But during their battle, the party wizard cast mind spike on the bbeg. Mind spike, being a divination spell, should not be able to target the BBEG as per the amulet's description, but then I started to think what that entails, being unable to become a target of a spell.
The question I posed to myself was, is the spell simply wasted, or can the wizard choose a different target. Because what does it entail to be the target of a spell. If the amulet had said that it protected the wearer from the effects of divination magic it would be a no-brainer in my mind, but with the wording as it is, I became a bit confused.
So what do you people think? Should the wizard been able to change her target, or would the spell simply have fizzled?
The item makes you immune to divination magic, and Mind Spike is a divination spell. You don't get a spell slot back just because it didn't work - nor do you get to rework it. If you cast Scorching Ray at a target immune to fire you don't get to redirect the bolts or get your spell slot back, so it would work the same here.
The spell fizzles and now you know there's probably no point trying again.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I’m gonna disagree with the above because the amulet’s effect is that the wearer cannot even be [i]targeted[/i] by divination magic. Since the wizard can’t target the BBEG, it’s not that the spell doesn’t work; it’s that she just can’t cast the spell at all. No spell slot expended, no action taken.
It would be the same as not having line of sight. If a player tries to cast a spell on something they can’t target, the GM ought to politely inform them that they can’t choose that target and invite them to choose another target or another action. I’m sure it’s within the rules for the GM to rule the attempt itself a full action and say the action is wasted, but that’d be a major dick move, and the rules as written still wouldn’t justify the expenditure of a spell slot if it were a spell that cost such.
I have to agree with SagaTympana, especially given the example about line of sight.
Like you said, the amulet doesnt protect from effects, it prevents targeting; so consider if it was a ranged weapon attack and total cover: the wizard not being able to target is equal to not being able to see, and they would sense that while they 'know' the creature is there, they wouldnt be able to focus their magic upon them.
That is the point where I got stuck, because in my mind, how would it world fluff-wise for the character to not be able to target a creature it normally can target, without just automatically knowing that he is untargetable, and how does that manifest for the characters.
I have now found the following section in Xanathar's, which would help in the future.
Invalid Spell Targets
A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn’t a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.
So by that definition, the spell slot would be expended since the character (Wizard) has no way of knowing that the BBEG is untargetable by the spell, and as such, they would cast it, but it would fizzle. Or at least, that's my conclusion to that passage.
That Xanathar's text make more sense to me than the BBEG being counted an untargetable. B/c the creature casting Mind Spike did not know that the intended target had this amulet, the creature tried using the spell. That attempt costs an action and a spell slot. That cost is not entirely wasted, though. Now the party knows that the BBEG has an item that blocks either mind-affecting spells or divination spells.
It would work the same way as a warlock pointing their eldritch blast at a door. The spell can't be cast because it doesn't have a target (eldritch blast can only target creatures).
In this case, the wizard might start to cast MindSpike at the BBEG and discover that the magic wouldn't respond for some reason so he could do something else. The time used discovering they can't cast the spell is small enough to not waste their turn (DM call on how you want to run it but RAW the spell doesn't have a valid target so it isn't cast, doesn't take an action and doesn't use a spell slot - but it is up to you since as far as I know the books don't go into how long it would take or whether you'd have to use an action if you try to cast a spell without a valid target). The wizard would learn that, for whatever reason, the BBEG is not a valid target for that spell.
It would work the same way as a warlock pointing their eldritch blast at a door. The spell can't be cast because it doesn't have a target (eldritch blast can only target creatures).
Lvl 1 warlock tries to blast open a door with EB, finds out he can't, a couple hours later a door (mimic) attacks him when he tries to open it, the rest of his life he tries to blast open every door he meets.
That Xanathar's text make more sense to me than the BBEG being counted an untargetable. B/c the creature casting Mind Spike did not know that the intended target had this amulet, the creature tried using the spell. That attempt costs an action and a spell slot. That cost is not entirely wasted, though. Now the party knows that the BBEG has an item that blocks either mind-affecting spells or divination spells.
I don't think that makes a lot of sense in the context of the magic item. It doesn't make you an invalid target for divination magic the way an undead is an invalid target for charm person, as in the Xanathar's example. It makes you fundamentally untargetable by divination magic, which is an important distinction.
The wizard would begin to cast the spell but immediately realize that she cannot focus her magic on the wearer. If you can't choose a target, you can't cast the spell. If you can't cast the spell, you can't spend a spell slot (Mind Spike is a cantrip anyway, but for any arbitrary divination spell, etc etc).
Relevant to the "rules" part of this being the "rule and game mechanics" forum, anything in Xanathar's Guide is inherently an option. I'm not sure I really agree with it as a general thing*, but even if taken as read, I still think the situation here is substantively different from the example given. The amulet creates a blind spot to divination magic, a space that is noticeable by its absence from "sight." That's narratively cool, and mechanically a special case.
*The part I most strongly disagree with is that the caster should think the target succeeded on its saving throw. That doesn't really seem to serve any purpose other than to give the GM a rules-justified reason to unfairly deceive players. If you try to cast charm person on my secret vampire, I should tell you that the spell doesn't work. Not that the target resisted the spell, but that the spell doesn't work. Then you can do whatever to figure out why, but that's important information that the caster deserves to know and that they should know based on how magic seems to work narratively.
The reason that the spell doesn't work like it is expected, though, is not because of a creature type or something that reasonably seasoned D&D players would know about. Perhaps my opinion sounds a bit harsh, but if the tables were turned and a BBEG was trying to cast Mind Spike on a PC with this amulet (b/c they don't know about it's presence) shouldn't the action to cast it still get spent? I'm not arguing for anything that would kill or even seriously impair the party here. This isn't some houserule that the DM made up on the spot or secretly kept from the party. I'm just stating that the DM has reasonable justification to treat this as a war situation on an even playing field. Both sides can do things to prepare for combat, and it seems to me that if the PCs don't bother to gather much intel on the BBEG before confronting them, this kind of thing is likely to happen. In war, not everything is about who has the bigger or better equipped army. History has demonstrated that deception and the clever use of unconventional weapons have often turned the tide in seemingly insurmountable circumstances. Unless the DM is trying to coddle the players, that should apply both ways.
I stumbled upon something the other evening which I became unsure of how to rule.
The BBEG had an Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location around his neck, doing its usual thing of protecting him against divination magic.
But during their battle, the party wizard cast mind spike on the bbeg. Mind spike, being a divination spell, should not be able to target the BBEG as per the amulet's description, but then I started to think what that entails, being unable to become a target of a spell.
The question I posed to myself was, is the spell simply wasted, or can the wizard choose a different target. Because what does it entail to be the target of a spell. If the amulet had said that it protected the wearer from the effects of divination magic it would be a no-brainer in my mind, but with the wording as it is, I became a bit confused.
So what do you people think? Should the wizard been able to change her target, or would the spell simply have fizzled?
The item makes you immune to divination magic, and Mind Spike is a divination spell. You don't get a spell slot back just because it didn't work - nor do you get to rework it. If you cast Scorching Ray at a target immune to fire you don't get to redirect the bolts or get your spell slot back, so it would work the same here.
The spell fizzles and now you know there's probably no point trying again.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I’m gonna disagree with the above because the amulet’s effect is that the wearer cannot even be [i]targeted[/i] by divination magic. Since the wizard can’t target the BBEG, it’s not that the spell doesn’t work; it’s that she just can’t cast the spell at all. No spell slot expended, no action taken.
It would be the same as not having line of sight. If a player tries to cast a spell on something they can’t target, the GM ought to politely inform them that they can’t choose that target and invite them to choose another target or another action. I’m sure it’s within the rules for the GM to rule the attempt itself a full action and say the action is wasted, but that’d be a major dick move, and the rules as written still wouldn’t justify the expenditure of a spell slot if it were a spell that cost such.
I have to agree with SagaTympana, especially given the example about line of sight.
Like you said, the amulet doesnt protect from effects, it prevents targeting; so consider if it was a ranged weapon attack and total cover: the wizard not being able to target is equal to not being able to see, and they would sense that while they 'know' the creature is there, they wouldnt be able to focus their magic upon them.
That is the point where I got stuck, because in my mind, how would it world fluff-wise for the character to not be able to target a creature it normally can target, without just automatically knowing that he is untargetable, and how does that manifest for the characters.
I have now found the following section in Xanathar's, which would help in the future.
Invalid Spell Targets
A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn’t a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.
If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.
So by that definition, the spell slot would be expended since the character (Wizard) has no way of knowing that the BBEG is untargetable by the spell, and as such, they would cast it, but it would fizzle. Or at least, that's my conclusion to that passage.
That Xanathar's text make more sense to me than the BBEG being counted an untargetable. B/c the creature casting Mind Spike did not know that the intended target had this amulet, the creature tried using the spell. That attempt costs an action and a spell slot. That cost is not entirely wasted, though. Now the party knows that the BBEG has an item that blocks either mind-affecting spells or divination spells.
It would work the same way as a warlock pointing their eldritch blast at a door. The spell can't be cast because it doesn't have a target (eldritch blast can only target creatures).
In this case, the wizard might start to cast MindSpike at the BBEG and discover that the magic wouldn't respond for some reason so he could do something else. The time used discovering they can't cast the spell is small enough to not waste their turn (DM call on how you want to run it but RAW the spell doesn't have a valid target so it isn't cast, doesn't take an action and doesn't use a spell slot - but it is up to you since as far as I know the books don't go into how long it would take or whether you'd have to use an action if you try to cast a spell without a valid target). The wizard would learn that, for whatever reason, the BBEG is not a valid target for that spell.
Lvl 1 warlock tries to blast open a door with EB, finds out he can't, a couple hours later a door (mimic) attacks him when he tries to open it, the rest of his life he tries to blast open every door he meets.
I don't think that makes a lot of sense in the context of the magic item. It doesn't make you an invalid target for divination magic the way an undead is an invalid target for charm person, as in the Xanathar's example. It makes you fundamentally untargetable by divination magic, which is an important distinction.
The wizard would begin to cast the spell but immediately realize that she cannot focus her magic on the wearer. If you can't choose a target, you can't cast the spell. If you can't cast the spell, you can't spend a spell slot (Mind Spike is a cantrip anyway, but for any arbitrary divination spell, etc etc).
Relevant to the "rules" part of this being the "rule and game mechanics" forum, anything in Xanathar's Guide is inherently an option. I'm not sure I really agree with it as a general thing*, but even if taken as read, I still think the situation here is substantively different from the example given. The amulet creates a blind spot to divination magic, a space that is noticeable by its absence from "sight." That's narratively cool, and mechanically a special case.
*The part I most strongly disagree with is that the caster should think the target succeeded on its saving throw. That doesn't really seem to serve any purpose other than to give the GM a rules-justified reason to unfairly deceive players. If you try to cast charm person on my secret vampire, I should tell you that the spell doesn't work. Not that the target resisted the spell, but that the spell doesn't work. Then you can do whatever to figure out why, but that's important information that the caster deserves to know and that they should know based on how magic seems to work narratively.
The reason that the spell doesn't work like it is expected, though, is not because of a creature type or something that reasonably seasoned D&D players would know about. Perhaps my opinion sounds a bit harsh, but if the tables were turned and a BBEG was trying to cast Mind Spike on a PC with this amulet (b/c they don't know about it's presence) shouldn't the action to cast it still get spent? I'm not arguing for anything that would kill or even seriously impair the party here. This isn't some houserule that the DM made up on the spot or secretly kept from the party. I'm just stating that the DM has reasonable justification to treat this as a war situation on an even playing field. Both sides can do things to prepare for combat, and it seems to me that if the PCs don't bother to gather much intel on the BBEG before confronting them, this kind of thing is likely to happen. In war, not everything is about who has the bigger or better equipped army. History has demonstrated that deception and the clever use of unconventional weapons have often turned the tide in seemingly insurmountable circumstances. Unless the DM is trying to coddle the players, that should apply both ways.