You have a point with your "it's too slow to catch enemies unaware", but it still needs to take less than 6 seconds, and whatever the enemies could do to avoid it should be doable as a reaction.
In those six seconds, your average character can move 30 feet, draw a weapon, stab somebody, pick something up off the ground, and drink a potion. An aware creature can easily avoid the stone sedately flowing into a new form.
But I'm not convinced by your "it can't affect creatures". It's a 4th level spell. It's on the same power level as Control Water, and just saying "it can't affect creatures" doesn't really tell me what happens if I attempt it anyway, or if what I try to do only affects creatures indirectly, without having stone come into contact with them...
The argument that it's on the same power level as Control Water, therefore it should be able to affect creatures routinely, does not follow. Control water is temporary. Shape stone is permanent. Its purpose is to allow you to make permanent changes to the local architecture. That's what it does.
Anyway, the question of what it even means to be more or less powerful when the effects are in different domains is unanswerable. (And D&D's always been pretty poor at keeping even the damage spells balanced.)
So what would you say happens if the enemy is already restrained or paralyzed as I use Shape Stone to bury or encase them?
You're now in the realm of unusual circumstances, so it's DM's call. Likely yes.
Similarly if you can take out a support column, or collapse a bridge. DM's call. Points for creativity, and you might well get to have some real effect.
If you take Shape Stone and go looking for clever uses, you're still going to find a lot. Open walls. Make walls. Create cover. Collapse ceilings and bridges. But spells in D&D are deliberately limited in scope. It's not meant to be a direct combat spell.
I get that you saw the spell and your imagination ran wild, and this is disappointing. Talk to your GM about what it can and can't do. They may be more (or less) permissive.
(And you're doing way better than the average person who comes to the forums with "I want to use a utility spell in combat". You're not trying to argue from real-world physics, while getting the physics completely wrong. :)
So, as a point of comparison, the 5th level Wall of Stone gives creatures who would be penned in by it- potentially in a much larger area- a save to attempt to move clear. While the RAW of Shape Stone is ambiguous, when we compare how a more powerful spell that explicitly covers how to handle trapping creatures within it, it’s really pushing past plausible RAI to say that a weaker spell should simply trap a creature with no save.
Nothing in the spell description indicates you can shape the stone so that it extends beyond that original 5-foot cube
I disagree with that statement. The description says I can create a passage through a 5 feet thick wall. In other words, create empty space in a cube previously entirely made of stone. Where did that stone go? Either it vanished, or it went somewhere else outside the cube. I think if we said it vanished, it would be even more OP, but I'm just gonna assume it was pushed outside the cube.
In those six seconds, your average character can move 30 feet, draw a weapon, stab somebody, pick something up off the ground, and drink a potion. An aware creature can easily avoid the stone sedately flowing into a new form.
That would be true during that aware creature's turn. So while I'm doing this, that creature has already taken their turn, or will after I've finished mine. That's why I said it should fit in a Reaction's time. A quick dodge, at best.
I get that you saw the spell and your imagination ran wild, and this is disappointing. Talk to your GM about what it can and can't do. They may be more (or less) permissive.
(And you're doing way better than the average person who comes to the forums with "I want to use a utility spell in combat". You're not trying to argue from real-world physics, while getting the physics completely wrong. :)
Thank you for acknowledging this. I just want to be creative with this spell within the rules of the game, and I'm particularly interested in touch range spells for a specific build I have in mind... I try to argue in good faith, but it of course doesn't mean I won't scrutinize and challenge counter-arguments :)
In any case, yeah, I'll check with the DM and try to come up with an agreement with them. I don't think the description of the spell is accurate enough to frame exactly what it can and can't do without some extra ruling.
Nothing in the spell description indicates you can shape the stone so that it extends beyond that original 5-foot cube
I disagree with that statement. The description says I can create a passage through a 5 feet thick wall. In other words, create empty space in a cube previously entirely made of stone. Where did that stone go? Either it vanished, or it went somewhere else outside the cube. I think if we said it vanished, it would be even more OP, but I'm just gonna assume it was pushed outside the cube.
A spell like move earth includes specific language for how you can expand the material outside its original form and boundaries
Choose an area of terrain no larger than 40 feet on a side within range. You can reshape dirt, sand, or clay in the area in any manner you choose for the duration. You can raise or lower the area’s elevation, create or fill in a trench, erect or flatten a wall, or form a pillar. The extent of any such changes can’t exceed half the area’s largest dimension. For example, if you affect a 40-foot square, you can create a pillar up to 20 feet high, raise or lower the square’s elevation by up to 20 feet, dig a trench up to 20 feet deep, and so on.
stone shape has no such language. Spells do what they say they do, and this one doesn't say you can move the stone outside that 5-foot cube. If you make a hole in a wall, it just means there's a hole in the wall -- nothing more or less
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
A hole is not a thing. It's the absence of something. So again, where did the stone go? When you make a hole, you displace stuff. That's literally what a hole is. Before there was something, and that something is gone. Where?
Whatever your answer is, that answer will have implications, and those implications are rule. If it was moved outside the cube, then the spell can move stone outside the cube. If it just disappears, then the spell can make stone disappear.
A hole is not a thing. It's the absence of something. So again, where did the stone go?
Maybe the remaining wall is denser? It doesn't matter. The spell doesn't say the stone gets displaced elsewhere, so you can't just decide it does
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"no more than 5 feet in any dimension" RAW. Unless that 1000 ft spaghetti fits in a 5x5x5 space, you can't.
You're cherry-picking. Use the whole sentence: "a stone object of Medium size or smaller or a section of stone no more than 5 feet in any dimension and form it into any shape you like." That 5ft limitation is only associated with the section of stone that I'm reshaping. The description gives absolutely no limitation whatsoever regarding the dimension of the of the end result of the transmutation. In fact, it very explicitly lifts any implied restriction when it says "any shape you like".
I have a meta question. If you are so sure about how it should work, why look to these forums?
There is a philosophy to reading rules where the rules do what they say, and no more or less. Doing damage without saves, trapping without saves, and making 1000' of whatever when the spell explicitly states it affects a 5' cube are certainly contrary to this. There are actually sections covering these types of arguments in the free rules.
I'm not arguing in bad faith. And no, I'm not sure how it should work either. I'm not using real world physics, but the rules of the world must be consistent with themselves and not contradict each other.
The spell says it affects the stone contained in a 5' cube. It doesn't say anywhere that the effect of the transmutation is also limited to this section as well. Otherwise, tell me where it says "the resulting shape cannot exceed a 5' cube". Show me where it says that exactly.
I'm not the one making things up here. I'm reading the rules as pedantically as possible. Saying that the result of the transmutation is limited by a 5' cube is an extrapolation that isn't justified by any wording of the description. It is very clear an unambiguous that the "5 feet in any dimension" applies to the stone being transmuted in its initial form. Anything beyond that is pure interpretation. So I'll return your argument back to you: the rules do what they say, and no more or less.
I totally agree with you on the RAW definition: "the rules do what they say, and no more or less". But sometimes it feels like this philosophy is enforced very strictly when it comes to the "more" and very loosely when it comes to the "less"...
It doesn't say the transmutation is limited to the 5 ft cube containing the stone, so you can't just decide it is.
Stone Shape:
You touch a stone object of Medium size or smaller or a section of stone no more than 5 feet in any dimension and form it into any shape you like. For example, you could shape a large rock into a weapon, statue, or coffer, or you could make a small passage through a wall that is 5 feet thick. You could also shape a stone door or its frame to seal the door shut. The object you create can have up to two hinges and a latch, but finer mechanical detail isn’t possible.
Which of those examples is larger than a 5-foot cube? Which of them indicate you can expand the material beyond those original dimensions? I'm not the one adding things to the spell that aren't there
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Why should they say that? If you claim that the result is limited to a 5" cube just because the description doesn't say that it can, even though it doesn't say it cannot, then you can also invent pretty much any limitation, just on the account that it's not explicitly allowed.
You touch a stone object of Medium size or smaller or a section of stone no more than 5 feet in any dimension and form it into any shape you like.
I'm not applying real world physics or extrapolating something that isn't there. This is not bad faith, this is simple grammar: the "no more than 5 feet in any dimension" qualifies only the "section of stone" that is being shaped. It says nothing about the dimensions of the end result. Nothing at all. I'm supposed to be able to shape it, not just carve it.
You know what? Forget it. I'm done arguing this. I don't know why you insist so much to add this extra rule to the description, but I don't care anymore.
@MechaVKaiju Could you build a long ramp with Stone Shape? If so how long? Could it be made longer if it were built along the side of a wall, rather than free standing? @JeremyECrawford The stone shape spell in D&D lets you reshape stone, but the spell doesn't allow the new shape to extend beyond the stone's original space (Medium, Small, or Tiny).
Alright then. As a developer myself I have to agree: words from the devs preclude everything else. But then the description should be amended to reflect this. I think you can at least concede that.
Chat-GPT and good faith are on opposite sides of the spectrum. It cannot make a coherent or reasoned argument, just a likely string of words based on its training data.
Invoking it here and at the same time dismissing the people who wrote it cannot be good faith even if you don’t understand why it is bad faith.
Exploitative interpretations may be fine at some tables, but that isn’t something I can personally comment on.
It was not supposed to be an argument, simply a reiteration of the fact that I do not wish to discuss this topic anymore. I gave sound and logical arguments based on the syntax and grammar used in the description, and was met only with dismissal, cherry-picking, and bad faith. Also, since I've already conceded the authority of the devs on the matter, I don't understand why you keep harassing me on this. Topic's closed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In those six seconds, your average character can move 30 feet, draw a weapon, stab somebody, pick something up off the ground, and drink a potion. An aware creature can easily avoid the stone sedately flowing into a new form.
The argument that it's on the same power level as Control Water, therefore it should be able to affect creatures routinely, does not follow. Control water is temporary. Shape stone is permanent. Its purpose is to allow you to make permanent changes to the local architecture. That's what it does.
Anyway, the question of what it even means to be more or less powerful when the effects are in different domains is unanswerable. (And D&D's always been pretty poor at keeping even the damage spells balanced.)
You're now in the realm of unusual circumstances, so it's DM's call. Likely yes.
Similarly if you can take out a support column, or collapse a bridge. DM's call. Points for creativity, and you might well get to have some real effect.
If you take Shape Stone and go looking for clever uses, you're still going to find a lot. Open walls. Make walls. Create cover. Collapse ceilings and bridges. But spells in D&D are deliberately limited in scope. It's not meant to be a direct combat spell.
I get that you saw the spell and your imagination ran wild, and this is disappointing. Talk to your GM about what it can and can't do. They may be more (or less) permissive.
(And you're doing way better than the average person who comes to the forums with "I want to use a utility spell in combat". You're not trying to argue from real-world physics, while getting the physics completely wrong. :)
So, as a point of comparison, the 5th level Wall of Stone gives creatures who would be penned in by it- potentially in a much larger area- a save to attempt to move clear. While the RAW of Shape Stone is ambiguous, when we compare how a more powerful spell that explicitly covers how to handle trapping creatures within it, it’s really pushing past plausible RAI to say that a weaker spell should simply trap a creature with no save.
Oh I didn't think of Wall of Stone. I guess you have a point there...
I disagree with that statement. The description says I can create a passage through a 5 feet thick wall. In other words, create empty space in a cube previously entirely made of stone. Where did that stone go? Either it vanished, or it went somewhere else outside the cube. I think if we said it vanished, it would be even more OP, but I'm just gonna assume it was pushed outside the cube.
That would be true during that aware creature's turn. So while I'm doing this, that creature has already taken their turn, or will after I've finished mine. That's why I said it should fit in a Reaction's time. A quick dodge, at best.
Thank you for acknowledging this. I just want to be creative with this spell within the rules of the game, and I'm particularly interested in touch range spells for a specific build I have in mind...
I try to argue in good faith, but it of course doesn't mean I won't scrutinize and challenge counter-arguments :)
In any case, yeah, I'll check with the DM and try to come up with an agreement with them. I don't think the description of the spell is accurate enough to frame exactly what it can and can't do without some extra ruling.
A spell like move earth includes specific language for how you can expand the material outside its original form and boundaries
stone shape has no such language. Spells do what they say they do, and this one doesn't say you can move the stone outside that 5-foot cube. If you make a hole in a wall, it just means there's a hole in the wall -- nothing more or less
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
A hole is not a thing. It's the absence of something. So again, where did the stone go? When you make a hole, you displace stuff. That's literally what a hole is. Before there was something, and that something is gone. Where?
Whatever your answer is, that answer will have implications, and those implications are rule. If it was moved outside the cube, then the spell can move stone outside the cube. If it just disappears, then the spell can make stone disappear.
Maybe the remaining wall is denser? It doesn't matter. The spell doesn't say the stone gets displaced elsewhere, so you can't just decide it does
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"no more than 5 feet in any dimension" RAW. Unless that 1000 ft spaghetti fits in a 5x5x5 space, you can't.
You're cherry-picking. Use the whole sentence: "a stone object of Medium size or smaller or a section of stone no more than 5 feet in any dimension and form it into any shape you like."
That 5ft limitation is only associated with the section of stone that I'm reshaping. The description gives absolutely no limitation whatsoever regarding the dimension of the of the end result of the transmutation. In fact, it very explicitly lifts any implied restriction when it says "any shape you like".
I have a meta question. If you are so sure about how it should work, why look to these forums?
There is a philosophy to reading rules where the rules do what they say, and no more or less. Doing damage without saves, trapping without saves, and making 1000' of whatever when the spell explicitly states it affects a 5' cube are certainly contrary to this. There are actually sections covering these types of arguments in the free rules.
Rules Aren’t Physics.
Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation.
I'm not arguing in bad faith. And no, I'm not sure how it should work either.
I'm not using real world physics, but the rules of the world must be consistent with themselves and not contradict each other.
The spell says it affects the stone contained in a 5' cube. It doesn't say anywhere that the effect of the transmutation is also limited to this section as well.
Otherwise, tell me where it says "the resulting shape cannot exceed a 5' cube". Show me where it says that exactly.
I'm not the one making things up here. I'm reading the rules as pedantically as possible. Saying that the result of the transmutation is limited by a 5' cube is an extrapolation that isn't justified by any wording of the description. It is very clear an unambiguous that the "5 feet in any dimension" applies to the stone being transmuted in its initial form. Anything beyond that is pure interpretation. So I'll return your argument back to you: the rules do what they say, and no more or less.
I totally agree with you on the RAW definition: "the rules do what they say, and no more or less".
But sometimes it feels like this philosophy is enforced very strictly when it comes to the "more" and very loosely when it comes to the "less"...
Stone Shape:
Which of those examples is larger than a 5-foot cube? Which of them indicate you can expand the material beyond those original dimensions? I'm not the one adding things to the spell that aren't there
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Why should they say that? If you claim that the result is limited to a 5" cube just because the description doesn't say that it can, even though it doesn't say it cannot, then you can also invent pretty much any limitation, just on the account that it's not explicitly allowed.
I'm not applying real world physics or extrapolating something that isn't there. This is not bad faith, this is simple grammar: the "no more than 5 feet in any dimension" qualifies only the "section of stone" that is being shaped. It says nothing about the dimensions of the end result. Nothing at all. I'm supposed to be able to shape it, not just carve it.
You know what? Forget it. I'm done arguing this. I don't know why you insist so much to add this extra rule to the description, but I don't care anymore.
Why you a ignore the passage that explicit say that "a small passage through a wall that is 5 feet thick"?
From the Dev:
Alright then. As a developer myself I have to agree: words from the devs preclude everything else.
But then the description should be amended to reflect this. I think you can at least concede that.
Chat-GPT and good faith are on opposite sides of the spectrum. It cannot make a coherent or reasoned argument, just a likely string of words based on its training data.
Invoking it here and at the same time dismissing the people who wrote it cannot be good faith even if you don’t understand why it is bad faith.
Exploitative interpretations may be fine at some tables, but that isn’t something I can personally comment on.
It was not supposed to be an argument, simply a reiteration of the fact that I do not wish to discuss this topic anymore.
I gave sound and logical arguments based on the syntax and grammar used in the description, and was met only with dismissal, cherry-picking, and bad faith.
Also, since I've already conceded the authority of the devs on the matter, I don't understand why you keep harassing me on this.
Topic's closed.