Having a think about different spells and how they are sometimes worded with a slight hint (sarcasm) of ambiguity, can that wording be used to your advantage?
Create-or-destroy-water - Destroy Water. You destroy up to 10 gallons of water in an open container within range. Alternatively, you destroy fog in a 30-foot cube within range.
Specifically the Destroy part of this spell, would a creature/person/enemy be classed as an open container if they have a mouth? I mean how much water is in the average body 60-70%, 10 gallons is a quite a bit isn't it? A 1st level spell that can desiccate an enemy on the spot would be quite cool.
To be fair you could also use the create side to drown an enemy by filling their lungs with water!
Can anybody come up with other creative ways to use spells, that may with a little DM negotiation be allowed to be used?
You have to be able to see the inside of the container, else it has total cover and cannot be targeted by a spell.
I feel there has been more argument as to whether this would work or not. And thanks to all for the comments, but this was more a just for fun thing.
What are the more ambiguously written spells where with some creative negotiations with your DM you could change and effectively take a 1st level spell and turn it into something more powerful?
I feel there has been more argument as to whether this would work or not. And thanks to all for the comments, but this was more a just for fun thing.
What are the more ambiguously written spells where with some creative negotiations with your DM you could change and effectively take a 1st level spell and turn it into something more powerful?
The spell description does not, however ALL spells which have a target follow this rule from the PHB:
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
I would not allow you to use shape water to make any sort of weapon.
It's made of ice at best. Ice is fragile, especially ice thing enough to be used as a stabbing weapon...
At best, you could make an improvised weapon of ice that deals 1d4 bludgeoning and shatters on impact.
My argument to this:
look up how many people die each winter impaled by icicles. Not all of those are as thick as a tree. It doesn’t matter if the fragile ice breaks after impaling an object.
another cool spell is shield of faith stops invisible nonsense for the cost of a 1st level spell slot and your bonus action.
What? No it doesn't. Not at all.
read the spell it creates a shimmering shield around a creature of your choice since it is around its not worn so the shield is visible
Yes, the flavor text says that. Flavor text has no bearing on game mechanics. Shield of Faith in no way, shape, or form says anything about removing the invisible condition from a creature, nor preventing them from benefiting from the condition.
Only spells/abilites that actually remove or prevent someone from benefiting from a condition (such as Faerie Fire) actually affect the condition. Shield of Faith does not do this. Even if a DM were to "rule" that they are now "visible," it wouldn't matter mechanically, because they are still gaining the full benefits of the invisible condition.
another cool spell is shield of faith stops invisible nonsense for the cost of a 1st level spell slot and your bonus action.
What? No it doesn't. Not at all.
read the spell it creates a shimmering shield around a creature of your choice since it is around its not worn so the shield is visible
Yes, the flavor text says that. Flavor text has no bearing on game mechanics. Shield of Faith in no way, shape, or form says anything about removing the invisible condition from a creature, nor preventing them from benefiting from the condition.
Only spells/abilites that actually remove or prevent someone from benefiting from a condition (such as Faerie Fire) actually affect the condition. Shield of Faith does not do this. Even if a DM were to "rule" that they are now "visible," it wouldn't matter mechanically, because they are still gaining the full benefits of the invisible condition.
it still indicates where they are so they are no longer hidden. They would still be invisible but no more guessing which square they are in.
Also as crawford has stated there is no flavor text in 5e the spell does everything in its description
Which changes nothing. Still attack the creature at a disadvantage, because it is still invisible, and the creature gets a +2 to it's AC since the spell was cast on it.
Note, if the creature was invisible to begin with, the caster couldn't cast shield of faith on the creature to begin with, targeting rules still apply.
it still indicates where they are so they are no longer hidden. They would still be invisible but no more guessing which square they are in.
Also as crawford has stated there is no flavor text in 5e the spell does everything in its description
First of all, being invisible doesn't automatically make you hidden. You have to take the Hide action to become hidden; being invisible just allows you to do that out in the open. Unless you take the hide action, everyone knows your location whether you're invisible or not.
Secondly, no, it wouldn't. If they're both invisible and hidden from you, you don't know where they are to cast the spell on them. You can guess, but good luck. Moot point anyway, because: if they're invisible and you know where they are (they aren't hiding), then you can cast it on them because Shield of Faith does not require sight to cast, but all you're doing is giving them the +2 AC. You are not removing the invisible condition from them, and you are not preventing them from taking the hide action in any way, because the spell doesn't say anything about doing either of those things.
Also as crawford has stated there is no flavor text in 5e the spell does everything in its description
Well, that's great for Mister Crawford, but that's nonsense. There's a lot of flavor text that conflicts with the rules, and much of it is just nods to archaic versions of DnD. Just look at Burning Hands for example. If one actually had to follow the flavor text, it would be a completely useless spell.
Of course everyone is correct about spells only do what they say they do, the invisible creature is still invisible, they are still unseen and can hide, yada yada... but if we're going to play in a system where knowing what square someone is in has value, even if they are invisible and/or hidden, then 1stson is correct that spells which create visual effects around the creature might have some use in edge situations. As you point out, if you know what square a creature is in, you can cast Shield of Faith on them even if you can't see them. Nothing about Invisible or the benefits of Hiding provide that you can no longer be targeted by spells. So in the even where the caster knows where the invisible creature is, and wants to pin a visual effect to them so that they or their party can continue to easily tell what square they're in even while they remain Invisible and/or Hidden, then casting Shield of Faith to create a "shimmering field" in their space is just so crazy it might work. It isn't just flavor text, it is just as real of an effect as everything described in Prestidigitation or any other spell, and using it to highlight an invisible creature is certainly a creative use of that effect.
Sure, realistically that would work, absolutely. It's not even "so crazy it might work," as you say. It just makes sense.
But this isn't reality, this is a game. Conditions are a mechanic and they have effects, and the only way to remove those conditions and their effects is with things that explicitly say they do so. Shield of Faith does not say anything of the sort, and that's all there is to it. Visual effect on them or not, they're still invisible, and they can still hide, and that flavorful shimmering doesn't stop or prevent any of that. Play how you want, of course, but following RAW that's how it is, and I'm personally not one for allowing game rules to be affected by wishful thinking.
I don't know how you can say it's not flavor text. It absolutely is. A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the duration. This is flavor, this is affect. Comparing it to Prestidigitation is silly. That part I italicized would be the equivalent of the line "This spell is a minor magical trick that novice spellcasters use for practice" at the start of Prestidigitation, not the actual effects that are listed.
Now, I'm not telling anyone to ignore flavor when it comes to story telling, but it shouldn't have an impact on actual game mechanics. The shimmering field caused by Shield of Faith can make for some interesting RP, or even description, but it absolutely shouldn't be able to override a condition.
Can you quote to anything in any of the rule books suggesting that only some of a spell's description is an effect? I can say it isn't flavor text because there's nothing in any of the ruleboooks suggesting that there is such a thing as flavor text meant to be disregarded as a spell effect, especially when it comes to describing the visually perceptible effects of spellcasting. Shield of Faith (1) creates a shimmering field, and (2) grants an AC bonus. That shimmering field is no more speculative or fluff-y than any other spell effect that doesn't provide a direct numerical bonus... is a Fireball invisible even thought it tells us it is a "bright streak that flashes from your finger," is it silent despite being described as creating "a low roar"? Bless provides a bonus to a creature but doesn't claim to create a "shimmering field" or any other visual effect, but Shield of Faith does, it isn't a given that every spell will contain the sort of language you're claiming is nothing more than "flavor." A player that wanted to secretly have Shield of Faith up on themself when they walked into a tense meeting would be hard pressed to argue to their DM that the spell doesn't create a visual spell effect since it says it does. The PHB Chapter 10 tells us that "perceptible effects" are something with a great deal of rules significance, so I'm not sure why I would think that "absolutely" we should disregard the part of a spell which describes what its perceptible visual effect is. Some spells like Bless don't describe any particular sensory effect, others like Shield of Faith do, and either way, the spells 'do what they say they do.'
The question of "what happens when a creature is invisible and hidden, but is leaving some other clue to their location?" is not something that isn't already very much at issue with the rules of hiding. Tracks, odors, a cloud of buzzing flies following the character... there's lots of ways that a creature can be invisible (or invisible and hidden) but nevertheless giving away their location, and it isn't asking a DM to do mental gymnastics to treat this situation in a similar fashion. The creature is invisible, but anyone who pays enough attention to look for the shimmering field should be able to figure out which square to target.
It would seem to me, based upon questions in these forums, the most CREATIVE way to use a spell is to use it as RAW... Since it seems that folks want to do anything with a spell OTHER than what the spell says you can actually do with it.
And Chicken, nowhere does Invisible say others don't know what square the invisible creature is in, that requires Hide. Invisible can Hide in plain sight. Nothing in Shield of Faith's description alludes that would not still be the case. Surrounds? At what distance, lots of room there. Shimmering does not state the shimmering is visible or not. Per the actual definition of shimmering, it requires something opaque or reflective for the light interaction effect to occur in the first place. You can cast Shield of Faith on an invisible creature, anything attacking that creature has disadvantage and has to hit an AC two higher than normal for that creature. Unless the attacking creature has some other way of overcoming the invisible condition.
You have to be able to see the inside of the container, else it has total cover and cannot be targeted by a spell.
The spell doesn't say you have to see the water.
I feel there has been more argument as to whether this would work or not. And thanks to all for the comments, but this was more a just for fun thing.
What are the more ambiguously written spells where with some creative negotiations with your DM you could change and effectively take a 1st level spell and turn it into something more powerful?
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
Creating a horizontal portal underneath the feet of an enemy towards the middle of a lake once did the trick for me.
As did emptying a bottle water on the stairs in combo with a cone of cold.
Plate armor does have some disadvantages
playing since 1986
The spell description does not, however ALL spells which have a target follow this rule from the PHB:
The body is not a vessel either. Not including unofficial “vessel” subclass nonsense.
all use of vessel in PhB and DMG and etc. specifically deal with water vehicles, aka ships/boats.
Lucky for us. They spell out specific things as containers. So you know what a container is, and there’s no confusion.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment?filter-search=Container&filter-cost-min=&filter-cost-max=&filter-weight-min=&filter-weight-max=
from backpack to water skin: see what is considered a container.
Blank
My argument to this:
look up how many people die each winter impaled by icicles. Not all of those are as thick as a tree. It doesn’t matter if the fragile ice breaks after impaling an object.
Blank
use Tasha's hideous laughter. during a funeral. do it just after the cause of death has been reviled.
"so-and-so was eaten by an Owlbear" "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
blood in cells has a lot of iron in it. make someone's cells melt with heat metal
please reread your physics, chemistry and biology schoolbooks
playing since 1986
What? No it doesn't. Not at all.
read the spell it creates a shimmering shield around a creature of your choice since it is around its not worn so the shield is visible
So you give the creature +2 AC and anyone attacking the creatures rolls at disadvantage while it is invisible. Creature is still heavily obscured.
See what it DOES NOT say is that it makes the creature visible.
Yes, the flavor text says that. Flavor text has no bearing on game mechanics. Shield of Faith in no way, shape, or form says anything about removing the invisible condition from a creature, nor preventing them from benefiting from the condition.
Only spells/abilites that actually remove or prevent someone from benefiting from a condition (such as Faerie Fire) actually affect the condition. Shield of Faith does not do this. Even if a DM were to "rule" that they are now "visible," it wouldn't matter mechanically, because they are still gaining the full benefits of the invisible condition.
it still indicates where they are so they are no longer hidden. They would still be invisible but no more guessing which square they are in.
Also as crawford has stated there is no flavor text in 5e the spell does everything in its description
Which changes nothing. Still attack the creature at a disadvantage, because it is still invisible, and the creature gets a +2 to it's AC since the spell was cast on it.
Note, if the creature was invisible to begin with, the caster couldn't cast shield of faith on the creature to begin with, targeting rules still apply.
First of all, being invisible doesn't automatically make you hidden. You have to take the Hide action to become hidden; being invisible just allows you to do that out in the open. Unless you take the hide action, everyone knows your location whether you're invisible or not.
Secondly, no, it wouldn't. If they're both invisible and hidden from you, you don't know where they are to cast the spell on them. You can guess, but good luck. Moot point anyway, because: if they're invisible and you know where they are (they aren't hiding), then you can cast it on them because Shield of Faith does not require sight to cast, but all you're doing is giving them the +2 AC. You are not removing the invisible condition from them, and you are not preventing them from taking the hide action in any way, because the spell doesn't say anything about doing either of those things.
Shield of Faith can no more remove/inhibit the effects of the invisible condition than it can the paralyzed, poisoned, blinded, etc. conditions.
Edit:
Well, that's great for Mister Crawford, but that's nonsense. There's a lot of flavor text that conflicts with the rules, and much of it is just nods to archaic versions of DnD. Just look at Burning Hands for example. If one actually had to follow the flavor text, it would be a completely useless spell.
Of course everyone is correct about spells only do what they say they do, the invisible creature is still invisible, they are still unseen and can hide, yada yada... but if we're going to play in a system where knowing what square someone is in has value, even if they are invisible and/or hidden, then 1stson is correct that spells which create visual effects around the creature might have some use in edge situations. As you point out, if you know what square a creature is in, you can cast Shield of Faith on them even if you can't see them. Nothing about Invisible or the benefits of Hiding provide that you can no longer be targeted by spells. So in the even where the caster knows where the invisible creature is, and wants to pin a visual effect to them so that they or their party can continue to easily tell what square they're in even while they remain Invisible and/or Hidden, then casting Shield of Faith to create a "shimmering field" in their space is just so crazy it might work. It isn't just flavor text, it is just as real of an effect as everything described in Prestidigitation or any other spell, and using it to highlight an invisible creature is certainly a creative use of that effect.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sure, realistically that would work, absolutely. It's not even "so crazy it might work," as you say. It just makes sense.
But this isn't reality, this is a game. Conditions are a mechanic and they have effects, and the only way to remove those conditions and their effects is with things that explicitly say they do so. Shield of Faith does not say anything of the sort, and that's all there is to it. Visual effect on them or not, they're still invisible, and they can still hide, and that flavorful shimmering doesn't stop or prevent any of that. Play how you want, of course, but following RAW that's how it is, and I'm personally not one for allowing game rules to be affected by wishful thinking.
I don't know how you can say it's not flavor text. It absolutely is. A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the duration. This is flavor, this is affect. Comparing it to Prestidigitation is silly. That part I italicized would be the equivalent of the line "This spell is a minor magical trick that novice spellcasters use for practice" at the start of Prestidigitation, not the actual effects that are listed.
Now, I'm not telling anyone to ignore flavor when it comes to story telling, but it shouldn't have an impact on actual game mechanics. The shimmering field caused by Shield of Faith can make for some interesting RP, or even description, but it absolutely shouldn't be able to override a condition.
Can you quote to anything in any of the rule books suggesting that only some of a spell's description is an effect? I can say it isn't flavor text because there's nothing in any of the ruleboooks suggesting that there is such a thing as flavor text meant to be disregarded as a spell effect, especially when it comes to describing the visually perceptible effects of spellcasting. Shield of Faith (1) creates a shimmering field, and (2) grants an AC bonus. That shimmering field is no more speculative or fluff-y than any other spell effect that doesn't provide a direct numerical bonus... is a Fireball invisible even thought it tells us it is a "bright streak that flashes from your finger," is it silent despite being described as creating "a low roar"? Bless provides a bonus to a creature but doesn't claim to create a "shimmering field" or any other visual effect, but Shield of Faith does, it isn't a given that every spell will contain the sort of language you're claiming is nothing more than "flavor." A player that wanted to secretly have Shield of Faith up on themself when they walked into a tense meeting would be hard pressed to argue to their DM that the spell doesn't create a visual spell effect since it says it does. The PHB Chapter 10 tells us that "perceptible effects" are something with a great deal of rules significance, so I'm not sure why I would think that "absolutely" we should disregard the part of a spell which describes what its perceptible visual effect is. Some spells like Bless don't describe any particular sensory effect, others like Shield of Faith do, and either way, the spells 'do what they say they do.'
The question of "what happens when a creature is invisible and hidden, but is leaving some other clue to their location?" is not something that isn't already very much at issue with the rules of hiding. Tracks, odors, a cloud of buzzing flies following the character... there's lots of ways that a creature can be invisible (or invisible and hidden) but nevertheless giving away their location, and it isn't asking a DM to do mental gymnastics to treat this situation in a similar fashion. The creature is invisible, but anyone who pays enough attention to look for the shimmering field should be able to figure out which square to target.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It would seem to me, based upon questions in these forums, the most CREATIVE way to use a spell is to use it as RAW... Since it seems that folks want to do anything with a spell OTHER than what the spell says you can actually do with it.
And Chicken, nowhere does Invisible say others don't know what square the invisible creature is in, that requires Hide. Invisible can Hide in plain sight. Nothing in Shield of Faith's description alludes that would not still be the case. Surrounds? At what distance, lots of room there. Shimmering does not state the shimmering is visible or not. Per the actual definition of shimmering, it requires something opaque or reflective for the light interaction effect to occur in the first place. You can cast Shield of Faith on an invisible creature, anything attacking that creature has disadvantage and has to hit an AC two higher than normal for that creature. Unless the attacking creature has some other way of overcoming the invisible condition.