This may end up being a simple question, but here we go. Can the ring be used to absorb a spell cast at the wearer, then the wearer could turn around and cast it back on their turn. An example would be: enemy mage casts Magic Missle (at its base level) at the character wearing the ring. If they know that was come either due to studying the attack or other means. Could the absorb the spell into the ring, taking no damage, and cast it from the ring on there turn?
No (but the DM could allow it). The ring states that a creature can cast a spell into the ring by touching it. So the conditions are (at least) to be touching the ring.
Awesome! That’s what I read and what I thought, but one of my players thought they found a loophole. I need a second opinion before saying it couldn’t. Thank you!!
It is implied to be a conscious choice "any creature can cast a spell ... into the ring by casting a spell while touching it," not "any creature will..."
I've seen magic items that absorb spells that are cast at the wielder of the magic item by a hostile opponent, one is the Staff of the Magi and it's legendary. The Ring of Spell Storing is only rare so it's not supposed to be powerful enough to absorb hostile spells instead of spells that are intentionally cast into it.
If your player wants a more powerful Ring of Spell Storing, let him create one or hire someone to create one. But it would be a unique item!
You guys are always so helpful! This actually give me options, which I love. It’s nice to let the player feel like they could get what they want with work. Thanks!!! You guys are the best!
Awesome! That’s what I read and what I thought, but one of my players thought they found a loophole. I need a second opinion before saying it couldn’t. Thank you!!
I want to bring up another loophole scenario, just because I am curious.
So, they have to be touching it... are they considered touching it, if you had cut off a finger or something of theirs, and are holding it against the ring? (asking for sake of thoroughness)
Awesome! That’s what I read and what I thought, but one of my players thought they found a loophole. I need a second opinion before saying it couldn’t. Thank you!!
I want to bring up another loophole scenario, just because I am curious.
So, they have to be touching it... are they considered touching it, if you had cut off a finger or something of theirs, and are holding it against the ring? (asking for sake of thoroughness)
No. A severed bit of flesh is not considered to be part of the target anymore. That flesh is still useful for some divination and necromancy magics, but not for being in physical contact with the previous owner of the flesh.
if a finger was all that remains of a character, having been cut off, shortly before the rest of the character was disintegrated... Would you be able to resurrect them from a finger? https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Resurrection#content
essentially... how much of a chunk of a person is needed for the spell storing thing, vs the resurrection thing. They both say creature. Neither says "willing". rule wise... it doesn't seem covered. I get a DM Discretion ruling for why it'd be no. but let's talk pure RAW here. What is preventing it?
if a finger was all that remains of a character, having been cut off, shortly before the rest of the character was disintegrated... Would you be able to resurrect them from a finger? https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Resurrection#content
essentially... how much of a chunk of a person is needed for the spell storing thing, vs the resurrection thing. They both say creature. Neither says "willing". rule wise... it doesn't seem covered. I get a DM Discretion ruling for why it'd be no. but let's talk pure RAW here. What is preventing it?
There is no spell storing thing here; it is the person casting the spell who chooses if it gets stored in the ring, not the person holding the ring (with or without some theoretical severed finger). In a general sense, the severed finger/limb of a creature cannot be used to target or connect to the living creature. Any spell or effect that requires touching a creature is not satisfied by merely touching a dead piece of old flesh when that creature is in fact alive and standing on the far side of the room. One example of a use for the finger is the spell Scrying, which is specifically made stronger when holding such a body part. Resurrection is a different case because the target is a dead body. If all that is left is a finger (and all other requirements are met) then I would argue that is enough for this powerful spell to reconstruct the living creature, but that has no impact on the other situations.
if a finger was all that remains of a character, having been cut off, shortly before the rest of the character was disintegrated... Would you be able to resurrect them from a finger? https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Resurrection#content
essentially... how much of a chunk of a person is needed for the spell storing thing, vs the resurrection thing. They both say creature. Neither says "willing". rule wise... it doesn't seem covered. I get a DM Discretion ruling for why it'd be no. but let's talk pure RAW here. What is preventing it?
There is no spell storing thing here; it is the person casting the spell who chooses if it gets stored in the ring, not the person holding the ring (with or without some theoretical severed finger). In a general sense, the severed finger/limb of a creature cannot be used to target or connect to the living creature. Any spell or effect that requires touching a creature is not satisfied by merely touching a dead piece of old flesh when that creature is in fact alive and standing on the far side of the room. One example of a use for the finger is the spell Scrying, which is specifically made stronger when holding such a body part. Resurrection is a different case because the target is a dead body. If all that is left is a finger (and all other requirements are met) then I would argue that is enough for this powerful spell to reconstruct the living creature, but that has no impact on the other situations.
Regent. You are giving me subjective rulings that you would do. I am asking a question about RAW. Rules as Written. Where does it say the minimum requirement of a person for the resurrection spell to work?
Where does it say the person has to be willing to have the spell stored in the ring of spell storing?
these are RAW questions. Not subjective questions based on how you would personally rule them. Please stay on topic.
The RAW of the ring is written in the description of the ring. It says "Any creature can cast a spell... into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast". That says that a creature can, when casting a spell, choose to cast it into a ring that they are touching. It doesn't say anything else, so that is the only person who can make that choice; not someone holding the ring against the caster or some part of the caster's body.
There is no RAW that I know of which defines a body or a dead creature, nor how much of a body is required to successfully target such a dead creature. However, Resurrection specifically indicates that it "restores any missing body parts" so clearly the entire body is not required. Any DM is thus invited to decide for themselves how much body is required; the head, the heart, at least 50% of body mass, or any fragment - as long as the players are made aware of the decision before it turns into a fight then all is well. If you want more definitive a ruling then feel free to read every word in every book scouring for relevant tidbits, or contact the creators of the game and ask for their ruling.
The RAW of the ring is written in the description of the ring. It says "Any creature can cast a spell... into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast". That says that a creature can, when casting a spell, choose to cast it into a ring that they are touching. It doesn't say anything else, so that is the only person who can make that choice; not someone holding the ring against the caster or some part of the caster's body.
There is no RAW that I know of which defines a body or a dead creature, nor how much of a body is required to successfully target such a dead creature. However, Resurrection specifically indicates that it "restores any missing body parts" so clearly the entire body is not required. Any DM is thus invited to decide for themselves how much body is required; the head, the heart, at least 50% of body mass, or any fragment - as long as the players are made aware of the decision before it turns into a fight then all is well. If you want more definitive a ruling then feel free to read every word in every book scouring for relevant tidbits, or contact the creators of the game and ask for their ruling.
That says "Can" not "Can choose" you are adding in a word you know. edit: wait... No. I think you're right here.
And, I am asking these, to the OP's point, about players trying to find "loopholes" [REDACTED] I am just asking simple questions about RAW. for the sake of those "loophole arguments".
You are responding like you are feeling personally attacked. [Sedge] Then please stop personally attacking.
RAW. the severed finger touching ring of storing. thats a no go. the Resurrection... as a DM, you would personally not allow it, or you would, its up to you, or OP, or me, or anyone, or the creator's discretion. but per the RAW. that is a possible scenario. thats all anyone was asking.
In my opinion which has been previously stated and backed up with arguments, based on my understanding of these rules and the English language, your interpretation of those words is incorrect. Also, based on the tone of the words you directed personally towards me in the last two messages, I find that you are being intentionally obnoxious towards me, and so I'm out.
This may end up being a simple question, but here we go. Can the ring be used to absorb a spell cast at the wearer, then the wearer could turn around and cast it back on their turn. An example would be: enemy mage casts Magic Missle (at its base level) at the character wearing the ring. If they know that was come either due to studying the attack or other means. Could the absorb the spell into the ring, taking no damage, and cast it from the ring on there turn?
No (but the DM could allow it). The ring states that a creature can cast a spell into the ring by touching it. So the conditions are (at least) to be touching the ring.
Awesome! That’s what I read and what I thought, but one of my players thought they found a loophole. I need a second opinion before saying it couldn’t. Thank you!!
It is implied to be a conscious choice "any creature can cast a spell ... into the ring by casting a spell while touching it," not "any creature will..."
I've seen magic items that absorb spells that are cast at the wielder of the magic item by a hostile opponent, one is the Staff of the Magi and it's legendary. The Ring of Spell Storing is only rare so it's not supposed to be powerful enough to absorb hostile spells instead of spells that are intentionally cast into it.
If your player wants a more powerful Ring of Spell Storing, let him create one or hire someone to create one. But it would be a unique item!
Professional computer geek
The rod of absorption has the same spell absorbing effect as the staff of the magi. Notably these items can not copy the spells absorbed by them.
no,
from description "any creature can cast a spell of 1st through 5th into the ring by touching the ring while the spell is cast"
a) "can" indicates the creature chooses to do this or not, regardless of whether the ring is touched.
b) it would be extraordinary to have the target of a spell (the ring wearer) make contact with a an enemy spellcaster "while" the spell is being cast.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
You guys are always so helpful! This actually give me options, which I love. It’s nice to let the player feel like they could get what they want with work. Thanks!!! You guys are the best!
I want to bring up another loophole scenario, just because I am curious.
So, they have to be touching it... are they considered touching it, if you had cut off a finger or something of theirs, and are holding it against the ring? (asking for sake of thoroughness)
Blank
No. A severed bit of flesh is not considered to be part of the target anymore. That flesh is still useful for some divination and necromancy magics, but not for being in physical contact with the previous owner of the flesh.
RegentCorreon.
(sake of throughness)
if a finger was all that remains of a character, having been cut off, shortly before the rest of the character was disintegrated... Would you be able to resurrect them from a finger?
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Resurrection#content
essentially... how much of a chunk of a person is needed for the spell storing thing, vs the resurrection thing. They both say creature. Neither says "willing". rule wise... it doesn't seem covered. I get a DM Discretion ruling for why it'd be no. but let's talk pure RAW here. What is preventing it?
Blank
There is no spell storing thing here; it is the person casting the spell who chooses if it gets stored in the ring, not the person holding the ring (with or without some theoretical severed finger). In a general sense, the severed finger/limb of a creature cannot be used to target or connect to the living creature. Any spell or effect that requires touching a creature is not satisfied by merely touching a dead piece of old flesh when that creature is in fact alive and standing on the far side of the room. One example of a use for the finger is the spell Scrying, which is specifically made stronger when holding such a body part. Resurrection is a different case because the target is a dead body. If all that is left is a finger (and all other requirements are met) then I would argue that is enough for this powerful spell to reconstruct the living creature, but that has no impact on the other situations.
Bolded part.
Where does it say that in the rules?
Blank
Regent. You are giving me subjective rulings that you would do. I am asking a question about RAW. Rules as Written. Where does it say the minimum requirement of a person for the resurrection spell to work?
Where does it say the person has to be willing to have the spell stored in the ring of spell storing?
these are RAW questions. Not subjective questions based on how you would personally rule them. Please stay on topic.
Blank
The RAW of the ring is written in the description of the ring. It says "Any creature can cast a spell... into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast". That says that a creature can, when casting a spell, choose to cast it into a ring that they are touching. It doesn't say anything else, so that is the only person who can make that choice; not someone holding the ring against the caster or some part of the caster's body.
There is no RAW that I know of which defines a body or a dead creature, nor how much of a body is required to successfully target such a dead creature. However, Resurrection specifically indicates that it "restores any missing body parts" so clearly the entire body is not required. Any DM is thus invited to decide for themselves how much body is required; the head, the heart, at least 50% of body mass, or any fragment - as long as the players are made aware of the decision before it turns into a fight then all is well. If you want more definitive a ruling then feel free to read every word in every book scouring for relevant tidbits, or contact the creators of the game and ask for their ruling.
That says "Can" not "Can choose" you are adding in a word you know. edit: wait... No. I think you're right here.
And, I am asking these, to the OP's point, about players trying to find "loopholes" [REDACTED] I am just asking simple questions about RAW. for the sake of those "loophole arguments".
You are responding like you are feeling personally attacked. [Sedge] Then please stop personally attacking.
RAW. the severed finger touching ring of storing. thats a no go. the Resurrection... as a DM, you would personally not allow it, or you would, its up to you, or OP, or me, or anyone, or the creator's discretion. but per the RAW. that is a possible scenario. thats all anyone was asking.
Blank
In my opinion which has been previously stated and backed up with arguments, based on my understanding of these rules and the English language, your interpretation of those words is incorrect. Also, based on the tone of the words you directed personally towards me in the last two messages, I find that you are being intentionally obnoxious towards me, and so I'm out.
What it sounds like they were kind of hoping for, as far as turning the spell back on the caster, is a Ring of Spell Turning.
For everyone's convenience.