In my opinion a phase change of an object, such as water to ice, or stone to lava, can only be affected if it specifically states it would be. For instance, I think the Shape Water cantrip says you can freeze water into ice or vice versa. As Mold Earth doesn’t include any wording about the specific case of lava, I’d argue that it can’t be done
Rule from the DMG, which is probably relevant when exploring volcanic caves:
"When the temperature is at or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit, a creature exposed to the heat and without access to drinkable water...."
So as long as you have access to drinkable water you are fine....?
Well sure, I’ll take the bait and follow this trail of thought. Yeah, as long as a person has access to drinkable water, then they would be able to drink it. This is because the water is drinkable, and because the person has access to it. I understand that you’re making a pedantics argument against my interpretation for some reason, but I still stand by what I said. Mold Earth does not mention lava, while Shape Water mentions both water and ice. Therefore, while Shape Water can have a modicum of control over both of those states of matter, Mold Earth can only have control over the one. I apologize if this interpretation isn’t in line with what you believe to be the case, but again, it’s my interpretation, which shouldn’t really affect someone else’s game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Lava and ice are very much different from stone and water. Or, rather, they're quasi-elements that mix two of the big ones together. Behold, the elemental planes!
This is the map from 5th edition, but even here, you can see that ice and magma (underground lava by another name) are different areas. In previous editions, it was even more pronounced. The quasi-elemental planes of Ice and Magma far more separated from the big four elemental planes than they are now. Cosmological, we have as much reason to allow Mold Earth to manipulate lava as we would allowing Control Flames. And ice could be manipulated through the Control Winds or Control Water magic. Dirt and stone would fall under Earth, as would mud, apparently.
Of course, the DM has final say. As a rule of thumb, D&D worlds operate under different scientific laws than reality. Here, lava is a mix of fire and earth. Is it something that's distinct as a result, or should both earth and fire magic affect it? I'm personally torn on the issue, and would have to judge on a case-by-case basis. But the arguments should be based on D&D metaphysics, not real world physics. Or, more importantly, the wording of the actual spell itself.
No matter how you define "stone" here, the cantrip Mold Earth is particularly unsuited for dealing with lava. Excavating a bit of lava does what exactly? Drawing shapes? Lava is a fluid and simply goes back to just flowing around, so digging up a bit or drawing changes nothing. Make it difficult terrain? Lava is already that and more! Even if you allow use Stone Shape, the lava would merely collapse - unlike solid stone, lava doesn't retain shapes. Now, a good question is if you can use either spell as a means of flinging lava onto an enemy, but that's the type of thing I tell my players "if you do it, you can bet the enemies you encounter will start doing it as well."
----------------------
On the whole "written in plain English" and "ice is water" bit. In common parlance, people won't say that ice is the same as water. That's being technical, not intuitive. No one brings a cup of all ice if someone wants a glass of water. Not unless they were playing a joke. If someone says water, they think of the liquid, not solid ice nor gas vapor.
For instance, I think the Shape Water cantrip says you can freeze water into ice or vice versa.
You can freeze the water, but it has to naturally unfreeze on its own. And I believe it no longer qualifies for further manipulation by the Shape Water cantrip once frozen.
" I understand that you’re making a pedantics argument against my interpretation for some reason, but I still stand by what I said."
Actually, I am making an argument against the basis of your interpretation(which is totally in line with my own thinking.) We all assume that the rules writers wrote exactly what they meant, when in fact this is not always the case.
"For some reason" ??? Hello, it's me! I take an opposing stance to things because I can! :) Even when I agree with your conclusion. Which I do.
The rules for avoiding exhaustion from high temperatures do not say that you actually have to drink the water, merely have access to it. Now to me, that sounds daft - are you saying walking around with tall glass of pims will keep you from dehydrating rather than sending you insane with desire?** I suppose the argument could be made that if you have the strength of will to deny yourself water as you slowly dehydrate to death, then maybe exhaustion would be just another thing you could ignore...
Resist Cold, according to some here, should protect against fireballs, as the only real difference between fireball and cone of cold is one of temperature!
I get the feeling that magic in D&D doesn't exactly follow the most stringent of logical rules though.....
**I know you're not saying that, the 'you' refers to the rules-writer.
You do realise that English is the third most commonly spoken language in the world and the most bastardised language, well, ever and that the colloquialization of language across regions even in the same country diversify meaning and understanding and even ways of thinking and how a person thinks, right?
The books are written in American English specifically. There are accepted meanings to words and phrases in any given dialect of English. By definition, language is given meaning by concensus. Don't pretend it's impossible to ascribe meaning to "bring me some water." You're dodging the question on purpose.
but all of you seem to choose what you read the spell says: " You choose a portion of dirt or STONE that you can see within range "
and the difference between solid stone and lava is only tempter. the spell does require that it must be loose, and in my interpretation of that is you can
but all of you seem to choose what you read the spell says: " You choose a portion of dirt or STONE that you can see within range "
and the difference between solid stone and lava is only tempter. the spell does require that it must be loose, and in my interpretation of that is you can
only remove from rumble and not from a structure.
I do believe we all read the spell. And no, not all of us agree that the only difference is "temperature." And provably false with real world science - lava / magma is a mixture of several gasses, metals and stone, it possesses a different state of matter which comes with a notable number of important divergent physical properties from solid stones, and it has a very specific origin (we don't call any melted stone "lava"). And then there's the deliberate casual language that 5e uses, rather than technical or literal readings. The rules are meant to be highly subjective, depending on how individual DMs want to run things. I personally made an argument that you can't reliably apply real world science to anything in D&D verse either unless an individual DM makes that call - a material plane might very well be a disk held up by four elephants on the back of a turtle surrounded by gemstones for stars.
The first reply to the thread really had the answer to your question. "It is up to the DM to rule on things like this." End. Some may try to pull a rules lawyer and argue there's a definitive answer for the definition of a word, but ultimately its still a DM call.
it is true that lava is made up of different components but at its base its still stone, same can be said of mud or salt water(for shape water). I know it is up to the DM
that wasn't at question only the limit of the spell and acknowledgment that lave bending is cool even if its not super useful I was hoping it was canon .
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well sure, I’ll take the bait and follow this trail of thought. Yeah, as long as a person has access to drinkable water, then they would be able to drink it. This is because the water is drinkable, and because the person has access to it. I understand that you’re making a pedantics argument against my interpretation for some reason, but I still stand by what I said. Mold Earth does not mention lava, while Shape Water mentions both water and ice. Therefore, while Shape Water can have a modicum of control over both of those states of matter, Mold Earth can only have control over the one. I apologize if this interpretation isn’t in line with what you believe to be the case, but again, it’s my interpretation, which shouldn’t really affect someone else’s game.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Lava and ice are very much different from stone and water. Or, rather, they're quasi-elements that mix two of the big ones together. Behold, the elemental planes!
This is the map from 5th edition, but even here, you can see that ice and magma (underground lava by another name) are different areas. In previous editions, it was even more pronounced. The quasi-elemental planes of Ice and Magma far more separated from the big four elemental planes than they are now. Cosmological, we have as much reason to allow Mold Earth to manipulate lava as we would allowing Control Flames. And ice could be manipulated through the Control Winds or Control Water magic. Dirt and stone would fall under Earth, as would mud, apparently.
Of course, the DM has final say. As a rule of thumb, D&D worlds operate under different scientific laws than reality. Here, lava is a mix of fire and earth. Is it something that's distinct as a result, or should both earth and fire magic affect it? I'm personally torn on the issue, and would have to judge on a case-by-case basis. But the arguments should be based on D&D metaphysics, not real world physics. Or, more importantly, the wording of the actual spell itself.
No matter how you define "stone" here, the cantrip Mold Earth is particularly unsuited for dealing with lava. Excavating a bit of lava does what exactly? Drawing shapes? Lava is a fluid and simply goes back to just flowing around, so digging up a bit or drawing changes nothing. Make it difficult terrain? Lava is already that and more! Even if you allow use Stone Shape, the lava would merely collapse - unlike solid stone, lava doesn't retain shapes. Now, a good question is if you can use either spell as a means of flinging lava onto an enemy, but that's the type of thing I tell my players "if you do it, you can bet the enemies you encounter will start doing it as well."
----------------------
On the whole "written in plain English" and "ice is water" bit. In common parlance, people won't say that ice is the same as water. That's being technical, not intuitive. No one brings a cup of all ice if someone wants a glass of water. Not unless they were playing a joke. If someone says water, they think of the liquid, not solid ice nor gas vapor.
----------------------
" I understand that you’re making a pedantics argument against my interpretation for some reason, but I still stand by what I said."
Actually, I am making an argument against the basis of your interpretation(which is totally in line with my own thinking.) We all assume that the rules writers wrote exactly what they meant, when in fact this is not always the case.
"For some reason" ??? Hello, it's me! I take an opposing stance to things because I can! :) Even when I agree with your conclusion. Which I do.
The rules for avoiding exhaustion from high temperatures do not say that you actually have to drink the water, merely have access to it. Now to me, that sounds daft - are you saying walking around with tall glass of pims will keep you from dehydrating rather than sending you insane with desire?** I suppose the argument could be made that if you have the strength of will to deny yourself water as you slowly dehydrate to death, then maybe exhaustion would be just another thing you could ignore...
Resist Cold, according to some here, should protect against fireballs, as the only real difference between fireball and cone of cold is one of temperature!
I get the feeling that magic in D&D doesn't exactly follow the most stringent of logical rules though.....
**I know you're not saying that, the 'you' refers to the rules-writer.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Mephista's map shows a major difference between our world and the D&D cosmology.
Note the Swamp of Oblivion. AKA The Plane of Ooze. Sounds quite terminal.
In our world, we had the primeval ooze, from whence all life sprang...the very opposite of terminal.
So we can't use modern idioms, when we disagree so violently on the nature of ooze.
But terminal can also mean a place where vehicles begin a journey...
20 goto 10
Roleplaying since Runequest.
The books are written in American English specifically. There are accepted meanings to words and phrases in any given dialect of English. By definition, language is given meaning by concensus. Don't pretend it's impossible to ascribe meaning to "bring me some water." You're dodging the question on purpose.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I did not mean to cause a war here...
but all of you seem to choose what you read the spell says: " You choose a portion of dirt or STONE that you can see within range "
and the difference between solid stone and lava is only tempter. the spell does require that it must be loose, and in my interpretation of that is you can
only remove from rumble and not from a structure.
I do believe we all read the spell. And no, not all of us agree that the only difference is "temperature." And provably false with real world science - lava / magma is a mixture of several gasses, metals and stone, it possesses a different state of matter which comes with a notable number of important divergent physical properties from solid stones, and it has a very specific origin (we don't call any melted stone "lava"). And then there's the deliberate casual language that 5e uses, rather than technical or literal readings. The rules are meant to be highly subjective, depending on how individual DMs want to run things. I personally made an argument that you can't reliably apply real world science to anything in D&D verse either unless an individual DM makes that call - a material plane might very well be a disk held up by four elephants on the back of a turtle surrounded by gemstones for stars.
The first reply to the thread really had the answer to your question. "It is up to the DM to rule on things like this." End. Some may try to pull a rules lawyer and argue there's a definitive answer for the definition of a word, but ultimately its still a DM call.
it is true that lava is made up of different components but at its base its still stone, same can be said of mud or salt water(for shape water). I know it is up to the DM
that wasn't at question only the limit of the spell and acknowledgment that lave bending is cool even if its not super useful I was hoping it was canon .