Magic circle seems incredibly powerful especially when operated in reverse. I know that it's downside is its casting time, but I feel that operating it in reverse negates most of that. You can easily precast this before a fight and then all celestial, elementals, fey, fiends, and/or undead have disadvantage on all attack rolls as long as you're outside the cylinder. Even better if you manage to lure them into the cylinder, then they can't leave.
Basically, I'm saying that precasting this gets you 2 of 3 bullet points easily with no downside. Am I missing something obvious?
I believe the intention is that the affected creature must be inside the circle to suffer the negative effects when in reverse, but the spell does not specify that because WotC is bad at making rules in 5e.
The creature can't willingly enter the cylinder by nonmagical means. If the creature tries to use teleportation or interplanar travel to do so, it must first succeed on a Charisma saving throw.
The creature has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets within the cylinder.
Targets within the cylinder can't be charmed, frightened, or possessed by the creature.
Reverse:
The creature can't willingly leave the cylinder by nonmagical means. If the creature tries to use teleportation or interplanar travel to do so, it must first succeed on a Charisma saving throw.
The creature [inside the cylinder] has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets outside the cylinder.
Targets outside the cylinder can't be charmed, frightened, or possessed by the creature [inside the cylinder].
I think @DxJxC has it right that it probably is the intent that only creatures inside the circle are affected, but it certainly doesn't say that anywhere. The only problem I see with that interpretation is that the magic circle (not reversed) does nothing against creatures that do successfully enter the circle. Maybe that's also intended, it is only a 3rd-level spell (albeit expensive and time-comsuming).
Can an ally of a creature affected by magic circle just push the creature out/in? That seems cheap, but RAW.
That would break the restriction of the nonmagical means (RAI). However, another creature should be able to create a portal into the affected area, I think.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Semper in faecibus sumus, solum profundum variat" playing since 1986
I think @DxJxC has it right that it probably is the intent that only creatures inside the circle are affected, but it certainly doesn't say that anywhere. The only problem I see with that interpretation is that the magic circle (not reversed) does nothing against creatures that do successfully enter the circle. Maybe that's also intended, it is only a 3rd-level spell (albeit expensive and time-comsuming).
Can an ally of a creature affected by magic circle just push the creature out/in? That seems cheap, but RAW.
If you cast the spell in reverse and a creature is outside the circle, then it is outside the area of effect of the spell. Because of this, if you cast the spell in reverse, the type of creature you have chosen is unaffected by the spell until it enters the circle and then it would not be able to leave the circle. The same is true if you cast the spell normally and select a type of creature that is already inside the circle with you. There is nothing in the spell's description that prevents that creature from leaving, but if it does, it cannot get back in.
By RAW, it would appear an affected creature can be shoved through the circle. All that is prevented is willing movement. But now we're back in the old "what does willing mean?" discussion. Let's say you cast it in reverse and select undead as the affected creature type. The zombie is trapped in the circle and cannot willingly leave. Now let's say a cleric uses their turn undead feature. The zombie is compelled to leave, so can he flee from you through the circle? I would suggest he can, but we have well established than my interpretation of willing movement is one that some others disagree with.
I would probably not treat it that way at my table though.
That would break the restriction of the nonmagical means (RAI). However, another creature should be able to create a portal into the affected area, I think.
If you cast the spell in reverse and a creature is outside the circle, then it is outside the area of effect of the spell. Because of this, if you cast the spell in reverse, the type of creature you have chosen is unaffected by the spell until it enters the circle and then it would not be able to leave the circle. The same is true if you cast the spell normally and select a type of creature that is already inside the circle with you. There is nothing in the spell's description that prevents that creature from leaving, but if it does, it cannot get back in.
I'm not sure that logic holds up. If you cast the spell the "normal" way it affects every creature of the specified types outside of the circle, i.e. outside the "area of effect". That's not to say you are wrong, but that I don't buy that reasoning.
I'm not sure that logic holds up. If you cast the spell the "normal" way it affects every creature of the specified types outside of the circle, i.e. outside the "area of effect". That's not to say you are wrong, but that I don't buy that reasoning.
Maybe it's how I described it. When I read the spell description, I see it setting up an invisible outward-facing force field along the circle. The specified creatures themselves are not affected in any way other than to say they cannot enter the circle or exert their influence into the circle as laid out in the bullet points. You could say that it affects every creature of that type anywhere on the same plane as you, but that's kind of a meaningless distinction, because it only matters in terms of the barrier along the circle.
When you cast it in reverse, the circle is still providing the barrier, but this time, it's inward-facing rather than outward-facing. The intention is clearly to trap a creature inside, but I don't see anything that prevents a creature outside the circle from going into it--just that it would then be trapped inside the circle.
Maybe it's how I described it. When I read the spell description, I see it setting up an invisible outward-facing force field along the circle. The specified creatures themselves are not affected in any way other than to say they cannot enter the circle or exert their influence into the circle as laid out in the bullet points. You could say that it affects every creature of that type anywhere on the same plane as you, but that's kind of a meaningless distinction, because it only matters in terms of the barrier along the circle.
Thanks for explaining your thought process more. Any attacks made against "protected" creatures are made with disadvantage. When you consider ranged attacks, the actual area affected could be huge. So it doesn't only matter for the barrier along the circle.
The intention is clearly to trap a creature inside, but I don't see anything that prevents a creature outside the circle from going into it--just that it would then be trapped inside the circle.
I definitely agree that that is likely the intention, but the text really is poorly written on this spell and in no way conveys that it would be limited to that application.
Maybe it's how I described it. When I read the spell description, I see it setting up an invisible outward-facing force field along the circle. The specified creatures themselves are not affected in any way other than to say they cannot enter the circle or exert their influence into the circle as laid out in the bullet points. You could say that it affects every creature of that type anywhere on the same plane as you, but that's kind of a meaningless distinction, because it only matters in terms of the barrier along the circle.
Thanks for explaining your thought process more. Any attacks made against "protected" creatures are made with disadvantage. When you consider ranged attacks, the actual area affected could be huge. So it doesn't only matter for the barrier along the circle.
I don't think range matters in this case since, again, the circle is the determining factor. Whether it's one creature or a thousand. Whether it's 5 feet away just outside the circle or 100 feet away lobbing eldritch blasts at you. Only attacks made through the barrier are made with disadvantage, right? That's what makes you "protected" I believe. Like, if you cast the spell and then you left the circle, you would no longer be protected by the spell from attacks coming from the specified creature type until you got back into the circle and the attacks came at you again through the barrier.
Just my opinion, but I feel like the text adequately conveys the spell's purpose and only falls apart when one puts it under the microscope of skepticism. That is not to say I don't think you should look at rules with a skeptical eye. It's just that with a great many rules under 5e's simplified rule set, if you look hard enough, you can find a place to pick a nit.
Magic circle seems incredibly powerful especially when operated in reverse. I know that it's downside is its casting time, but I feel that operating it in reverse negates most of that. You can easily precast this before a fight and then all celestial, elementals, fey, fiends, and/or undead have disadvantage on all attack rolls as long as you're outside the cylinder. Even better if you manage to lure them into the cylinder, then they can't leave.
Basically, I'm saying that precasting this gets you 2 of 3 bullet points easily with no downside. Am I missing something obvious?
I believe the intention is that the affected creature must be inside the circle to suffer the negative effects when in reverse, but the spell does not specify that because WotC is bad at making rules in 5e.
Normal:
Reverse:
Right?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think @DxJxC has it right that it probably is the intent that only creatures inside the circle are affected, but it certainly doesn't say that anywhere. The only problem I see with that interpretation is that the magic circle (not reversed) does nothing against creatures that do successfully enter the circle. Maybe that's also intended, it is only a 3rd-level spell (albeit expensive and time-comsuming).
Can an ally of a creature affected by magic circle just push the creature out/in? That seems cheap, but RAW.
That would break the restriction of the nonmagical means (RAI). However, another creature should be able to create a portal into the affected area, I think.
playing since 1986
If you cast the spell in reverse and a creature is outside the circle, then it is outside the area of effect of the spell. Because of this, if you cast the spell in reverse, the type of creature you have chosen is unaffected by the spell until it enters the circle and then it would not be able to leave the circle. The same is true if you cast the spell normally and select a type of creature that is already inside the circle with you. There is nothing in the spell's description that prevents that creature from leaving, but if it does, it cannot get back in.
By RAW, it would appear an affected creature can be shoved through the circle. All that is prevented is willing movement. But now we're back in the old "what does willing mean?" discussion. Let's say you cast it in reverse and select undead as the affected creature type. The zombie is trapped in the circle and cannot willingly leave. Now let's say a cleric uses their turn undead feature. The zombie is compelled to leave, so can he flee from you through the circle? I would suggest he can, but we have well established than my interpretation of willing movement is one that some others disagree with.
I would probably not treat it that way at my table though.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes but it has to be nonmagical and willing.
I'm not sure that logic holds up. If you cast the spell the "normal" way it affects every creature of the specified types outside of the circle, i.e. outside the "area of effect". That's not to say you are wrong, but that I don't buy that reasoning.
Maybe it's how I described it. When I read the spell description, I see it setting up an invisible outward-facing force field along the circle. The specified creatures themselves are not affected in any way other than to say they cannot enter the circle or exert their influence into the circle as laid out in the bullet points. You could say that it affects every creature of that type anywhere on the same plane as you, but that's kind of a meaningless distinction, because it only matters in terms of the barrier along the circle.
When you cast it in reverse, the circle is still providing the barrier, but this time, it's inward-facing rather than outward-facing. The intention is clearly to trap a creature inside, but I don't see anything that prevents a creature outside the circle from going into it--just that it would then be trapped inside the circle.
That's how I read the spell at least.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Thanks for explaining your thought process more. Any attacks made against "protected" creatures are made with disadvantage. When you consider ranged attacks, the actual area affected could be huge. So it doesn't only matter for the barrier along the circle.
I definitely agree that that is likely the intention, but the text really is poorly written on this spell and in no way conveys that it would be limited to that application.
I don't think range matters in this case since, again, the circle is the determining factor. Whether it's one creature or a thousand. Whether it's 5 feet away just outside the circle or 100 feet away lobbing eldritch blasts at you. Only attacks made through the barrier are made with disadvantage, right? That's what makes you "protected" I believe. Like, if you cast the spell and then you left the circle, you would no longer be protected by the spell from attacks coming from the specified creature type until you got back into the circle and the attacks came at you again through the barrier.
Just my opinion, but I feel like the text adequately conveys the spell's purpose and only falls apart when one puts it under the microscope of skepticism. That is not to say I don't think you should look at rules with a skeptical eye. It's just that with a great many rules under 5e's simplified rule set, if you look hard enough, you can find a place to pick a nit.
"Not all those who wander are lost"