Timeline for Can a spell with a target of Self be stored in Glyph of Warding?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2020 at 15:44 | comment | added | TylerH | FWIW sageadvice.eu/2017/12/30/… has been posted with a full explanation -- Jeremy unequivocally says no, this is not possible. | |
| Jul 29, 2020 at 18:00 | comment | added | NathanS | @Sean Edits are not for changing another's answer. You can, however, submit your own answer including that information, just make sure that it is a full answer in its own right, not a "tag on" answer (in other words, imagine if this answer were to be deleted, yours should still stand up as though this answer never existed... if you choose to leave an answer, that it) | |
| Jul 29, 2020 at 16:10 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jul 29, 2020 at 17:59 | |||||
| Jul 29, 2020 at 16:06 | comment | added | Sean | I don't know why this says Crawford didn't give a conclusive answer to this. Here he is stating "No" the ruling for glyph of warding does not override the ruling for the limitations of a self ranged spell. | |
| Feb 7, 2020 at 8:22 | comment | added | Digcoal | Is it possible that casting a spell with a target of “self” means that the Glyph can only be triggered by the spellcaster? For instance, a Glyphed Expeditious Retreat spell could only be triggered by the caster? Or does the trigger have to be set to the caster, otherwise a different creature triggering the spell just causes it to fizzle as another creature is a valid trigger, but not a valid target? | |
| Dec 7, 2018 at 20:31 | comment | added | user47897 | It's clever use of magic so of course he doesn't like it. Crawford's rulings may be official RAW and RAI but that doesn't mean it's the best answer, only the official one. | |
| Dec 7, 2018 at 18:18 | comment | added | GreySage | Q: "There is a specific rule saying one thing, does it apply to X?" JC: "X only works one way, unless there is a specific rule"... thanks Crawford. | |
| Feb 19, 2018 at 16:14 | comment | added | Ryan Vandendyck | Thanks for the formatting! And you are right, sometimes Crawford's tweets are maddeningly unclear when a simple 'Yes' or 'No' would suffice ;) | |
| Feb 19, 2018 at 15:37 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | FWIW, someone can also apply "specific over general" from PHB p. 7 to arrive at the opposite conclusion than you did, given that Crawford wasn't any more specific than that. Thanks for the link, I improved the format a bit so that the summary you provided is in a quote box, and the link is a bit cleaner. | |
| Feb 19, 2018 at 15:35 | history | edited | KorvinStarmast | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 134 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2018 at 0:48 | history | answered | Ryan Vandendyck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |