AnyOldName3 wrote: ↑
20 Dec 2017, 23:11
It only doesn't make sense as a fix when specifically described like that. You could just as easily come up with a metaphor that only works the other way.
No metaphor to explain it the other way works because that isn't how the concept of the spell works.
The basics are simple: you have the caster
, the target
, and the spell
. The spell is meant to affect both the caster and the target. Reflecting the spell doesn't mean the target becomes the caster -- they're just reflecting the spell back at the caster, making them the target instead. The new target is still also the caster
. The reflector doesn't become the caster.
Absorb health can only affect the target and the caster. Since the reflector doesn't become the caster (the caster doesn't change) and is no longer the target, then the reflector shouldn't be gaining any health because they're no longer relevant to the equation: caster, target (now the caster), and spell.
It seems people are wrongly assuming that the act of reflection means the target becomes the caster -- that isn't how it works. There's no metaphysical process occurring that swaps the roles of those two actors by reversing time or rewriting history and making it so. The caster is always the caster
. Only the target changes.
So when you have a spell that affects both the caster and the target, reflecting the spell will only ever change the target. The effect of the spell that affects the caster doesn't change, nor does the caster. It can't change. It wasn't directed at the target to be able to change and the target isn't the caster.