I would simply say that water ceases to be water a few seconds after consumption. It'd very quickly be turned into something different, and the spell is very particular about only being able to target water.
I absolutely 100% agree that freezing the water within a creature is specifically prohibited because if the water is within a creature, then by default a creature is in the area. But that same restriction is notably absent from the other bullet points of the spell, and is not part of the main description so it doesn’t apply to those applications.
As a DM, I would be inclined to rule that casting shape water on a 5-foot cube of mud with the intention of using that very first bullet point could theoretically move the water content of that mud up to 5 feet, leaving most of the dirt behind. It couldn’t separate things entirely, surely not enough to purify the water to the point of making it potable. But if it could move the water within mud, then why not the water within blood? I mean, at least enough to move it within the same space it already occupies. It could pick a puddle up 5 feet strait up into the air. So just moving the water within a container to elsewhere within that same container should work. Right?
Another way to look at it, mold earth couldn’t remove the dirt from the mud because it specifies “an area of loose dirt.” But shape water contains no such restrictions on density.
I'd also be inclined to similar rulings although it's fair to say that our views may go beyond the literal provisions of RAW.
For instance, I think shape water might be used to cause flows of water out of materials such as in clothing. Causing flows of water from among tiny particles of silt present a yet higher level of complexity and yet, with a stretch, it can certainly fit with an interpretation of the spell.
The real question is, where it states “You choose an area of water that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube,” which of the following two interpretations do they mean?
”Choose an area no larger than a 5-foot cube containing visible water.”
”Choose an area you can see no larger than a 5-foot cube that contains water.”
Must one be able to see the water actual itself, or just the he area in which the water exists? For example, is a caster could see a visibly full waterskin (or other container known to contain water), but not the actual water contained within that skin, could a caster use this spell to affect that water?
As it talks of "an area of water ... within a 5-foot cube" I think a logical interpretation is that it's talking (badly) about a volume subset within the cube that is water. The problem is that d&d english is used using the word area so the phrase becomes ambiguous. It's open to interpretation. Personally, I'd allow a central volume of water within a skin or water within a lock to be frozen or water within clothing to be extracted even though it would be the 'area' not necessarily the water/all the water that is seen.
Okay, we’ll then…. Now we get to the part I need someone to blow a hole in; (ready?):
Technically, most Humanoids, Beasts, Plants (and likely many other creatures) could technically be defined as “a flexible container designed to be impermeable when closed,” the contents of which are about 60% water. Yes, a person could theoretically be defined as “a bag of water.”
The hole is the part you start off with, which you clearly know to be a stretch as you keep saying "technically" and "theoretically." The answer is that a creature is a creature, not a flexible container. Creatures and objects being mutually exclusive groups is kind of a basic assumption throughout the entire 5e ruleset. I mean a person could also theoretically be defined as a flammable bag of meat, but that doesn't mean fireball ignites people.
I would simply say that water ceases to be water a few seconds after consumption. It'd very quickly be turned into something different, and the spell is very particular about only being able to target water.
The contents of your bladder, is basically just water until it collects impurities on the way out. We have basically pure water inside of us.
The real question is, where it states “You choose an area of water that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube,” which of the following two interpretations do they mean?
”Choose an area no larger than a 5-foot cube containing visible water.”
”Choose an area you can see no larger than a 5-foot cube that contains water.”
Must one be able to see the water actual itself, or just the he area in which the water exists? For example, is a caster could see a visibly full waterskin (or other container known to contain water), but not the actual water contained within that skin, could a caster use this spell to affect that water?
As it talks of "an area of water ... within a 5-foot cube" I think a logical interpretation is that it's talking (badly) about a volume subset within the cube that is water. The problem is that d&d english is used using the word area so the phrase becomes ambiguous. It's open to interpretation. Personally, I'd allow a central volume of water within a skin or water within a lock to be frozen or water within clothing to be extracted even though it would be the 'area' not necessarily the water/all the water that is seen.
Okay, we’ll then…. Now we get to the part I need someone to blow a hole in; (ready?):
Technically, most Humanoids, Beasts, Plants (and likely many other creatures) could technically be defined as “a flexible container designed to be impermeable when closed,” the contents of which are about 60% water. Yes, a person could theoretically be defined as “a bag of water.”
The hole is the part you start off with, which you clearly know to be a stretch as you keep saying "technically" and "theoretically." The answer is that a creature is a creature, not a flexible container. Creatures and objects being mutually exclusive groups is kind of a basic assumption throughout the entire 5e ruleset. I mean a person could also theoretically be defined as a flammable bag of meat, but that doesn't mean fireball ignites people.
The only part of that spell that precludes it’s use on water occupying the same space as a creature is the freezing, not the moving. So therefore, is that distinction relevant RAW?
I would simply say that water ceases to be water a few seconds after consumption. It'd very quickly be turned into something different, and the spell is very particular about only being able to target water.
The contents of your bladder, is basically just water until it collects impurities on the way out. We have basically pure water inside of us.
The real question is, where it states “You choose an area of water that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube,” which of the following two interpretations do they mean?
”Choose an area no larger than a 5-foot cube containing visible water.”
”Choose an area you can see no larger than a 5-foot cube that contains water.”
Must one be able to see the water actual itself, or just the he area in which the water exists? For example, is a caster could see a visibly full waterskin (or other container known to contain water), but not the actual water contained within that skin, could a caster use this spell to affect that water?
As it talks of "an area of water ... within a 5-foot cube" I think a logical interpretation is that it's talking (badly) about a volume subset within the cube that is water. The problem is that d&d english is used using the word area so the phrase becomes ambiguous. It's open to interpretation. Personally, I'd allow a central volume of water within a skin or water within a lock to be frozen or water within clothing to be extracted even though it would be the 'area' not necessarily the water/all the water that is seen.
Okay, we’ll then…. Now we get to the part I need someone to blow a hole in; (ready?):
Technically, most Humanoids, Beasts, Plants (and likely many other creatures) could technically be defined as “a flexible container designed to be impermeable when closed,” the contents of which are about 60% water. Yes, a person could theoretically be defined as “a bag of water.”
The hole is the part you start off with, which you clearly know to be a stretch as you keep saying "technically" and "theoretically." The answer is that a creature is a creature, not a flexible container. Creatures and objects being mutually exclusive groups is kind of a basic assumption throughout the entire 5e ruleset. I mean a person could also theoretically be defined as a flammable bag of meat, but that doesn't mean fireball ignites people.
The only part of that spell that precludes it’s use on water occupying the same space as a creature is the freezing, not the moving. So therefore, is that distinction relevant RAW?
I would simply say that water ceases to be water a few seconds after consumption. It'd very quickly be turned into something different, and the spell is very particular about only being able to target water.
The contents of your bladder, is basically just water until it collects impurities on the way out. We have basically pure water inside of us.
The real question is, where it states “You choose an area of water that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube,” which of the following two interpretations do they mean?
”Choose an area no larger than a 5-foot cube containing visible water.”
”Choose an area you can see no larger than a 5-foot cube that contains water.”
Must one be able to see the water actual itself, or just the he area in which the water exists? For example, is a caster could see a visibly full waterskin (or other container known to contain water), but not the actual water contained within that skin, could a caster use this spell to affect that water?
As it talks of "an area of water ... within a 5-foot cube" I think a logical interpretation is that it's talking (badly) about a volume subset within the cube that is water. The problem is that d&d english is used using the word area so the phrase becomes ambiguous. It's open to interpretation. Personally, I'd allow a central volume of water within a skin or water within a lock to be frozen or water within clothing to be extracted even though it would be the 'area' not necessarily the water/all the water that is seen.
Okay, we’ll then…. Now we get to the part I need someone to blow a hole in; (ready?):
Technically, most Humanoids, Beasts, Plants (and likely many other creatures) could technically be defined as “a flexible container designed to be impermeable when closed,” the contents of which are about 60% water. Yes, a person could theoretically be defined as “a bag of water.”
The hole is the part you start off with, which you clearly know to be a stretch as you keep saying "technically" and "theoretically." The answer is that a creature is a creature, not a flexible container. Creatures and objects being mutually exclusive groups is kind of a basic assumption throughout the entire 5e ruleset. I mean a person could also theoretically be defined as a flammable bag of meat, but that doesn't mean fireball ignites people.
The only part of that spell that precludes it’s use on water occupying the same space as a creature is the freezing, not the moving. So therefore, is that distinction relevant RAW?
For mechanics purposes in RAW basically water is not enough. If you asked for water and were given urine someone may be taking the piss.
I mean, RAW you could use the spell to pump water into something's nose until the pressure outside due to the spell matched the pressure coming back out of the nose (i.e. once the target's lungs are full). You don't need to see inside. You only need to see the stream of water you're pumping stright into the nostrils and mouth. Job done.
That'll at least incapacitate something for a while, almost certainly kill it if you stand there re-casting. And anyone trying to cast a verbal-component spell is stuffed.
No.
It's a cantrip. The answer to any "can you do it?" is pretty much: is it reasonable for a cantrip to do that? And in particular for this one: a cantrip without a damage ability.
You can do fun things with water. You can't kill anything, or restrain it, or incapacitate it.
It's one of those open spells that come down to the DM to rule on whether you can do something. It's fun. Defining every little thing you can and cannot do would take pages and pages. Just treat it as a cantrip and go from there.
The only part of that spell that precludes it’s use on water occupying the same space as a creature is the freezing, not the moving. So therefore, is that distinction relevant RAW?
It's relevant because there is not "water occupying the same space as a creature." There is just a creature there. You can't just decide that you can treat any part of a creature's body as something apart from the creature, especially something that it requires to be a functioning version of said creature.
I would simply say that water ceases to be water a few seconds after consumption. It'd very quickly be turned into something different, and the spell is very particular about only being able to target water.
The contents of your bladder, is basically just water until it collects impurities on the way out. We have basically pure water inside of us.
For mechanics purposes in RAW basically water is not enough. If you asked for water and were given urine someone may be taking the piss.
My point is though, it isn’t urine. Medically and literally speaking, (the RAW of IRL), the fluid in your bladder is not actually “urine” at all, it’s “urea.” It doesn’t become “urine” until it collects waste chemicals from the kidneys on the way out. Urea is basically just water, (potable and everything). You literally have an entire organ in your body just to collect and store excess water until your body needs it to flush out the junk stuff your body needs to get rid of. Essentially, you have a waterskin in your lower abdomen/pelvis. (Actually, it isn’t “essentially” a waterskin, it’s quite literally a waterskin since they were often made out of animal bladders.) And it’s periodically full of water that is actually a heckufa lot purer than the puddles left after it rains.
About that should caster be able to cast shape water on water that can't actually be seen, I would say no.
Reasons:
1. To target something [with a spell], you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover (which it is in a barrel example) and area effects wont go around cover unless specifically mentioned (ie in fireball "around the corners")
2. Shape of water specify that you have to see and target water "You choose an area of water that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube"
3. I would say 5 feet cube means just maximum size of water that spell can effect.
Yea I have to agree here. The discussion about "how much water a creature is" is moot because you don't see any of it even if you rule that the creature is enough water (which I'd disagree with quite strongly). And the same goes for caskets, barrels, waterskins or whatever other closed container you might want to target.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Sposta
I would simply say that water ceases to be water a few seconds after consumption. It'd very quickly be turned into something different, and the spell is very particular about only being able to target water.
I'd also be inclined to similar rulings although it's fair to say that our views may go beyond the literal provisions of RAW.
For instance, I think shape water might be used to cause flows of water out of materials such as in clothing. Causing flows of water from among tiny particles of silt present a yet higher level of complexity and yet, with a stretch, it can certainly fit with an interpretation of the spell.
The hole is the part you start off with, which you clearly know to be a stretch as you keep saying "technically" and "theoretically." The answer is that a creature is a creature, not a flexible container. Creatures and objects being mutually exclusive groups is kind of a basic assumption throughout the entire 5e ruleset. I mean a person could also theoretically be defined as a flammable bag of meat, but that doesn't mean fireball ignites people.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The contents of your bladder, is basically just water until it collects impurities on the way out. We have basically pure water inside of us.
The only part of that spell that precludes it’s use on water occupying the same space as a creature is the freezing, not the moving. So therefore, is that distinction relevant RAW?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
For mechanics purposes in RAW basically water is not enough.
If you asked for water and were given urine someone may be taking the piss.
I mean, RAW you could use the spell to pump water into something's nose until the pressure outside due to the spell matched the pressure coming back out of the nose (i.e. once the target's lungs are full). You don't need to see inside. You only need to see the stream of water you're pumping stright into the nostrils and mouth. Job done.
That'll at least incapacitate something for a while, almost certainly kill it if you stand there re-casting. And anyone trying to cast a verbal-component spell is stuffed.
No.
It's a cantrip. The answer to any "can you do it?" is pretty much: is it reasonable for a cantrip to do that? And in particular for this one: a cantrip without a damage ability.
You can do fun things with water. You can't kill anything, or restrain it, or incapacitate it.
It's one of those open spells that come down to the DM to rule on whether you can do something. It's fun. Defining every little thing you can and cannot do would take pages and pages. Just treat it as a cantrip and go from there.
It's relevant because there is not "water occupying the same space as a creature." There is just a creature there. You can't just decide that you can treat any part of a creature's body as something apart from the creature, especially something that it requires to be a functioning version of said creature.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
My point is though, it isn’t urine. Medically and literally speaking, (the RAW of IRL), the fluid in your bladder is not actually “urine” at all, it’s “urea.” It doesn’t become “urine” until it collects waste chemicals from the kidneys on the way out. Urea is basically just water, (potable and everything). You literally have an entire organ in your body just to collect and store excess water until your body needs it to flush out the junk stuff your body needs to get rid of. Essentially, you have a waterskin in your lower abdomen/pelvis. (Actually, it isn’t “essentially” a waterskin, it’s quite literally a waterskin since they were often made out of animal bladders.) And it’s periodically full of water that is actually a heckufa lot purer than the puddles left after it rains.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
About that should caster be able to cast shape water on water that can't actually be seen, I would say no.
Reasons:
1. To target something [with a spell], you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover (which it is in a barrel example) and area effects wont go around cover unless specifically mentioned (ie in fireball "around the corners")
2. Shape of water specify that you have to see and target water "You choose an area of water that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube"
3. I would say 5 feet cube means just maximum size of water that spell can effect.
Yea I have to agree here. The discussion about "how much water a creature is" is moot because you don't see any of it even if you rule that the creature is enough water (which I'd disagree with quite strongly). And the same goes for caskets, barrels, waterskins or whatever other closed container you might want to target.