Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
If the spell effect is not separate from the casting, you can Counterspell an ongoing spell after it has been cast.
That is not possible because the spellcasting ends and the spell effect starts afterwards. Two rounds into Wall of Fire, you are not casting a spell, the spell casting has completed. The spell effect is being resolved. It is easier to blur the lines with Instantaneous spells, but spells with a duration highlight the distinction. You have to complete the spell casting in order for the spell effect to occur.
I was not the one who defined the ability as such. Also, please note what I said was my opinion on the intent:
I am not certain about lines of effect, such as Fireball and Scorching Ray. However, as it is written, it is restricted to targeting and line of sight only. This may or may not be intentional.
You could cast Misty Step to teleport 30 feet (from your original location) to an unoccupied space that the Gaze's target can see (though this would end the effect as you could not extend it another turn).
The ability gives you the ability to see with the senses of another creature and casting spells using that sight is already strong, depending on your senses and the target's. If you have Devil's Sight, it's less valuable. If you don't have any Darkvision, it can be more valuable.
If you are using it to nuke around corners without endangering yourself, I can understand why you would complain about a different interpretation that actually requires you to be in danger while attacking.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Where is the weapon physically located and who/what is swinging the weapon? If the GOTM creature has the weapon, who is controlling their actions? The PC can't attack for the creature. If the PC has the weapon, then GOTM is basically irrelevant as the weapon range is based on the physical location of the weapon. Which is in the PCs hand.
Alright, you are no longer capable of having a normal discussion. I am done here.
You don't have to. The creature is irrelevant, other than the fact you are using it's location.
Yes,the weapon is in the pc's hand. And the pc is where the creature is. Not actually, but gaze tells you you can pretend that that is the case.
Gaze is not a free teleport and you cannot resolve a weapon attack from the Gaze target's space.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
That is a very wrong interpretation, so wrong, I would call it cheating.
The PC is not where the creature is so the weapon is not there.
Again, to repeat, you are twisting the phrase "as if"
"As if" does not mean you are physically there. Therefore if you are not physically there, the weapon is not physically there and there is no pretend you are physically there. Your mind becomes one (not really) with gotm creature, is the closest to being there. While your mind is not there, not sure how to describe that this is but a mental transfer of information.
...
Cheating? This is not even a weird ruling. It's an interpretation that "as if you were at that location" means that the spell's effects goes off just as it would if you were at that location. And, since the weapon attack is part of the spell's effect, it goes off as if you were at that location. It's literally "the ability does what it says".
(Also, a GM ruling it works is incapable of cheating, as they're the final word on the rules at the table.)
Yes to a super weird ruling. To say that "as if" = you are actually there. Any ruling that says "as if" means you are actually there would be the equivalent of cheating. "As If" means you are not actually there If you are not there you can't swing a weapon there.
Not relevant if I am physically there. I can pretend to be physically there. It really is that simple. Your way of ruling does not pretend the pc is in another location. Your ruling only pretend the pc is mentally in another location. The invocation never adds limiting words like "mentally". I said it before: you are adding limitations to the invocation that are never written down in its rules.
The weapon is a material cost for the spell. Are you implying all spells with a material cost won't work at all because you don't have them physically with you at the gaze location?
In general, there is no tangible difference during the spellcasting.
There may be some edge cases that can come up. For example, if you cast a spell with a verbal component from the Gaze target's space, can you be heard from that space? Would Silence need to include your space or the Gaze target's space when casting a spell with a verbal component?
No, it doesn't say "mentally". It never says you are physically there. Your body, weapons, components are never in the Gaze target's space. Gaze of Two Minds does not change where you are when you make a weapon attack or touch a target for a spell.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
If you're not there you can't cast a spell there, either.
The purpose of Gaze is that your spell takes effect from a location where you aren't. The weapon attack is part of the spell's effect. This isn't a smite, where you make a weapon attack, and then modify it with a spell. If the spell isn't cast, or is countered, the attack doesn't happen. It is a perfectly reasonable reading of the ability to say that the spell's effects include a weapon attack, therefore the weapon attack happens there, even though the weapon itself is somewhere else.
Things do what they say. Ruling otherwise leads you down the path of hair-splitting which things are actually part of the spell, leading to interpretations like "the spell still originates from the caster's location", which I have already argued against above.
And this is all about questions of interpretation, and disagreeing with you about it is in no way cheating.
Rules do what they say and "As if" means you are not physically there.
If you are not physically there your weapon is not physically there. The weapon is not there so you can't cast a spell and expect it to hit a target that is not with in range.
The cheating is not disagreeing with me the cheating is to hit a target with a weapon that is beyond the weapons range.
I am missing the interpretation problem. How does a weapon on a person that is not physically there hit a target beyond the weapons range?
Magic.
That's all it is. You have an ability that lets you have a spell take effect as if you were in a place, even though you're not. If you were at the location, you could hit somebody with the weapon attack that's part of the spell's effect. Therefore you can, even though you're not.
If there were a spell that let you make a melee weapon attack at range, surely you would not be arguing that it can't work. That's a direct override of the rules about weapon attacks. This one is implicit, but it still exists.
This may or may not be the intent, but the rules never mention spell effect, only casting a spell, which is different.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Saying "magic" seems like you are blowing smoke and violate the tenet of "Rules do what they say".
The spell effect is based on the weapon hitting, which it can't do because the target is out of range of the weapon.
There is nothing with GOTM that says a weapon can extend it's range.
GOTM is not a spell that allow you to increase range. If a spell does that, it does what says and will explicitly say the range is changed/expanded/etc.
You are hand waving something that is not obvious implicit to go against a specific rule aka weapon range.
Anything that extends a weapon's range (which is very specific) via something implicit is cheating.