It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Discouragement is not denial as its still allowing. When we say action or movement denial in D&D it's things like incapacitated or paralyzed condition that outright deny the possibility to use it.
If you are discouraged from doing Y for reason X. Reason X stopped you (denied you) from doing Y.
If you mean something else more power to you. But saying a wall spell isn't intended to be movement/area denial is, well, false.
Its the difference between accomplishing something by exercising soft vs hard power. example. A law prevents you from buying a house that is for sale, the law denies you the house. That is hard power. Or, a house is for sale and someone else with more disposable cash makes a better offer and buys it instead of you. That other person's bank account denied you the house. That is soft power.
Take-damage-for-doing-XYZ spells and abilities are soft-denial. But they are still denial. because their use and intention is to stop something, and the result is that do in fact stop things.
Stop being overly pedantic by focusing on the meaning of discourage and denial.
Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew.
From Wall of Force: “Nothing can physically pass through the wall.”
Wall of Ice: “The wall is an object that can be damaged and thus breached.”
Bigby’s Hand: “The hand is an object”
Adding features to Flaming Sphere to add “is an object”, or “nothing can pass through” is homebrew.
From the PHB: “Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”
Indeed a wall of fire can be moved into, so nothing denies you the possibility to do so compared to say a stone wall.
An earth elemental can walk through a wall of stone. And a fire elemental can walk through a wall of fire without harm.
Neither of these special cases allows a normal human commoner to do either. he either bursts into flames and dies. or hurts his face, if he tries. Both prevent him from walking through really well.
They, deny, his ability, to move, to the protected areas.
A flaming sphere would prevent him from ever doing anything ever again if he ends his turn next to it, so it denies him that option too.
These are area/movement denial spells by design. That's what they do.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew.
...
Adding features to Flaming Sphere to add “is an object”, or “nothing can pass through” is homebrew.
TLDR you think you can walk through creatures summoned by spells, such as conjure animals and the like.
Personally I'd rule you can't pass through them. Even though the spell doesn't explicitly say so. Since they're a creature and probably pretty solid, despite being spirits. I'd also not call that homebrewing. When it comes down to it you're honestly free to ascribe the word to "homebrew" to whatever you want, accurately or not. People might not know what you're talking about if you do, but that's a choice you can make, for sure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew.
...
Adding features to Flaming Sphere to add “is an object”, or “nothing can pass through” is homebrew.
TLDR you think you can walk through creatures summoned by spells, such as conjure animals and the like.
Personally I'd rule you can't pass through them. Even though the spell doesn't explicitly say so. Since they're a creature and probably pretty solid, despite being spirits. I'd also not call that homebrewing. When it comes down to it you're honestly free to ascribe the word to "homebrew" to whatever you want, accurately or not. People might not know what you're talking about if you do, but that's a choice you can make, for sure.
Creatures and objects by the rules are targetable and are physical. Earth Eementals have an ability that allows them to go through walls. TLDR, you can’t walk through creatures created by conjure animals. They’re creatures. There’s a whole section on how to move through other creatures.
Homebrew is changing or adding things to the game, which you’re doing here. It’s homebrew.
Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew.
...
Adding features to Flaming Sphere to add “is an object”, or “nothing can pass through” is homebrew.
TLDR you think you can walk through creatures summoned by spells, such as conjure animals and the like.
Personally I'd rule you can't pass through them. Even though the spell doesn't explicitly say so. Since they're a creature and probably pretty solid, despite being spirits. I'd also not call that homebrewing. When it comes down to it you're honestly free to ascribe the word to "homebrew" to whatever you want, accurately or not. People might not know what you're talking about if you do, but that's a choice you can make, for sure.
Creatures and objects by the rules are targetable and are physical.
true. but if "Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew." is true it doesn't matter if creatures prevent things from going through them.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
true. but if "Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew." is true it doesn't matter if creatures prevent things from going through them.
Which is why it isn't true.
Unfortunately, spells do only do what they say they do, but that is within the context of the rules. Neither of you is exactly right here. That is to say, if you summon a creature with a spell, that creature inherits the rules that accompany creatures, unless the spell says otherwise.
So the argument over flaming spheres is somewhat unrelated to the argument over conjured creatures. We know how conjured creatures interact with movement of other creatures because those conjured creatures behave like other creatures. We have no idea how flaming spheres interact with movement of creatures, magical or otherwise. The DM can make a call.
But with that being said, my ruling is that obviously any sphere that can ram into you is solid enough to block your passage.
Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew.
...
Adding features to Flaming Sphere to add “is an object”, or “nothing can pass through” is homebrew.
TLDR you think you can walk through creatures summoned by spells, such as conjure animals and the like.
Personally I'd rule you can't pass through them. Even though the spell doesn't explicitly say so. Since they're a creature and probably pretty solid, despite being spirits. I'd also not call that homebrewing. When it comes down to it you're honestly free to ascribe the word to "homebrew" to whatever you want, accurately or not. People might not know what you're talking about if you do, but that's a choice you can make, for sure.
Creatures and objects by the rules are targetable and are physical.
true. but if "Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew." is true it doesn't matter if creatures prevent things from going through them.
Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew.
...
Adding features to Flaming Sphere to add “is an object”, or “nothing can pass through” is homebrew.
TLDR you think you can walk through creatures summoned by spells, such as conjure animals and the like.
Personally I'd rule you can't pass through them. Even though the spell doesn't explicitly say so. Since they're a creature and probably pretty solid, despite being spirits. I'd also not call that homebrewing. When it comes down to it you're honestly free to ascribe the word to "homebrew" to whatever you want, accurately or not. People might not know what you're talking about if you do, but that's a choice you can make, for sure.
Creatures and objects by the rules are targetable and are physical.
true. but if "Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew." is true it doesn't matter if creatures prevent things from going through them.
Which is why it isn't true.
Wrong, unfortunately. The spell assigned the quality of creature or solidity as I said before, and therefore they have the qualities that the entirety of the rules predicts. Creatures have rules about how they restrict movement.
This is also why you can’t pick up a Spiritual Weapon (it’s not denoted as an object), Eldritch blast cannot target objects (it denotes creatures as target specifically), and Create Bonfire doesn’t block movement.
true. but if "Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew." is true it doesn't matter if creatures prevent things from going through them.
Which is why it isn't true.
We have no idea how flaming spheres interact with movement of creatures, magical or otherwise. The DM can make a call.
But with that being said, my ruling is that obviously any sphere that can ram into you is solid enough to block your passage.
Does it seem odd that at 3rd level you can create a physical object that can block a passage better than Wall of Stone (Ice, etc), Bigby’s Hand, or even a solid steel door, all of which have AC, HP, and/or damage thresholds? The only spells that equate to this level of permanency come at 5th level when you can cast Tiny Hut (which is immovable) and 11th level+ with Forcecage/Wall of Force (which can be Disintegrated - Flaming Sphere can’t)?
I’m certainly not arguing that you’re not allowed to rule it any way you please. But assuming that something must be impassable based on its shape, seems premature. I can also ram a sphere of water at you in a balloon, but it wouldn’t impede your progress in any perceivable way either.
true. but if "Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew." is true it doesn't matter if creatures prevent things from going through them.
Which is why it isn't true.
We have no idea how flaming spheres interact with movement of creatures, magical or otherwise. The DM can make a call.
But with that being said, my ruling is that obviously any sphere that can ram into you is solid enough to block your passage.
Does it seem odd that at 3rd level you can create a physical object that can block a passage better than Wall of Stone (Ice, etc), Bigby’s Hand, or even a solid steel door, all of which have AC, HP, and/or damage thresholds? The only spells that equate to this level of permanency come at 5th level when you can cast Tiny Hut (which is immovable) and 11th level+ with Forcecage/Wall of Force (which can be Disintegrated - Flaming Sphere can’t)?
I’m certainly not arguing that you’re not allowed to rule it any way you please. But assuming that something must be impassable based on its shape, seems premature. I can also ram a sphere of water at you in a balloon, but it wouldn’t impede your progress in any perceivable way either.
I didn't at all imply something was impassible based on its shape, I based my ruling entirely on the sentence in flaming sphere that says that you can ram it into creatures. I'm sorry that you misunderstood my ruling.
Adding features to Flaming Sphere to add “is an object”, or “nothing can pass through” is homebrew.
I think the thing is - if it's not an object - how come it can "jump" (not fly/hover over) a pit? That seems to indicate a rolling ball of fire, like it has some form of mass or weight.
Again, the spell requires an unoccupied space - If not an object - why can't it be cast exactly on the spot a monster is standing on?
I think that's where the question came in - the spell seems to lend to it has some form of mass and requires to take up a space.
Not a big deal (was surprised to see this thread still going), since we've moved on in our game. (Though I am betting this will come up again...)
Adding features to Flaming Sphere to add “is an object”, or “nothing can pass through” is homebrew.
I think the thing is - if it's not an object - how come it can "jump" (not fly/hover over) a pit? That seems to indicate a rolling ball of fire, like it has some form of mass or weight.
False dichotomy. Brewksy is wrong - a flaming sphere is definitionally an object - but objects can hover. For example, minor illusion also creates an object. Objects do not intrinsically have weight and hence are not automatically affected by gravity. Likewise, objects are not intrinsically weightless and are not automatically immune to gravity. Context is critical. That said, Flaming Spheres are neither creatures nor points in space. Everything in the game is a creature, an object, or a point in space (or a collection of those three things).
Again, the spell requires an unoccupied space - If not an object - why can't it be cast exactly on the spot a monster is standing on?
Because the spell says so.
I think that's where the question came in - the spell seems to lend to it has some form of mass and requires to take up a space.
It doesn't occupy its own space unless a rule says it does, but by definition fire has mass unless a rule says otherwise, and no rule here says otherwise. The sphere is described as being made of fire, so barring rules to the contrary, we should obey the RAW and treat it as a ball of plasma. In other words, it has mass.
Not a big deal (was surprised to see this thread still going), since we've moved on in our game. (Though I am betting this will come up again...)
Indeed a wall of fire can be moved into, so nothing denies you the possibility to do so compared to say a stone wall.
An earth elemental can walk through a wall of stone. And a fire elemental can walk through a wall of fire without harm.
Neither of these special cases allows a normal human commoner to do either. he either bursts into flames and dies. or hurts his face, if he tries. Both prevent him from walking through really well.
They, deny, his ability, to move, to the protected areas.
A flaming sphere would prevent him from ever doing anything ever again if he ends his turn next to it, so it denies him that option too.
These are area/movement denial spells by design. That's what they do.
You seem to confuse wether one can move with or without harm as movement denial. A human commoner is not denied his ability to move into a wall of fire or flaming sphere , but doing so can be halrmful so and if it does and die, then it's death that becomes a source of movement/action denial. But the fact that it could move into such area is the direct proof that it was not denying movement at all.
Indeed a wall of fire can be moved into, so nothing denies you the possibility to do so compared to say a stone wall.
An earth elemental can walk through a wall of stone. And a fire elemental can walk through a wall of fire without harm.
Neither of these special cases allows a normal human commoner to do either. he either bursts into flames and dies. or hurts his face, if he tries. Both prevent him from walking through really well.
They, deny, his ability, to move, to the protected areas.
A flaming sphere would prevent him from ever doing anything ever again if he ends his turn next to it, so it denies him that option too.
These are area/movement denial spells by design. That's what they do.
You seem to confuse wether one can move with or without harm as movement denial. A human commoner is not denied his ability to move into a wall of fire or flaming sphere , but doing so can be halrmful so and if it does and die, then it's death that becomes a source of movement/action denial. But the fact that it could move into such area is the direct proof that it was not denying movement at all.
It would certainly be a deterrent, but definitely not a denial.
I think that this is a terminology thing. Usually, when talking about games, "denial" wouldn't only refer to an absolute restriction but would also include any deterrents that sufficiently remove options from the player. For example, moonbeam is definitely written such that a creature can enter it, but many people would still call it an area denial spell because it provides sufficient deterrent that most enemies will choose not to enter it if other options are available.
This is a game term I've heard before when referencing other games (I don't know if it comes from MOBAs or FPSs or even TCGs).
Indeed a wall of fire can be moved into, so nothing denies you the possibility to do so compared to say a stone wall.
An earth elemental can walk through a wall of stone. And a fire elemental can walk through a wall of fire without harm.
Neither of these special cases allows a normal human commoner to do either. he either bursts into flames and dies. or hurts his face, if he tries. Both prevent him from walking through really well.
They, deny, his ability, to move, to the protected areas.
A flaming sphere would prevent him from ever doing anything ever again if he ends his turn next to it, so it denies him that option too.
These are area/movement denial spells by design. That's what they do.
You seem to confuse wether one can move with or without harm as movement denial. A human commoner is not denied his ability to move into a wall of fire or flaming sphere , but doing so can be halrmful so and if it does and die, then it's death that becomes a source of movement/action denial. But the fact that it could move into such area is the direct proof that it was not denying movement at all.
A human commoner cannot move through a wall of fire. That is for sure movement denial. Death is the best CC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think the terms are something like hard versus soft denial. Hard denial is an actual limitation, soft denial is just a circumstance that makes choosing that thing harder.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A wall cannot be moved into, a Flaming Sphere is. Nothing denies you the possibility to do so if you wish.
I think we just have different definitions of what movement/action denials means.
You can walk through a wall of fire. it is still designed to prevent that from happening, by applying a strong penalty if you do.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Indeed a wall of fire can be moved into, so nothing denies you the possibility to do so compared to say a stone wall.
Stop being overly pedantic by focusing on the meaning of discourage and denial.
Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew.
From Wall of Force: “Nothing can physically pass through the wall.”
Wall of Ice: “The wall is an object that can be damaged and thus breached.”
Bigby’s Hand: “The hand is an object”
Adding features to Flaming Sphere to add “is an object”, or “nothing can pass through” is homebrew.
From the PHB: “Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”
An earth elemental can walk through a wall of stone. And a fire elemental can walk through a wall of fire without harm.
Neither of these special cases allows a normal human commoner to do either. he either bursts into flames and dies. or hurts his face, if he tries. Both prevent him from walking through really well.
They, deny, his ability, to move, to the protected areas.
A flaming sphere would prevent him from ever doing anything ever again if he ends his turn next to it, so it denies him that option too.
These are area/movement denial spells by design. That's what they do.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
TLDR you think you can walk through creatures summoned by spells, such as conjure animals and the like.
Personally I'd rule you can't pass through them. Even though the spell doesn't explicitly say so. Since they're a creature and probably pretty solid, despite being spirits. I'd also not call that homebrewing. When it comes down to it you're honestly free to ascribe the word to "homebrew" to whatever you want, accurately or not. People might not know what you're talking about if you do, but that's a choice you can make, for sure.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Creatures and objects by the rules are targetable and are physical. Earth Eementals have an ability that allows them to go through walls. TLDR, you can’t walk through creatures created by conjure animals. They’re creatures. There’s a whole section on how to move through other creatures.
Homebrew is changing or adding things to the game, which you’re doing here. It’s homebrew.
[REDACTED]
true. but if "Spells only do what they say they do - *any* addition to that is entirely homebrew." is true it doesn't matter if creatures prevent things from going through them.
Which is why it isn't true.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Unfortunately, spells do only do what they say they do, but that is within the context of the rules. Neither of you is exactly right here. That is to say, if you summon a creature with a spell, that creature inherits the rules that accompany creatures, unless the spell says otherwise.
So the argument over flaming spheres is somewhat unrelated to the argument over conjured creatures. We know how conjured creatures interact with movement of other creatures because those conjured creatures behave like other creatures. We have no idea how flaming spheres interact with movement of creatures, magical or otherwise. The DM can make a call.
But with that being said, my ruling is that obviously any sphere that can ram into you is solid enough to block your passage.
Wrong, unfortunately. The spell assigned the quality of creature or solidity as I said before, and therefore they have the qualities that the entirety of the rules predicts. Creatures have rules about how they restrict movement.
This is also why you can’t pick up a Spiritual Weapon (it’s not denoted as an object), Eldritch blast cannot target objects (it denotes creatures as target specifically), and Create Bonfire doesn’t block movement.
Does it seem odd that at 3rd level you can create a physical object that can block a passage better than Wall of Stone (Ice, etc), Bigby’s Hand, or even a solid steel door, all of which have AC, HP, and/or damage thresholds? The only spells that equate to this level of permanency come at 5th level when you can cast Tiny Hut (which is immovable) and 11th level+ with Forcecage/Wall of Force (which can be Disintegrated - Flaming Sphere can’t)?
I’m certainly not arguing that you’re not allowed to rule it any way you please. But assuming that something must be impassable based on its shape, seems premature. I can also ram a sphere of water at you in a balloon, but it wouldn’t impede your progress in any perceivable way either.
I didn't at all imply something was impassible based on its shape, I based my ruling entirely on the sentence in flaming sphere that says that you can ram it into creatures. I'm sorry that you misunderstood my ruling.
I think the thing is - if it's not an object - how come it can "jump" (not fly/hover over) a pit? That seems to indicate a rolling ball of fire, like it has some form of mass or weight.
Again, the spell requires an unoccupied space - If not an object - why can't it be cast exactly on the spot a monster is standing on?
I think that's where the question came in - the spell seems to lend to it has some form of mass and requires to take up a space.
Not a big deal (was surprised to see this thread still going), since we've moved on in our game. (Though I am betting this will come up again...)
Check out my publication on DMs Guild: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=Tawmis%20Logue
Check out my comedy web series - Neverending Nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wr4-u9-zw0&list=PLbRG7dzFI-u3EJd0usasgDrrFO3mZ1lOZ
Need a character story/background written up? I do it for free (but also take donations!) - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up
False dichotomy. Brewksy is wrong - a flaming sphere is definitionally an object - but objects can hover. For example, minor illusion also creates an object. Objects do not intrinsically have weight and hence are not automatically affected by gravity. Likewise, objects are not intrinsically weightless and are not automatically immune to gravity. Context is critical. That said, Flaming Spheres are neither creatures nor points in space. Everything in the game is a creature, an object, or a point in space (or a collection of those three things).
Because the spell says so.
It doesn't occupy its own space unless a rule says it does, but by definition fire has mass unless a rule says otherwise, and no rule here says otherwise. The sphere is described as being made of fire, so barring rules to the contrary, we should obey the RAW and treat it as a ball of plasma. In other words, it has mass.
Agreed. :)
You seem to confuse wether one can move with or without harm as movement denial. A human commoner is not denied his ability to move into a wall of fire or flaming sphere , but doing so can be halrmful so and if it does and die, then it's death that becomes a source of movement/action denial. But the fact that it could move into such area is the direct proof that it was not denying movement at all.
It would certainly be a deterrent, but definitely not a denial.
Exactly, that's what i was saying it may discourage people due to consequences, but it is not otherwise a movement denial, like we refer to in RPG.
I think that this is a terminology thing. Usually, when talking about games, "denial" wouldn't only refer to an absolute restriction but would also include any deterrents that sufficiently remove options from the player. For example, moonbeam is definitely written such that a creature can enter it, but many people would still call it an area denial spell because it provides sufficient deterrent that most enemies will choose not to enter it if other options are available.
This is a game term I've heard before when referencing other games (I don't know if it comes from MOBAs or FPSs or even TCGs).
A human commoner cannot move through a wall of fire. That is for sure movement denial. Death is the best CC.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think the terms are something like hard versus soft denial. Hard denial is an actual limitation, soft denial is just a circumstance that makes choosing that thing harder.