#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
5E: A Rod of Absorption versus cantrips
__________________
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
My reading leans toward 2...
You can absorb an unlimited number of cantrips...but it absorbs the total 50 levels of spells (from other spells) it completely stops working - it cannot even absorb cantrips. -me
__________________
Just started a new job. Working on getting my time straight. |
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
Personally, I'd rule it that the rod can absorb unlimited cantrips while it still has space, but once it has absorbed enough higher level spells to be full, it cannot even hold a cantrip.
__________________
If I could be an expert in just one arcane and madness inducing field of study, it would be you. |
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
__________________
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
The reason for the ruling that it does work when full is the following...
Quote:
-me
__________________
Just started a new job. Working on getting my time straight. |
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
I agree that is probably the implicit intent of the game designers. I'm referring to the explicit meaning of the word 'more'. (50 + 0 = 50). Adding zero energy levels to 50 energy levels is adding nothing, it is not adding more energy levels. I don't mean one ruling is right and the other is wrong, only that the ruling is a matter of interpretive literary approach. 'What did the writer mean and intend' versus 'what do the bare words mean, in and of themselves?' You can get a different answer, depending on how you look at it. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Thanks again for the input. Cheers.
__________________
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
crap...does not.
Final decision on that would come down to the GM. -me
__________________
Just started a new job. Working on getting my time straight. |
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
My understanding would be that it's akin to a book of spells. Even the level 0 spells require 1 pages. So even a cantrip should require one "slot"
__________________
New? Try a New Player Solo Game! Adventures in Greyhawk Slowly resuming normal check-ins. Happy New Year, everyone! |
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
The fact that you are eating up your reaction for the round to counter a single cantrip of a particular type, makes me feel like it often would not even be worth doing due to the action economy cost. Plenty of reaction spells would be better off. Due to that, as a DM, I would have no issue letting the rod easy those spells even if it was full of charges.
You could argue that the last line means RAW, it never absorbs cantrips, because it can't store them.
__________________
Last edited by Bhelogan; Sep 26th, 2018 at 06:33 PM. |
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
__________________
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Previously they state "The spell's energy - not the spell itself - is stored in the rod". It's really clear that the act of absorbing energy is what nullifies the spell. It's like, if Mario throws a fireball at you, and you have a magic stick that absorbs heat, you can absorb all the heat from the fireball to render it ineffective, quenching the flame. If Mario throws a rock at you, and you use your magic stick that absorbs heat, it doesn't matter. It is a rock. It does not require heat to do it's job. Likewise the cantrips do not require any energy to do what they do, so trying to nullify them by removing their energy is ineffective. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|