D&D General How would you make this ruling? Vortex Warp

Worrgrendel · Monday at 2:18 AM

So our game today ended on a cliffhanger mid combat as one of our party members had to leave for work and the Artificer character letting the DM mull on what their choice was for their next turn in combat. The cliffhanger being the party Druid was swallowed by a big fish monster and in its stomach on low-ish health. The Artificer character wants to cast Vortex Warp on the big fish monster, and if it fails the save, teleport it away leaving the Druid behind and no longer in the big fish monsters stomach.
If you are not familiar with the spell, here are the essential deets:
You magically twist space around another creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw (the target can choose to fail), or the target is teleported to an unoccupied space of your choice that you can see within range. The chosen space must be on a surface or in a liquid that can support the target without the target having to squeeze.
So, the question is, if the big fish monster fails its save vs Vortex Warp, does the Druid remain behind, and no longer in its stomach, or does the Druid just go with it because it’s just its last meal?
Thoughts and opinions?

James Gasik · Monday at 2:27 AM

Worrgrendel said:
So our game today ended on a cliffhanger mid combat as one of our party members had to leave for work and the Artificer character letting the DM mull on what their choice was for their next turn in combat. The cliffhanger being the party Druid was swallowed by a big fish monster and in its stomach on low-ish health. The Artificer character wants to cast Vortex Warp on the big fish monster, and if it fails the save, teleport it away leaving the Druid behind and no longer in the big fish monsters stomach.
If you are not familiar with the spell, here are the essential deets:
You magically twist space around another creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw (the target can choose to fail), or the target is teleported to an unoccupied space of your choice that you can see within range. The chosen space must be on a surface or in a liquid that can support the target without the target having to squeeze.
So, the question is, if the big fish monster fails its save vs Vortex Warp, does the Druid remain behind, and no longer in its stomach, or does the Druid just go with it because it’s just its last meal?
Thoughts and opinions?

As much as I'd want to rule on the player's favor, I don't think this would work. You couldn't teleport someone sans clothing or weapons with the spell, as most spells of these types can only target unattended objects. I know it's a bit of a stretch to call a still alive character "an object", but we can assume that you don't lose the contents of your stomach or digestive tract when teleporting (though in some media, you might lose them afterwards due to "teleportation sickness"!), because the contents are considered "attended".

If the DM wants to rule that living food is somehow different from non-living food, the question of how the spell knows the difference comes into play.

Knaves Quill · Monday at 2:33 AM

The spell is not targeting the druid in any way, and contents of one's stomach go with the creature being teleport, just as items worn/carried. I would rule that is would not work, simply based on those two points.

pukunui · Monday at 2:35 AM

James Gasik said:
As much as I'd want to rule on the player's favor, I don't think this would work. You couldn't teleport someone sans clothing or weapons with the spell, as most spells of these types can only target unattended objects. I know it's a bit of a stretch to call a still alive character "an object", but we can assume that you don't lose the contents of your stomach or digestive tract when teleporting (though in some media, you might lose them afterwards due to "teleportation sickness"!), because the contents are considered "attended".

If the DM wants to rule that living food is somehow different from non-living food, the question of how the spell knows the difference comes into play.

This, plus the rules for swallowing creatures usually specify that the swallowed creature has total cover (meaning it can't be targeted directly) and can’t be affected by attacks or effects originating from outside the swallowing creature. I’d say the PC casting vortex warp can’t specify whether to include (or not!) the swallowed druid any more than he could cast cure wounds on the druid from outside the fish. Even if the PC casting vortex warp jumped into the fish's mouth too, they still wouldn't necessarily be able to target the druid because being swallowed usually imposes the blinded condition as well (and vortex warp requires you to be able to see your target).

Lidgar · Monday at 2:38 AM

The Druid should shapechange into a porcupine and give the fish indigestion instead.

bloodtide · Monday at 2:47 AM

As a Rule of Cool Fun type DM who is happy to flick the rulebook off the table: I would allow this.

BUT I would be very, very firm that using the spell effect in this way, while cool has very high cost. And I would make it clear that such a cost can be anything, up to and including character death.

So something like 10d6 backlash damage. And yes, if that much damage kills your character I say "the magical backlash reduces your character to a dead withered husk and what is left falls to the ground in a heap."

Though also things like sacrificing a whole level or 1-10 points of permanent ability drain or the utter destruction of powerful magic item works too.

I want to make it clear twisting the rules is fun, but I'm not for twisting the rules 24/7 and making every ability and spell epic. Like some clever player might say "yuck yuck, I vortex warp all the air out of the foes lungs and they auto die...hahahahah!" and I will never let that happen in may game with out the 10d10 damage risk.

Umbran · Monday at 3:21 AM

bloodtide said:
As a Rule of Cool Fun type DM who is happy to flick the rulebook off the table: I would allow this.

BUT I would be very, very firm that using the spell effect in this way, while cool has very high cost. And I would make it clear that such a cost can be anything, up to and including character death.

I think if you are going to introduce a system that applies consequences for using spells in new ways, in the middle of a combat is a poor choice of moments to do it.

pukunui · Monday at 3:23 AM

Umbran said:
I think if you are going to introduce a system that applies consequences for using spells in new ways, in the middle of a combat is a poor choice of moments to do it.

Agreed. "Success with a Cost" is an optional rule that should be agreed on by the group at the start of a campaign.

Umbran · Monday at 3:25 AM

Worrgrendel said:
Thoughts and opinions?

Have they ever used teh spell before? If so, did it leave behind the stomach contents of the target? No? Then this doesn't work.

Broadly, they don't have line of sight on the target they want to exclude from the spell. If they had line of sight, and had some feat or ability to exclude targets from spells, then fine.

pukunui · Monday at 3:27 AM

Umbran said:
Have they ever used teh spell before? If so, did it leave behind the stomach contents of the target? No? Then this doesn't work.

Broadly, they don't have line of sight on the target they want to exclude from the spell. If they had line of sight, and had some feat or ability to exclude targets from spells, then fine.

And I'm not aware of any feat or ability that allows you to exclude targets from a Conjuration spell (which vortex warp is), only Evocation spells.

D&D General How would you make this ruling? Vortex Warp

Worrgrendel

Adventurer

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

Knaves Quill

Explorer

pukunui

Legend

Lidgar

Gongfarmer

bloodtide

Legend

Umbran

Mod Squad

pukunui

Legend

Umbran

Mod Squad

pukunui

Legend

Similar Threads

Trending content