The spell glyph says it can only affect spells that can affect one or more targets or an area. It also provides explanation for how it works with summoning and 'dangerous object' making spells. As far as I can tell, summoning spells don't generally affect a target (unless the summon counts? That would require target to mean different things in different parts of the spell text) or an area (summon swarm being a notable exception) and the kind of spells I'd want to use to make 'traps' don't either. How does this work?
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
1
asked May 10, 2015 at 0:11
-
\$\begingroup\$ are you looking for suggestions of spells you can cast? What level(s)? What exactly is your question? \$\endgroup\$– PurpleVermontMay 10, 2015 at 1:49
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
1
As far as I can tell, there aren't currently any spells that would be affected by this clause in Glyph of Warding. It's likely that this caveat is in the spell description purely as a precaution, as explained by SevenSidedDie.
However, there is at least one spell that targets a single creature but can also potentially create a creature: Finger of Death. It isn't affected by this clause because it only creates a creature if it kills its single target, but it at least creates a precedent for spells that create or summon creatures as side effects of a spell with the required targeting.
For that matter, there are a lot of spells that blur the distinction between "targeting an area" and "creating a harmful object". For example, Evard's Black Tentacles affects an area, but it creates a harmful object (well, lots of them). A case could be made that all it's doing is creating the tentacles, and the area affected isn't the "target", or that the area is the target and the tentacles are just the effect on the target.
Note: the next section is purely my opinion. Feel free to ignore it completely.
I suspect the intent behind this is also meant to allow for spells like Spiritual Weapon, Mordenkainen's Sword, and possibly even Bigby's Hand that create a single-target-attacking object. By strict RAW, you probably can't actually do this, though.
-
2\$\begingroup\$ OOH! I like that! So if you Glyph of Warding Evard's Black Tentacles they might only grab at the target (as harmful objects). That's a cool way of understanding it, and I guess Stoneshape and stuff could work that way too (making a pit centered on the target or something). So when you use an area spell to make a trap/harmful object/creature, then this stuff comes into play. \$\endgroup\$ May 10, 2015 at 2:19
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
5
They're just covering their bases for all circumstances that might come up, within the existing list of spells or homebrew.
The requirement is hard and clear: to store a spell in a spell glyph,
The spell must target a single creature or an area.
If you can find a spell that does that, you're in the clear.
The passage that talks about summons or dangerous objects simply establishes that, if the spell creates hazardous conditions, they're centred on the triggering creature rather than their location being left undefined or up to the DM.
answered May 10, 2015 at 0:26
-
\$\begingroup\$ But why would it say that? It doesn't seem to make very much sense to make rules for cases that aren't allowed. We do that in politics, law, and computer programming, but 5e is supposed to not be read like a legal document, right? Why would they expect this thing that can't happen to be more likely than other things? \$\endgroup\$ May 10, 2015 at 0:48
-
1\$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer We do that for politics &c because real life is messy. 5e is doing that because it's not a closed legal document and has to handle messy, unexpected, creative stuff too. (Or put another way, 1st sentence of the answer.) Besides, that sentence also handles things like "where does the fireball centre?" \$\endgroup\$ May 10, 2015 at 0:49
-
\$\begingroup\$ Wait... so the rules are supposed to cover what happens when you ignore some combination of them as well? It's... really not written that well. I don't think this seems legitimate because the rest of the document just isn't written this way. \$\endgroup\$ May 10, 2015 at 0:52
-
\$\begingroup\$ I don't know how I can repeat the first sentence clearer. 5e welcomes homebrewed spells. Ergo, it's wise of the designers to account for the possibility of homebrew spells. \$\endgroup\$ May 10, 2015 at 0:55
-
1\$\begingroup\$ not even just homebrew, but also additional supplements \$\endgroup\$ May 10, 2015 at 1:49