’s soul enters Jar #1.
3) You cast Death Ward on yourself, to negate an effect that would instantly kill you.
4) You move your catatonic body 100ft away from you. You destroy Jar #1.
5) You are farther than 100ft from your body you die. Death Ward negates it. The Magic Jar spell ends.
6) Magic Jar is over, you are not dead, your body was to far away, your soul is unable attempt to return your body*
7) That means your soul has to be in the humanoid body it makes no sense for it to be anywhere else.
8) You are now that creature permanently.
*The reason why your soul doesn't attempt to return is because while it is said the soul immediately returns that is directly contradicted by the fact that the soul is given a range at which it attempts to return to the body that is 100ft (see bolded) and that is why it dies because it doesn't have the needed range to attempt to even begin the journey so you just die. This is supported by the "or" separating the two clauses and the comma before the "you die." Another point that shows that this is the correct interpretation of the rules (RAW) is the next sentence after that (underlined) shows that for the soul to attempt to return the to its body the body must be within 100ft just like before. So what I'm trying to say is that the soul knows it can't make the distance so you instead die but due to Death Ward that instance of death is avoided and since the Magic Jar spell ends your soul is no longer under the influence of the Magic Jar's effect to kill you so you instead live in your new humanoid body.
"If the container is destroyed or the spell ends, your soul immediately returns to your body. If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die. If another creature's soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet."
Sorry, but the argument for staying in the host body is just wrong.
The simple fact of the matter is that to retain possession of the body, you need Magic Jar to be active, and you need a container. When it ends, you can't stay in the host body, because that's an effect of the spell and doesn't persist once the spell has ended. Your soul leaves as part of the attempt to return and tries to return to you body, but it can't, so you die. Death Ward does not change the fact that the spell has ended and there is no longer a container, both of which are required for possession.
In fact, you even made the case earlier for it not working. For your explanation for two jars to work, it's dependant upon the creature (body and soul) dying because it can't get to it's body because it's to far away. The same rule applies to the caster soul and body, which you confirmed with the Death Ward strategy. You die means your body and soul dies. Creature dies means it's body and soul dies. You not being able to return to your body does not kill the creature's body, only yours. The creature only dies if it's soul is too far away. As written, to prevent your death you'd need to ward your body, because that what makes you and you are what dies.
In fact, RAW, there is never any 'your soul/creature body' death effect for Death Ward to prevent, because at no point does your soul and the creature's body form a creature as it's never your body, it's always one that you are in and control. I'd suggest that perhaps Death Ward would prevent the creature from dying due to the death of it's body (the body death would be stopped) as that'd be in line with warding your body.
Answer: No you don't need Magic Jar active to stay in the possessed body all you need to stay in that body is for the wizard's soul to be In the body, the wizard's soul not die, and the Magic Jar spell to be over. So to stay in the body all you need to do is make it so you soul doesn't attempt to return to your body of which you can do by moving your body more than 100 feet away which would instantly kill the wizard's soul after breaking the container if the instance of death at the ending of the spell was avoid via Death Ward and since the effect of dying from the ending of the spell is avoided and the spell is over and since the wizard's soul didn't leave the body that means; The wizard is alive, the body is alive, the spell is over, and the soul is still in the body as such that means you are still in the body and since the spell ended already there is nothing to dispel so the wizard is permanently that creature for all intents and purposes.
Same way two Magic Jar spells doesn't work because 1) at no point is the host body your body, and 2) if the creature's soul can't return to it's body, it dies and you can't return to a dead body (not withstanding the basic logic errors in the two jars argument that stop it dead with regard to body at casting and spells ending).
Answer: Magic Jar, Range: self. The first sentence is: "Your body falls into a catatonic state as your soul leaves it and enters the container you used for the spell's material component."
Now if your going to tell me that when you are possessing a creature with with Magic Jar that spells with a range of self don't work just to make this spell combo not work then I honestly don't know what to say to you... as for the other stuff I think I've already addressed them.
Anyways do tell if I missed something, because I honestly took so much time on this post I can barely remember what I did/didn't address. Sorry this is such a complex topic.
You missed the point completely on this, at no point have I mentioned range of spells other than for causing death, but it still doesn't stop you making yet another false equivalency. I've outlined why this doesn't work above.
Answer: Do you know what a false equivalency is because in what I said above no where do I compare anything at all let alone falsely so I have no clue what your talking about as all I do is say that Magic Jar has a range of self...
On a positive note, I do think the boring 'hide the body and container' strategy works fine, just don't go near anything that would dispel the Magic Jar, otherwise you'd probably have a very angry dragon to deal with...
Answer: You know to dispel the Magic Jar someone would first have to dispel the Imprisonment spell. And lets say someone uses Antimagic Field spell on the gem that would mean the target would unshrink and the gem to cease to be indestructible but since fact that magic trapped them within the gem that would mean they would phase into the inside of the gem then instantly grow but ripping probably destroying whatever was inside; or nothing really changes except the gem isn't indestructible since nothing can pass through the gem that includes the Antimagic Field so it does nothing in that regard. Although I think it could still be argued that an Antimagic Field does nothing since the Antimagic Field can't penetrate the gem and therefore effect it so eh it's weird but I would favor the third explanation since it says nothing but light can pass through the gem so I think the most likely would be either nothing happens or the gem is no longer indestructible.
Anyways I think I addressed everything sorry it took awhile but it is quite complex and I do hope you acknowledge that I do want a civil conversation and I honestly don't want to repeat a discussion like the one I had with Wren so if after a few more back and forths if none of us change each others minds I'm fine with just agreeing to disagree as I don't see myself changing my mind on this subject all that much if at all.
Yeah, but let's be real this thread has been plain straight theory crafting for like the entire duration of the thread.
Even the tournament idea suggested earlier was itself a battle that'd never be fought in a "realistic sense", with a wizard going through many combats and having zero prep time outside of short rests.
It really hasn't. I've very consistently been focused on comparing characters and situations that would be close to actual games.
Yes it has. The entire time. Including when you were posting. Until two people make characters and duel them, it’s still theory crafting and nothing anyone says short of changing the definition of the term can change that.
Nevertheless, there is a BIG difference between comparing two characters in such artificial context that the results are useless to playing the actual game vs. striving to stay as true as possible to what would exist in an actual game.
Answer: I’ll be answering each reply in a section:
1) So you are saying the calculations and builds are “Plain Straight Theory Crafting” even though they have been calculated and run against each in mock battles to test their effectiveness. I certainly don’t think it is theory crafting at all.
As for the tournament I find it hilariously it was even suggested let alone compared to “realistic” conditions when in fact it was the most unrealistic as why would a wizard or a fighter singlehandedly ever attempt multiple encounters in like a single day except with some rests.
2) As for the “consistently been focused on comparing characters” is also hilarious as once again there is no basis for a consistent game of DND and if you really wanted a basis just have a Archmage fight a Champion instead as that’s the best you’ll ever get.
The only fair base you can make for something like this is either the No Prep Absolute Whiteroom or Composite Battle where you combine all versions of each combatant and compare but the latter is very complicated and since they use EVERY resource it is also incredibly hard to track that is why I never even mentioned it before. As such the Absolute Whiteroom is the best option.
3) Now this “Until two people make characters and duel them, it’s still theory crafting” just shows lack of understanding as what you may see as “theory crafting” is in fact a battle (at least my post/s are like this) in that I have effectively put the Seppuku Sniper Samurai Fighter vs the Tank Abjuration Wizard and calculated the damage, initiative, and I would use that information to calculate the win rate for the wizard but I haven’t done so yet/I have no clue what I’m doing and I have no clue as to how to calculate a win rate.
Now you are talking about a paper vs paper DM adjudicated battle in the Whiteroom yes we haven’t done it as far as I have seen BUT we have calculated everything else and to just label that as “theory crafting” is at least disingenuous and disrespectful to the work done not only by me but the people who helped me improve and alter my builds.
4) You speak about the difference between a real game and the Whiteroom and yes I agree they are different… now what are you going to also as for the supposed “unrealistic” characters made I utterly disagree (at least for most of them).
The SSS is just a Elven samurai who uses a ranged weapon and if he fights a overwhelming opponent sacrifices his blood in an attempt to defeat such a powerful creature who is also tainted by dark magic. Now if you say that such a character above is entirely impossible or outlandish I fear for your campaigns and their settings as it makes quite a bit of sense for a the samurai to use every last of his strength to defeat a foe that could hurt.
As for the wizard build the story behind him is just… he was a hardy fellow who followed the school of abjuration. And if you think that this is too outlandish or unrealistic I would be appalled.
Anyways that is that probably missed something so do tell if I did.
I never meant to say theory crafting is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with making theories, especially if they have been made based on factual evidence. When no actual testing is realistically possible, such as here, they are the best thing available. That reply was meant to inform wren that it isn’t correct to say everyone else was just theory crafting while he wasn’t. As for the win rates I don’t know them either and I don’t think it is worth my time to calculate every matchup. It is only important for this to know which side of 50% each side is on.
Most of your work on the duel was like a good scientific theory: backed by existing facts and more likely than not truth, or at least the closest thing currently available.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
I'd be very open to discussion of how to make a better comparison. I got no problem with that and never had. What I have a problem with is the expectation that a GM in a campaign (which I define as a series of game play sessions within which a common and complex story is woven and central and which lasts for at least 15 sessions) would ever allow a wizard to have 70,000 simulacrums or become a CR 20 creature (rather than possess such a creature) via Magic Jar.
I'd be very open to discussion of how to make a better comparison. I got no problem with that and never had. What I have a problem with is the expectation that a GM in a campaign (which I define as a series of game play sessions within which a common and complex story is woven and central and which lasts for at least 15 sessions) would ever allow a wizard to have 70,000 simulacrums or become a CR 20 creature (rather than possess such a creature) via Magic Jar.
I wouldn’t allow 70k sims either unless using it for my own nefarious purposes, but that’s a ruling not a rule. The magic jar seems to be more of a grey area, so it’s easy to ban.
Note:the way I’d remove sim-wish is by preventing any simulacrum from using simulacrum or wish. That removes the multiplication problems.
Answer: Who is this D4rkKn1ght person I know not of who he is but I know a De4thkn1ght ;)
I'd be very open to discussion of how to make a better comparison. I got no problem with that and never had.
Answer: I honestly would love to say I want to open a discussion on the topic but It take up so much time and you probably end up with the wizard winning anyway… buuut if I were say to try to make two “realistic” character’s I would have the Fighter be a Champion (could be argued to be battlemaster just off of lore/portrayal of the fighter) and the Wizard be an Evoker (School Of Evocation) as both are considered the base class and both are in the basic rules.
For backgrounds the Fighter would be the classic Soldier (could be argued for Folk Hero) and the Wizard be the classic Sage.
For personalities they don’t really matter but you would have to play to the tropes and have the Fighter be a middle aged warrior that’s Trained, Battle-ready, and a Combat Veteran. While the Wizard is an older intelligent archmage that’s, Studious, Wary, and a Seasoned Magician.
For equipment just starting equipment or max starting gold but I could see an argument for Xanathars average gold for a level thingy be used if you want then enable magic items or whatever. As for the starting equipment you should probably stay to the tropes and have the fighter use a greatsword or a longsword/shield combo and for the wizard just use a staff and Mage Armor since this is “realistic” and we have to give the wizard some armor.
As for stats and such you can look to monsters like the Champion and Archmage for stats to base your characters off of.
I could keep going but I won’t for now but I think you understand that while yes you could find the “normal” “real” wizard based off of tropes, stats, lore and such but there is just so much to go through and I still haven’t addressed so much and even if I did all this and it was all reasonable, sound and made sense it still would be entirely subjective and conjecture.
What I have a problem with is the expectation that a GM in a campaign (which I define as a series of game play sessions within which a common and complex story is woven and central and which lasts for at least 15 sessions) would ever allow a wizard to have 70,000 simulacrums or become a CR 20 creature (rather than possess such a creature) via Magic Jar.
I wouldn’t allow 70k sims either unless using it for my own nefarious purposes, but that’s a ruling not a rule. The magic jar seems to be more of a grey area, so it’s easy to ban.
Answer: Remember you have to be at least 17th level to have access to both Simulacrum and Wish and since you have access to Wish the wizard is already broken so then again I see no point why you can’t do that especially at that level gold/material components isn’t a concern since you can just True Polymorph a summoned creature into a giant ruby or whatever and use that as a component. Additionally, the wizard at 9th level can have an infinite army of summons (as long as they have the materials) due to Planar Binding and a summon spell of your choice.
As for Magic Jar yeah I can see why people may not like It but It works by RAW even if you think it only works by exploiting wording and such as far as RAW goes it still works and there are still like ten other ways to achieve the same thing through different methods and strategies.
Answer: Who is this D4rkKn1ght person I know not of who he is but I know a De4thkn1ght ;)
I'd be very open to discussion of how to make a better comparison. I got no problem with that and never had.
Answer: I honestly would love to say I want to open a discussion on the topic but It take up so much time and you probably end up with the wizard winning anyway… buuut if I were say to try to make two “realistic” character’s I would have the Fighter be a Champion (could be argued to be battlemaster just off of lore/portrayal of the fighter) and the Wizard be an Evoker (School Of Evocation) as both are considered the base class and both are in the basic rules.
For backgrounds the Fighter would be the classic Soldier (could be argued for Folk Hero) and the Wizard be the classic Sage.
For personalities they don’t really matter but you would have to play to the tropes and have the Fighter be a middle aged warrior that’s Trained, Battle-ready, and a Combat Veteran. While the Wizard is an older intelligent archmage that’s, Studious, Wary, and a Seasoned Magician.
For equipment just starting equipment or max starting gold but I could see an argument for Xanathars average gold for a level thingy be used if you want then enable magic items or whatever. As for the starting equipment you should probably stay to the tropes and have the fighter use a greatsword or a longsword/shield combo and for the wizard just use a staff and Mage Armor since this is “realistic” and we have to give the wizard some armor.
As for stats and such you can look to monsters like the Champion and Archmage for stats to base your characters off of.
I could keep going but I won’t for now but I think you understand that while yes you could find the “normal” “real” wizard based off of tropes, stats, lore and such but there is just so much to go through and I still haven’t addressed so much and even if I did all this and it was all reasonable, sound and made sense it still would be entirely subjective and conjecture.
What I have a problem with is the expectation that a GM in a campaign (which I define as a series of game play sessions within which a common and complex story is woven and central and which lasts for at least 15 sessions) would ever allow a wizard to have 70,000 simulacrums or become a CR 20 creature (rather than possess such a creature) via Magic Jar.
I wouldn’t allow 70k sims either unless using it for my own nefarious purposes, but that’s a ruling not a rule. The magic jar seems to be more of a grey area, so it’s easy to ban.
Answer: Remember you have to be at least 17th level to have access to both Simulacrum and Wish and since you have access to Wish the wizard is already broken so then again I see no point why you can’t do that especially at that level gold/material components isn’t a concern since you can just True Polymorph a summoned creature into a giant ruby or whatever and use that as a component. Additionally, the wizard at 9th level can have an infinite army of summons (as long as they have the materials) due to Planar Binding and a summon spell of your choice.
As for Magic Jar yeah I can see why people may not like It but It works by RAW even if you think it only works by exploiting wording and such as far as RAW goes it still works and there are still like ten other ways to achieve the same thing through different methods and strategies.
I am tired of arguing whether the Magic Jar thing is RAW. I absolutely disagree with you. But, I'm able to accept that we'll never agree and that's okay.
Answer: Remember you have to be at least 17th level to have access to both Simulacrum and Wish and since you have access to Wish the wizard is already broken so then again I see no point why you can’t do that especially at that level gold/material components isn’t a concern since you can just True Polymorph a summoned creature into a giant ruby or whatever and use that as a component. Additionally, the wizard at 9th level can have an infinite army of summons (as long as they have the materials) due to Planar Binding and a summon spell of your choice.
As for Magic Jar yeah I can see why people may not like It but It works by RAW even if you think it only works by exploiting wording and such as far as RAW goes it still works and there are still like ten other ways to achieve the same thing through different methods and strategies.
I am tired of arguing whether the Magic Jar thing is RAW. I absolutely disagree with you. But, I'm able to accept that we'll never agree and that's okay.
Answer: All I'm saying is that a 20th level wizard is op heck a level 9 wizard as I said can effectively as long as he has the materials make an infinite army of elementals, fiends or whatever because Planar Binding is a 5th level spell so even low leveled wizards are strong. Now look at the Rope Trick, Fire Bolt spell strategy which effectively makes you able to set up a sniper tower wherever the wizard wants and there is plenty more combos/strategies that are very strong.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree but I'll say this I still think it works via RAW even if others may or may not see it as an exploit.
Note:the way I’d remove sim-wish is by preventing any simulacrum from using simulacrum or wish. That removes the multiplication problems.
Answer: While I know your talking about if you ran your game what you would do but I do hope you realize that doing so would be quite literally be nerfing the Wizard since the Wish, Simulacrum combo just because it is too strong... I could see making Simulacrums being unable to cast the Simulacrum spell but outright banning Simulacrums from casting Wish is quite a nerf especially when you consider that the wizard could have had all of Simulacrums cast Wish without any drawbacks against the actual wizard.
Yes, agree to disagree. The main reason it’s still being argued about is doomiestpanda refusing to agree to disagree, then deathknight naturally defends himself when panda does this. We need to move on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
De4thkn1ght, you are not going to change your mind because you don't debate anything. You don't disprove any arguments against you, you just dismiss and ignore them and double down. When you do deign to provide reasoning it's complete nonsense, as though you are having a different conversation. I'm sorry, but you are basically being 'that guy' writ large.
Let's go through this shall we?
Your position is that the body you possess in Magic Jar is your body, which allows you to circumvent not getting your abilities in an OP body.
My position that it isn't because 'possess' does not mean 'to be'. I defined what possess means in this context and gave an example. This is what I said -
possess in this context means to have complete power and control over something, which is not the same as to become something (I possess and control a car, it doesn't mean I am a car. When controlling it, for all intents and purposes we move as one, but I'm still not a car).
What did you do?
Say it's a false equivalency, claim my definition of possess 'refers to ownership/property of an person place or thing/object.' which is not the definition I stated (possess in this context means to have complete power and control over something).You thenclaim that the two words you say are different are the technically the same but then then different due to context, with mine being wrong because of context. So your counter argument is to change my definition of possess to one that is for a different context and then claim that it is my definition to prove that your definition is right one.
These are your words -
Answer: Hey that one heck of a false equivalency if I ever saw one compounded by you twisting the definition of possession as well. 1) Possession refers to the act of a spirit or in this case a soul inhabiting/occupying a body, while to possess refers to ownership/property of an person place or thing/object. 2) But were both techniqually right in that both definitions are a way to describe the same word but the difference between the two definitions is that yours doesn't take into context the situation while the other (mine) does as it refers to the spirit inhabiting the creature's body as opposed to yours which refers to just owning an person place or thing/object... so yeah...
Answer: That's laughable anyone could pull a definition for a word from anywhere and you know it, it doesn't prove anything no matter where you pull it from. But no matter where you look you'll find three main definitions of possess/possession that being Ownership, Control, and Occupancy. So like I said it fully depends on where you go to grab your definition as all that you definition proves is that you can find a definition that puts what you think into words then you use that word as some type of proof.
So your counter-argument is to dismiss using dictionaries as a source for definitions of words, follow up with some nonsense about common definitions everywhere as 'proof' that you are right and then follow it up with some incoherent statement that doesn't really make any sense. I'm not even going to try to unpack that lot, the fact that you're stating that using dictionaries (and the Oxford English dictionary especially) don't count as proof for determining the definition of words absolutely beggars belief.
You then double down on being me being 'utterly wrong' and you 'technically right'.
As for you saying that I "claimed that possess and possession mean different things is pure nonsense" is utterly wrong as I quite literally said "but were both techniqually right in that both definitions are a way to describe the same word" I literally said they both described the same word. So we are both right and wrong, especially when you consider that the wizard's soul both occupies and controls the victim so what's your point I'm still techniqually right.
You clearly state the words possession and to possess mean different things to refute my argument! I refer you back to your words above. To paraphrase, you said 'Possession means this, to possess means that'. Then you go on to contradict yourself by saying 'both definitions are a way to describe the same word ' but they differ because your one 'refers to the spirit inhabiting the creature's body ' and my one 'refers to just owning an person place or thing/object'. Then you go on to double down that you are right due to context and 'techniqually right'. You have decided to completely disregard the definition I used to justify why possess does not mean 'you are what you possess' and attribute another definition as being mine based on the example, with no reasoning behind it. What's your argument? Who knows? I can infer that you are arguing that as a car is an object it can't be possessed by a spirit, as objects can only be owned. However, this is not true. Annabelle and Christine would like a word with you...
You've even supplied an alternative definition that supports my argument. Occupying/inhabiting and controlling something means the same and has the same outcome whether it be a car, a house or a person. You are in the thing and you control it, but you are not the thing.
It doesn't stop there either. Technically, you are wrong too. Possession and possess are not the same word. Before we even get to the meaning, there is an even easier check. Count the number of letters. Are they the same? No. Why? Because the words are different. Let's take a look at their meanings. Possession is noun (https://www.bing.com/search?q=possession). Possess is verb (see above). Possession is the act of possessing or the state of being possessed (there are some other meanings too, all of them are derived from what possess means). Possess means 'to have control over (by various means)' or 'to own/to have something' depending on the context. Go on, look up the definition of the words.
I then go on to demonstrate that your claim that the words are different in the context is wrong. How do you respond to this? Oh look, dismissing the argument again, then backing it up with false claims.
Answer: Hey another fallacy but this time a Straw Man: "So the caster is attempting to own the target's body and make it their property? Or are they attempting to have complete power over someone and be manifested through their speech or actions?"
You quite literally supplied your own definition of possess/possession then defined that as my position so you could disprove it so nice Fallacy there.
You are the one who stated what possession and to possess mean in the context, not me. You are the one claiming that '1) Possession refers to the act of a spirit or in this case a soul inhabiting/occupying a body, while to possess refers to ownership/property of an person place or thing/object.', not me.
Then we move on to some further dismissal via some whataboutery.
Now as for the "Doesn't matter, because either way they do not become target's body" is laughable because that means If the wizard (in the possessed body) say casted the Blur spell which mind you has a range of Self and is quoted as "Your body becomes blurred" that means using your logic since it's not considered the wizard's body (the possessed body) that means when the wizard casts the Blur spell, the wizard's catatonic body would get the effects of the spell instead, meaning you would be able to cast range of self spells with infinite range but that would make no sense since Blur has a range of self...
So I'll let you think that through and please don't say something like "b-but since it's his body it is his self and therefore it would work" because we both know (hopefully) that doing so would utterly break spellcasting and make it inconceivable to say the least.
So you argument that the host body is your body is because other spells use the the term your body and that it makes no sense with spells with a range of self? What makes you think that every spell is written from the perspective of interacting with Magic Jar? The whole point of the discussion is that spells are not written with consideration for the interactions between them.
Let's pull that apart. Spells are written from the point of view of the caster performing the action. Self means the caster is where the spell takes effect, which also applies to spells with a cone of line of effect. If you control a body, you are making that body the caster of the spell. You is used to simplify the language, because all of the rules are written from the perspective of you, the reader, performing the action. Your body is used to describe what is affected by the spell from your perspective. But we've already established that the perspective is the caster, so whose body is it? The caster's. Whose body are you controlling to make them the caster of the spell? Not yours. The creature's. That's why Blur works.
And it just continues with you dismissing things and wilfully ignoring the meaning of words. I can't bothered to deal with every point so I'll rephrase why the creature's body is never your body because of the language used, which explains why most of your stuff just doesn't work .
This is the language used in the Magic Jar spell.
Once you possess a creature's body, you control it.
Meanwhile, the possessed creature's soul can perceive from the container using its own senses, but it can't move or take actions at all.
While possessing a body, you can use your action to return from the host body to the container if it is within 100 feet of you, returning the host creature's soul to its body. If the host body dies while you're in it, the creature dies, and you must make a Charisma saving throw against your own spellcasting DC. On a success, you return to the container if it is within 100 feet of you. Otherwise, you die.
If the container is destroyed or the spell ends, your soul immediately returns to your body. If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die. If another creature's soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet. Otherwise, that creature dies.
Look at how it describes things. Creature's body. Creature's soul. Your body. Your soul. These are possessive adjectives/pronouns, words that modify nouns to describe them as being belonging (owned) by something. At no point is there any language used to describe changes in ownership. Possess in this context is used to describe occupying and controlling, it is not used to describe owning. This very distinction has been made above (not just by me I might add). Therefore, the caster (of Magic Jar, which is what I mean when I use caster from this point) never owns the creature's body, it never belongs to them, it is never theirs. The creature's body always belongs to the creature.
Possessive pronouns and adjectives replace a noun to signify that it owns another noun (I'm going to use own in place of possess to avoid any confusion and any stupid arguments about what possess means). In this case, 'you' and 'creature' are the somethings that 'own' both a body and soul. Now every time something dies, is the noun used the owner, or the thing that's owned? It's the owner (with one exception). So what does that mean? It means that when the owner dies, all of it dies. Not just the soul, not just the body. All of it. If a part of it dies, the part that die would be specifically referred to using possessive pronouns/adjectives. The only exception to the wording of dying is when the host body dies. This refers to the caster's soul in the creature's body. What happens here? The creature dies, body and soul. The caster tries to return to the jar. If they make the check, the container must be within 100 ft, or they die. If they fail, they die (That's what otherwise means. If they don't meet all conditions to return to the container, they die). The wording is quite specific about the sequence of events. Whatever happens, their soul does not remain in the creatures body.
That is why Clone does not work with Magic Jar. It is the creature that it is targeted with Clone (Clone says creature and original creature), because that is who dies, that is whose body is touched, and that body is never the body of the caster, so the caster's death is never prevented.
That is why any shenanigans involving destroying containers to kill just the creature's soul by moving it away from their body do not work (a la two Magic Jars) then claiming the caster's soul can return to the creature's body don't work. The creature's body dies when the container for it's possession is destroyed. If caster's soul is in the host body, this triggers it to return to the container and the associated checks . If the caster's soul is elsewhere, their soul can only return to their body, and the creature's body is not their body. Even if it were, a soul can't return to a dead body.
This isn't what is stopping Death Ward working though.
First off, the effect of the spell is to permit a caster to possess a creature using a container. The container must exist for the spell to work, because it's existence is what allows the caster's soul to be out of their body. Therefore destroying the container ends the spell. The caster cannot possess a creature because that is an effect of the spell. The possession will always end when the spell ends. It doesn't matter if the caster's soul has nowhere to go, they lose the ability to possess and so must leave the creature's body. To claim that a non-permanent spell effect persists when said spell ends is completely at odds with how spell casting works.
Death Ward doesn't stop the spell from ending. It stops the touched creature from dying due to the effects of a spell. When the creature's body is warded, the effects apply to the creature because it is it's body that is touched. Death Ward stops the creature dying, that is it. To ward the caster, their body would need to be touched, because that is the creature that dies. Their not dying does not keep Magic Jar active and it does not give them the ability to possess, which is an effect of Magic Jar, the spell that has just ended. Their soul still has to return to their body. What Death Ward does is prevent any death from occurring due to the return failing, which implies that it will cause the soul to return successfully regardless of distance. I'm only suggesting that because as Death Ward stops death, and that happens because a soul isn't in it's body, you can infer that to not die a soul needs to be in it's corresponding body.
There's also a grey area with Death Ward, in that it prevents spell effects causing death. It can be argued that the deaths are due to the effects of the spell ending, not as effect of the spell itself. This would mean that it just wouldn't work at all. I have no opinion either way on this.
What I will address is the frankly ludicrous arguments as to why the caster's soul would never leave the host body when the spell ends. These are the arguments for it -
5) You are farther than 100ft from your body you die. Death Ward negates it. The Magic Jar spell ends.
6) Magic Jar is over, you are not dead, your body was to far away, your soul is unable attempt to return your body*
7) That means your soul has to be in the humanoid body it makes no sense for it to be anywhere else.
8) You are now that creature permanently.
*The reason why your soul doesn't attempt to return is because while it is said the soul immediately returns that is directly contradicted by the fact that the soul is given a range at which it attempts to return to the body that is 100ft (see bolded) and that is why it dies because it doesn't have the needed range to attempt to even begin the journey so you just die. This is supported by the "or" separating the two clauses and the comma before the "you die." Another point that shows that this is the correct interpretation of the rules (RAW) is the next sentence after that (underlined) shows that for the soul to attempt to return the to its body the body must be within 100ft just like before. So what I'm trying to say is that the soul knows it can't make the distance so you instead die but due to Death Ward that instance of death is avoided and since the Magic Jar spell ends your soul is no longer under the influence of the Magic Jar's effect to kill you so you instead live in your new humanoid body.
"If the container is destroyed or the spell ends, your soul immediately returns to your body. If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die. If another creature's soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet.'
The rest of the RAW is 'Otherwise, that creature dies.'
So the argument is basically that the caster dies because they are too far from their body, Death Ward stops that. The caster's soul gets to keep possessing the creature's body even though the spell has ended because the caster's soul never tried to return to the caster's body and the caster has stopped Magic Jar from killing them, and this somehow manages to keep the spell effect going when the spell has ended. Uh-huh.
I've already shown that Death Ward does not allow the caster's soul to continue to possess the creature's body once Magic Jar ends, but the logic for not leaving is something else (and I don't say that in a good way).
Having a maximum range for a distance you can travel does not contradict when that travel needs to occur, nor does it prevent that travel from commencing. In fact, it has no bearing either of those things whatsoever. So what's RAW actually saying? That the caster has to leave the host body and go back to their body at the exact time the container is destroyed (that's what return and immediately mean). The next bit says that the caster's soul can only travel up to 100ft, and if the body is further away (or dead), the caster dies. It even says 'when you attempt to return' which infers that the return must start. It does not say 'before you attempt to return', which it would need to say to indicate that the check would prevent the attempt. It definitely does not mean 'The reason why your soul doesn't attempt to return... it doesn't have the needed range to attempt to even begin the journey' because that does directly contradict 'when you attempt to return''.
'This is supported by the "or" separating the two clauses and the comma before the "you die." ' has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard in support of a blatant twisting of meaning. Let's look at the sentence.
'If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die.'
The comma is there to make the sentence grammatically correct. It contains two dependant clauses, which requires a comma to make sense. Having a comma after a statement does not make that statement the opposite of what it says. Nor does it mean that the sentence preceding it does not take effect.
The final argument, that 'the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet' supports the the assertion that no attempt to return is made, is a bit misleading. Whilst it's logically similar to the caster rule, it's written in a way that is ambiguous if the return is attempted if the conditions aren't met. The caster rule clearly states that an attempt is made, and so these statements aren't equivalent.
Think that pretty much covers everything. I'm done with this.
Please stop. This is a long post for something everyone else has agreed to stop arguing about except you and that isn’t even better than other options for this fight with prep. The whole exploit is barely better than just charm, magic aura/ true polymorph, possess anyway, which isn’t possible to dispute.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
The whole magic jar stuff should probably be moved to another thread, if it needs to be discussed at all (which quite frankly whenever a discussion begins discussing the semantics and definitions of words that's when that discussion stops mattering 90% of the time).
In fact, we really ought to have ended this thread by now. We've already basically come to a conclusion and all the people joining in don't seem particularly interested in arguing for fighter.
One last thing though for clarity, I don't think anything discussed in this thread has been "realistic". Even the previous tournament idea I wouldn't consider realistic, a 1v1 duel between two maxed level people with the wizard having zero prep outside of a single short rest with both having gone through a series of boss encounters? Really?
I don't think this thread has ever been about a realistic fight between a level 20 fighter & wizard, because the answer is simple, the wizard has precast Foresight, Shapechange, Mind Blank, 10 other spells, and when the fight starts the wizard has contingency Resilient Sphere then blinks into the other side of the planet and takes a long rest. Much less the idea that both sides would be doing a 1v1. Both sides probably have a large number of magic items too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is true. But then at that point just cast true polymorph into a dragon or something
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
Contingency is genuinely disallowed because there's nothing the fighter can do about it; the wizard just instantly wins in this situation if they are allowed Contingency.
It can't even be counterspelled because you can only counterspell the initial casting of a spell, which in this case the Eldritch Knight would have been like a week too late.
Thus, most of us have agreed to disregard all prep, including things like Mage Armor, because otherwise there's no reason to exclude Contingency, and then there's not much the fighter can do. Also, dimension door isn't the only option, Resilient Sphere would also have basically the same effect (you can drop concentration on your turn without an action).
But yeah, not to say illusionist is bad, just that compared to other options it's hard to consider it optimized because it just doesn't add anything (to this specific combat situation) that a wizard with all their resources couldn't already do.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
It is rather pointless to do a competition which has no relationship to characters who can appear in a game.
There's no need to optimize a character for a battle which will never be fought.
Just plain, straight theory crafting is pure mental *********ion.
Yeah, but let's be real this thread has been plain straight theory crafting for like the entire duration of the thread.
Even the tournament idea suggested earlier was itself a battle that'd never be fought in a "realistic sense", with a wizard going through many combats and having zero prep time outside of short rests.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
It really hasn't. I've very consistently been focused on comparing characters and situations that would be close to actual games.
Yes it has. The entire time. Including when you were posting. Until two people make characters and duel them, it’s still theory crafting and nothing anyone says short of changing the definition of the term can change that.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
Nevertheless, there is a BIG difference between comparing two characters in such artificial context that the results are useless to playing the actual game vs. striving to stay as true as possible to what would exist in an actual game.
Answer: That's laughable anyone could pull a definition for a word from anywhere and you know it, it doesn't prove anything no matter where you pull it from. But no matter where you look you'll find three main definitions of possess/possession that being Ownership, Control, and Occupancy. So like I said it fully depends on where you go to grab your definition as all that you definition proves is that you can find a definition that puts what you think into words then you use that word as some type of proof.
As for you saying that I "claimed that possess and possession mean different things is pure nonsense" is utterly wrong as I quite literally said "but were both techniqually right in that both definitions are a way to describe the same word" I literally said they both described the same word. So we are both right and wrong, especially when you consider that the wizard's soul both occupies and controls the victim so what's your point I'm still techniqually right.
Answer: Hey another fallacy but this time a Straw Man: "So the caster is attempting to own the target's body and make it their property? Or are they attempting to have complete power over someone and be manifested through their speech or actions?"
You quite literally supplied your own definition of possess/possession then defined that as my position so you could disprove it so nice Fallacy there.
Now as for the "Doesn't matter, because either way they do not become target's body" is laughable because that means If the wizard (in the possessed body) say casted the Blur spell which mind you has a range of Self and is quoted as "Your body becomes blurred" that means using your logic since it's not considered the wizard's body (the possessed body) that means when the wizard casts the Blur spell, the wizard's catatonic body would get the effects of the spell instead, meaning you would be able to cast range of self spells with infinite range but that would make no sense since Blur has a range of self...
So I'll let you think that through and please don't say something like "b-but since it's his body it is his self and therefore it would work" because we both know (hopefully) that doing so would utterly break spellcasting and make it inconceivable to say the least.
Answer: Why you bringing up transform that is for something else concerning clone and is honestly quite unrelated even if adjacent. And then again as for the "the host body is never your body, you are never the original creature cloned" I have already addressed it because with your logic you would have infinite range, range of self spells not to mention it would mess up so much it's not even funny. So your point still doesn't stand and makes things even worse.
Answer: What's the false equivalency in fact where is it, the closest I think you could try to get me with is a with fallacy by saying I was using the Straw Man Fallacy but that would be easily refuted since I quite literally couldn't comprehend what meaning you were trying to say beyond "it don't work' while reciting quotes from the Magic Jar.
If you think me saying this is a slight against your writing style then I say while I'm sorry you feel that way (and my writing isn't the best either but at least I can understand it) I say fair I can see why you might feel that way but it's not my problem it sounds as if you were "reciting quotes from the Magic Jar" because well... you were but I'm not here to say your post is bad and that you should stop doing it I'm just saying I couldn't follow it beyond what I said and that I'd appreciate it if you reformatted it or something and I say this sincerely even if that sentiment isn't heard through writing as I honestly want a civil discussion even if I'm not the best at it.
Answer: Already disproved your premise on possess/possession and such.
Answer: It never said the body dies read it again "If another creature's soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet. Otherwise, that creature dies." that means if the body is alive but it is not within 100 feet the soul dies but the body is alive as the soul is dead yet the body lives so the body is essentially an empty husk of a creature that will no doubt starve to death or whatever effectively in a coma essentially. Now your probably gonna say "b-but it says 'Otherwise, that creature dies' so that means..." and I'll say this the "Otherwise, that creature dies" is in reference to the creatures soul dying if one of those conditions aren't met those condition of course being the body is alive and within 100ft then if it isn't the creature dies referring to it's soul.
Answer: Host body is to differentiate who's who and if the possessed body isn't your body that means the wizard can cast infinite range, range of self spells as I have said multiple times now. As for the rest of this part of your post the only problem with the double cast Magic Jar was the fact that your original body doesn't have a soul but that was fixed and as for the creature supposedly dying I already refuted that so no need to repeat myself on that front.
Answer: No you don't need Magic Jar active to stay in the possessed body all you need to stay in that body is for the wizard's soul to be In the body, the wizard's soul not die, and the Magic Jar spell to be over. So to stay in the body all you need to do is make it so you soul doesn't attempt to return to your body of which you can do by moving your body more than 100 feet away which would instantly kill the wizard's soul after breaking the container if the instance of death at the ending of the spell was avoid via Death Ward and since the effect of dying from the ending of the spell is avoided and the spell is over and since the wizard's soul didn't leave the body that means; The wizard is alive, the body is alive, the spell is over, and the soul is still in the body as such that means you are still in the body and since the spell ended already there is nothing to dispel so the wizard is permanently that creature for all intents and purposes.
Answer: Do you know what a false equivalency is because in what I said above no where do I compare anything at all let alone falsely so I have no clue what your talking about as all I do is say that Magic Jar has a range of self...
Answer: You know to dispel the Magic Jar someone would first have to dispel the Imprisonment spell. And lets say someone uses Antimagic Field spell on the gem that would mean the target would unshrink and the gem to cease to be indestructible but since fact that magic trapped them within the gem that would mean they would phase into the inside of the gem then instantly grow but ripping probably destroying whatever was inside; or nothing really changes except the gem isn't indestructible since nothing can pass through the gem that includes the Antimagic Field so it does nothing in that regard. Although I think it could still be argued that an Antimagic Field does nothing since the Antimagic Field can't penetrate the gem and therefore effect it so eh it's weird but I would favor the third explanation since it says nothing but light can pass through the gem so I think the most likely would be either nothing happens or the gem is no longer indestructible.
Anyways I think I addressed everything sorry it took awhile but it is quite complex and I do hope you acknowledge that I do want a civil conversation and I honestly don't want to repeat a discussion like the one I had with Wren so if after a few more back and forths if none of us change each others minds I'm fine with just agreeing to disagree as I don't see myself changing my mind on this subject all that much if at all.
Answer: I’ll be answering each reply in a section:
1) So you are saying the calculations and builds are “Plain Straight Theory Crafting” even though they have been calculated and run against each in mock battles to test their effectiveness. I certainly don’t think it is theory crafting at all.
As for the tournament I find it hilariously it was even suggested let alone compared to “realistic” conditions when in fact it was the most unrealistic as why would a wizard or a fighter singlehandedly ever attempt multiple encounters in like a single day except with some rests.
2) As for the “consistently been focused on comparing characters” is also hilarious as once again there is no basis for a consistent game of DND and if you really wanted a basis just have a Archmage fight a Champion instead as that’s the best you’ll ever get.
The only fair base you can make for something like this is either the No Prep Absolute Whiteroom or Composite Battle where you combine all versions of each combatant and compare but the latter is very complicated and since they use EVERY resource it is also incredibly hard to track that is why I never even mentioned it before. As such the Absolute Whiteroom is the best option.
3) Now this “Until two people make characters and duel them, it’s still theory crafting” just shows lack of understanding as what you may see as “theory crafting” is in fact a battle (at least my post/s are like this) in that I have effectively put the Seppuku Sniper Samurai Fighter vs the Tank Abjuration Wizard and calculated the damage, initiative, and I would use that information to calculate the win rate for the wizard but I haven’t done so yet/I have no clue what I’m doing and I have no clue as to how to calculate a win rate.
Now you are talking about a paper vs paper DM adjudicated battle in the Whiteroom yes we haven’t done it as far as I have seen BUT we have calculated everything else and to just label that as “theory crafting” is at least disingenuous and disrespectful to the work done not only by me but the people who helped me improve and alter my builds.
4) You speak about the difference between a real game and the Whiteroom and yes I agree they are different… now what are you going to also as for the supposed “unrealistic” characters made I utterly disagree (at least for most of them).
The SSS is just a Elven samurai who uses a ranged weapon and if he fights a overwhelming opponent sacrifices his blood in an attempt to defeat such a powerful creature who is also tainted by dark magic. Now if you say that such a character above is entirely impossible or outlandish I fear for your campaigns and their settings as it makes quite a bit of sense for a the samurai to use every last of his strength to defeat a foe that could hurt.
As for the wizard build the story behind him is just… he was a hardy fellow who followed the school of abjuration. And if you think that this is too outlandish or unrealistic I would be appalled.
Anyways that is that probably missed something so do tell if I did.
I never meant to say theory crafting is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with making theories, especially if they have been made based on factual evidence. When no actual testing is realistically possible, such as here, they are the best thing available. That reply was meant to inform wren that it isn’t correct to say everyone else was just theory crafting while he wasn’t. As for the win rates I don’t know them either and I don’t think it is worth my time to calculate every matchup. It is only important for this to know which side of 50% each side is on.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
Most of your work on the duel was like a good scientific theory: backed by existing facts and more likely than not truth, or at least the closest thing currently available.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
D4rkKn1ght
I'd be very open to discussion of how to make a better comparison. I got no problem with that and never had. What I have a problem with is the expectation that a GM in a campaign (which I define as a series of game play sessions within which a common and complex story is woven and central and which lasts for at least 15 sessions) would ever allow a wizard to have 70,000 simulacrums or become a CR 20 creature (rather than possess such a creature) via Magic Jar.
I wouldn’t allow 70k sims either unless using it for my own nefarious purposes, but that’s a ruling not a rule. The magic jar seems to be more of a grey area, so it’s easy to ban.
Note:the way I’d remove sim-wish is by preventing any simulacrum from using simulacrum or wish. That removes the multiplication problems.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
Answer: Who is this D4rkKn1ght person I know not of who he is but I know a De4thkn1ght ;)
Answer: I honestly would love to say I want to open a discussion on the topic but It take up so much time and you probably end up with the wizard winning anyway… buuut if I were say to try to make two “realistic” character’s I would have the Fighter be a Champion (could be argued to be battlemaster just off of lore/portrayal of the fighter) and the Wizard be an Evoker (School Of Evocation) as both are considered the base class and both are in the basic rules.
For backgrounds the Fighter would be the classic Soldier (could be argued for Folk Hero) and the Wizard be the classic Sage.
For personalities they don’t really matter but you would have to play to the tropes and have the Fighter be a middle aged warrior that’s Trained, Battle-ready, and a Combat Veteran. While the Wizard is an older intelligent archmage that’s, Studious, Wary, and a Seasoned Magician.
For equipment just starting equipment or max starting gold but I could see an argument for Xanathars average gold for a level thingy be used if you want then enable magic items or whatever. As for the starting equipment you should probably stay to the tropes and have the fighter use a greatsword or a longsword/shield combo and for the wizard just use a staff and Mage Armor since this is “realistic” and we have to give the wizard some armor.
As for stats and such you can look to monsters like the Champion and Archmage for stats to base your characters off of.
I could keep going but I won’t for now but I think you understand that while yes you could find the “normal” “real” wizard based off of tropes, stats, lore and such but there is just so much to go through and I still haven’t addressed so much and even if I did all this and it was all reasonable, sound and made sense it still would be entirely subjective and conjecture.
Answer: Remember you have to be at least 17th level to have access to both Simulacrum and Wish and since you have access to Wish the wizard is already broken so then again I see no point why you can’t do that especially at that level gold/material components isn’t a concern since you can just True Polymorph a summoned creature into a giant ruby or whatever and use that as a component. Additionally, the wizard at 9th level can have an infinite army of summons (as long as they have the materials) due to Planar Binding and a summon spell of your choice.
As for Magic Jar yeah I can see why people may not like It but It works by RAW even if you think it only works by exploiting wording and such as far as RAW goes it still works and there are still like ten other ways to achieve the same thing through different methods and strategies.
I am tired of arguing whether the Magic Jar thing is RAW. I absolutely disagree with you. But, I'm able to accept that we'll never agree and that's okay.
Answer: All I'm saying is that a 20th level wizard is op heck a level 9 wizard as I said can effectively as long as he has the materials make an infinite army of elementals, fiends or whatever because Planar Binding is a 5th level spell so even low leveled wizards are strong. Now look at the Rope Trick, Fire Bolt spell strategy which effectively makes you able to set up a sniper tower wherever the wizard wants and there is plenty more combos/strategies that are very strong.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree but I'll say this I still think it works via RAW even if others may or may not see it as an exploit.
Answer: While I know your talking about if you ran your game what you would do but I do hope you realize that doing so would be quite literally be nerfing the Wizard since the Wish, Simulacrum combo just because it is too strong... I could see making Simulacrums being unable to cast the Simulacrum spell but outright banning Simulacrums from casting Wish is quite a nerf especially when you consider that the wizard could have had all of Simulacrums cast Wish without any drawbacks against the actual wizard.
Yes, agree to disagree. The main reason it’s still being argued about is doomiestpanda refusing to agree to disagree, then deathknight naturally defends himself when panda does this. We need to move on.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
De4thkn1ght, you are not going to change your mind because you don't debate anything. You don't disprove any arguments against you, you just dismiss and ignore them and double down. When you do deign to provide reasoning it's complete nonsense, as though you are having a different conversation. I'm sorry, but you are basically being 'that guy' writ large.
Let's go through this shall we?
Your position is that the body you possess in Magic Jar is your body, which allows you to circumvent not getting your abilities in an OP body.
My position that it isn't because 'possess' does not mean 'to be'. I defined what possess means in this context and gave an example. This is what I said -
possess in this context means to have complete power and control over something, which is not the same as to become something (I possess and control a car, it doesn't mean I am a car. When controlling it, for all intents and purposes we move as one, but I'm still not a car).
What did you do?
Say it's a false equivalency, claim my definition of possess 'refers to ownership/property of an person place or thing/object.' which is not the definition I stated (possess in this context means to have complete power and control over something). You then claim that the two words you say are different are the technically the same but then then different due to context, with mine being wrong because of context. So your counter argument is to change my definition of possess to one that is for a different context and then claim that it is my definition to prove that your definition is right one.
These are your words -
Answer: Hey that one heck of a false equivalency if I ever saw one compounded by you twisting the definition of possession as well. 1) Possession refers to the act of a spirit or in this case a soul inhabiting/occupying a body, while to possess refers to ownership/property of an person place or thing/object. 2) But were both techniqually right in that both definitions are a way to describe the same word but the difference between the two definitions is that yours doesn't take into context the situation while the other (mine) does as it refers to the spirit inhabiting the creature's body as opposed to yours which refers to just owning an person place or thing/object... so yeah...
I then pointed out that I used the dictionary definition I used was for the correct context (possess - Search (bing.com), https://www.google.com/search?q=possess), so what do you?
Respond with this -
Answer: That's laughable anyone could pull a definition for a word from anywhere and you know it, it doesn't prove anything no matter where you pull it from. But no matter where you look you'll find three main definitions of possess/possession that being Ownership, Control, and Occupancy. So like I said it fully depends on where you go to grab your definition as all that you definition proves is that you can find a definition that puts what you think into words then you use that word as some type of proof.
So your counter-argument is to dismiss using dictionaries as a source for definitions of words, follow up with some nonsense about common definitions everywhere as 'proof' that you are right and then follow it up with some incoherent statement that doesn't really make any sense. I'm not even going to try to unpack that lot, the fact that you're stating that using dictionaries (and the Oxford English dictionary especially) don't count as proof for determining the definition of words absolutely beggars belief.
You then double down on being me being 'utterly wrong' and you 'technically right'.
As for you saying that I "claimed that possess and possession mean different things is pure nonsense" is utterly wrong as I quite literally said "but were both techniqually right in that both definitions are a way to describe the same word" I literally said they both described the same word. So we are both right and wrong, especially when you consider that the wizard's soul both occupies and controls the victim so what's your point I'm still techniqually right.
You clearly state the words possession and to possess mean different things to refute my argument! I refer you back to your words above. To paraphrase, you said 'Possession means this, to possess means that'. Then you go on to contradict yourself by saying 'both definitions are a way to describe the same word ' but they differ because your one 'refers to the spirit inhabiting the creature's body ' and my one 'refers to just owning an person place or thing/object'. Then you go on to double down that you are right due to context and 'techniqually right'. You have decided to completely disregard the definition I used to justify why possess does not mean 'you are what you possess' and attribute another definition as being mine based on the example, with no reasoning behind it. What's your argument? Who knows? I can infer that you are arguing that as a car is an object it can't be possessed by a spirit, as objects can only be owned. However, this is not true. Annabelle and Christine would like a word with you...
You've even supplied an alternative definition that supports my argument. Occupying/inhabiting and controlling something means the same and has the same outcome whether it be a car, a house or a person. You are in the thing and you control it, but you are not the thing.
It doesn't stop there either. Technically, you are wrong too. Possession and possess are not the same word. Before we even get to the meaning, there is an even easier check. Count the number of letters. Are they the same? No. Why? Because the words are different. Let's take a look at their meanings. Possession is noun (https://www.bing.com/search?q=possession). Possess is verb (see above). Possession is the act of possessing or the state of being possessed (there are some other meanings too, all of them are derived from what possess means). Possess means 'to have control over (by various means)' or 'to own/to have something' depending on the context. Go on, look up the definition of the words.
I then go on to demonstrate that your claim that the words are different in the context is wrong. How do you respond to this? Oh look, dismissing the argument again, then backing it up with false claims.
Answer: Hey another fallacy but this time a Straw Man: "So the caster is attempting to own the target's body and make it their property? Or are they attempting to have complete power over someone and be manifested through their speech or actions?"
You quite literally supplied your own definition of possess/possession then defined that as my position so you could disprove it so nice Fallacy there.
You are the one who stated what possession and to possess mean in the context, not me. You are the one claiming that '1) Possession refers to the act of a spirit or in this case a soul inhabiting/occupying a body, while to possess refers to ownership/property of an person place or thing/object.', not me.
Then we move on to some further dismissal via some whataboutery.
Now as for the "Doesn't matter, because either way they do not become target's body" is laughable because that means If the wizard (in the possessed body) say casted the Blur spell which mind you has a range of Self and is quoted as "Your body becomes blurred" that means using your logic since it's not considered the wizard's body (the possessed body) that means when the wizard casts the Blur spell, the wizard's catatonic body would get the effects of the spell instead, meaning you would be able to cast range of self spells with infinite range but that would make no sense since Blur has a range of self...
So I'll let you think that through and please don't say something like "b-but since it's his body it is his self and therefore it would work" because we both know (hopefully) that doing so would utterly break spellcasting and make it inconceivable to say the least.
So you argument that the host body is your body is because other spells use the the term your body and that it makes no sense with spells with a range of self? What makes you think that every spell is written from the perspective of interacting with Magic Jar? The whole point of the discussion is that spells are not written with consideration for the interactions between them.
Let's pull that apart. Spells are written from the point of view of the caster performing the action. Self means the caster is where the spell takes effect, which also applies to spells with a cone of line of effect. If you control a body, you are making that body the caster of the spell. You is used to simplify the language, because all of the rules are written from the perspective of you, the reader, performing the action. Your body is used to describe what is affected by the spell from your perspective. But we've already established that the perspective is the caster, so whose body is it? The caster's. Whose body are you controlling to make them the caster of the spell? Not yours. The creature's. That's why Blur works.
And it just continues with you dismissing things and wilfully ignoring the meaning of words. I can't bothered to deal with every point so I'll rephrase why the creature's body is never your body because of the language used, which explains why most of your stuff just doesn't work .
This is the language used in the Magic Jar spell.
Once you possess a creature's body, you control it.
Meanwhile, the possessed creature's soul can perceive from the container using its own senses, but it can't move or take actions at all.
While possessing a body, you can use your action to return from the host body to the container if it is within 100 feet of you, returning the host creature's soul to its body. If the host body dies while you're in it, the creature dies, and you must make a Charisma saving throw against your own spellcasting DC. On a success, you return to the container if it is within 100 feet of you. Otherwise, you die.
If the container is destroyed or the spell ends, your soul immediately returns to your body. If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die. If another creature's soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet. Otherwise, that creature dies.
Look at how it describes things. Creature's body. Creature's soul. Your body. Your soul. These are possessive adjectives/pronouns, words that modify nouns to describe them as being belonging (owned) by something. At no point is there any language used to describe changes in ownership. Possess in this context is used to describe occupying and controlling, it is not used to describe owning. This very distinction has been made above (not just by me I might add). Therefore, the caster (of Magic Jar, which is what I mean when I use caster from this point) never owns the creature's body, it never belongs to them, it is never theirs. The creature's body always belongs to the creature.
Possessive pronouns and adjectives replace a noun to signify that it owns another noun (I'm going to use own in place of possess to avoid any confusion and any stupid arguments about what possess means). In this case, 'you' and 'creature' are the somethings that 'own' both a body and soul. Now every time something dies, is the noun used the owner, or the thing that's owned? It's the owner (with one exception). So what does that mean? It means that when the owner dies, all of it dies. Not just the soul, not just the body. All of it. If a part of it dies, the part that die would be specifically referred to using possessive pronouns/adjectives. The only exception to the wording of dying is when the host body dies. This refers to the caster's soul in the creature's body. What happens here? The creature dies, body and soul. The caster tries to return to the jar. If they make the check, the container must be within 100 ft, or they die. If they fail, they die (That's what otherwise means. If they don't meet all conditions to return to the container, they die). The wording is quite specific about the sequence of events. Whatever happens, their soul does not remain in the creatures body.
That is why Clone does not work with Magic Jar. It is the creature that it is targeted with Clone (Clone says creature and original creature), because that is who dies, that is whose body is touched, and that body is never the body of the caster, so the caster's death is never prevented.
That is why any shenanigans involving destroying containers to kill just the creature's soul by moving it away from their body do not work (a la two Magic Jars) then claiming the caster's soul can return to the creature's body don't work. The creature's body dies when the container for it's possession is destroyed. If caster's soul is in the host body, this triggers it to return to the container and the associated checks . If the caster's soul is elsewhere, their soul can only return to their body, and the creature's body is not their body. Even if it were, a soul can't return to a dead body.
This isn't what is stopping Death Ward working though.
First off, the effect of the spell is to permit a caster to possess a creature using a container. The container must exist for the spell to work, because it's existence is what allows the caster's soul to be out of their body. Therefore destroying the container ends the spell. The caster cannot possess a creature because that is an effect of the spell. The possession will always end when the spell ends. It doesn't matter if the caster's soul has nowhere to go, they lose the ability to possess and so must leave the creature's body. To claim that a non-permanent spell effect persists when said spell ends is completely at odds with how spell casting works.
Death Ward doesn't stop the spell from ending. It stops the touched creature from dying due to the effects of a spell. When the creature's body is warded, the effects apply to the creature because it is it's body that is touched. Death Ward stops the creature dying, that is it. To ward the caster, their body would need to be touched, because that is the creature that dies. Their not dying does not keep Magic Jar active and it does not give them the ability to possess, which is an effect of Magic Jar, the spell that has just ended. Their soul still has to return to their body. What Death Ward does is prevent any death from occurring due to the return failing, which implies that it will cause the soul to return successfully regardless of distance. I'm only suggesting that because as Death Ward stops death, and that happens because a soul isn't in it's body, you can infer that to not die a soul needs to be in it's corresponding body.
There's also a grey area with Death Ward, in that it prevents spell effects causing death. It can be argued that the deaths are due to the effects of the spell ending, not as effect of the spell itself. This would mean that it just wouldn't work at all. I have no opinion either way on this.
What I will address is the frankly ludicrous arguments as to why the caster's soul would never leave the host body when the spell ends. These are the arguments for it -
5) You are farther than 100ft from your body you die. Death Ward negates it. The Magic Jar spell ends.
6) Magic Jar is over, you are not dead, your body was to far away, your soul is unable attempt to return your body*
7) That means your soul has to be in the humanoid body it makes no sense for it to be anywhere else.
8) You are now that creature permanently.
*The reason why your soul doesn't attempt to return is because while it is said the soul immediately returns that is directly contradicted by the fact that the soul is given a range at which it attempts to return to the body that is 100ft (see bolded) and that is why it dies because it doesn't have the needed range to attempt to even begin the journey so you just die. This is supported by the "or" separating the two clauses and the comma before the "you die." Another point that shows that this is the correct interpretation of the rules (RAW) is the next sentence after that (underlined) shows that for the soul to attempt to return the to its body the body must be within 100ft just like before. So what I'm trying to say is that the soul knows it can't make the distance so you instead die but due to Death Ward that instance of death is avoided and since the Magic Jar spell ends your soul is no longer under the influence of the Magic Jar's effect to kill you so you instead live in your new humanoid body.
"If the container is destroyed or the spell ends, your soul immediately returns to your body. If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die. If another creature's soul is in the container when it is destroyed, the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet.'
The rest of the RAW is 'Otherwise, that creature dies.'
So the argument is basically that the caster dies because they are too far from their body, Death Ward stops that. The caster's soul gets to keep possessing the creature's body even though the spell has ended because the caster's soul never tried to return to the caster's body and the caster has stopped Magic Jar from killing them, and this somehow manages to keep the spell effect going when the spell has ended. Uh-huh.
I've already shown that Death Ward does not allow the caster's soul to continue to possess the creature's body once Magic Jar ends, but the logic for not leaving is something else (and I don't say that in a good way).
Having a maximum range for a distance you can travel does not contradict when that travel needs to occur, nor does it prevent that travel from commencing. In fact, it has no bearing either of those things whatsoever. So what's RAW actually saying? That the caster has to leave the host body and go back to their body at the exact time the container is destroyed (that's what return and immediately mean). The next bit says that the caster's soul can only travel up to 100ft, and if the body is further away (or dead), the caster dies. It even says 'when you attempt to return' which infers that the return must start. It does not say 'before you attempt to return', which it would need to say to indicate that the check would prevent the attempt. It definitely does not mean 'The reason why your soul doesn't attempt to return... it doesn't have the needed range to attempt to even begin the journey' because that does directly contradict 'when you attempt to return''.
'This is supported by the "or" separating the two clauses and the comma before the "you die." ' has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard in support of a blatant twisting of meaning. Let's look at the sentence.
'If your body is more than 100 feet away from you or if your body is dead when you attempt to return to it, you die.'
The comma is there to make the sentence grammatically correct. It contains two dependant clauses, which requires a comma to make sense. Having a comma after a statement does not make that statement the opposite of what it says. Nor does it mean that the sentence preceding it does not take effect.
The final argument, that 'the creature's soul returns to its body if the body is alive and within 100 feet' supports the the assertion that no attempt to return is made, is a bit misleading. Whilst it's logically similar to the caster rule, it's written in a way that is ambiguous if the return is attempted if the conditions aren't met. The caster rule clearly states that an attempt is made, and so these statements aren't equivalent.
Think that pretty much covers everything. I'm done with this.
Please stop. This is a long post for something everyone else has agreed to stop arguing about except you and that isn’t even better than other options for this fight with prep. The whole exploit is barely better than just charm, magic aura/ true polymorph, possess anyway, which isn’t possible to dispute.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
The whole magic jar stuff should probably be moved to another thread, if it needs to be discussed at all (which quite frankly whenever a discussion begins discussing the semantics and definitions of words that's when that discussion stops mattering 90% of the time).
In fact, we really ought to have ended this thread by now. We've already basically come to a conclusion and all the people joining in don't seem particularly interested in arguing for fighter.
One last thing though for clarity, I don't think anything discussed in this thread has been "realistic". Even the previous tournament idea I wouldn't consider realistic, a 1v1 duel between two maxed level people with the wizard having zero prep outside of a single short rest with both having gone through a series of boss encounters? Really?
I don't think this thread has ever been about a realistic fight between a level 20 fighter & wizard, because the answer is simple, the wizard has precast Foresight, Shapechange, Mind Blank, 10 other spells, and when the fight starts the wizard has contingency Resilient Sphere then blinks into the other side of the planet and takes a long rest. Much less the idea that both sides would be doing a 1v1. Both sides probably have a large number of magic items too.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.