Color Spray... Light? "Sightless CREATURE"


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I hate magic, and I hate unusual mechanics of the game, and more recently than ever I have entered the highway to the danger zone, which is more accurately described as arguing about abstract crazy things.

So, we have color spray. It's been argued to me that it "flashes" light when cast...

1. Provide me with proof this spell causes any sort of light to exist at all.

Now, arguments that you need light to have color spray to be put to use in the least must exist. Upon reading the illusion school of spell, and the sub PATTERN, I see that we have a mind effecting spell that relies on sight, or being "caught in it"

2. Provide me with proof/raw argument that says you need light to have this spell have use

So, color spray doesn't work on sightless creatures. Because I can't see at the moment, that doesn't count me as a sightless creature, right? Because I'm now permanently blind, and am a creature that normally could see doesn't count me as one either, right?

3. What exactly is a sightless creature, and how is it different than someone under the blind condition.

Electric boogaloo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Color Spray wrote:

Color Spray

School illusion (pattern) [mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S, M (red, yellow, and blue powder or colored sand)

Range 15 ft.

Area cone-shaped burst

Duration instantaneous; see text

Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes

A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become stunned, perhaps also blinded, and possibly knocking them unconscious. Each creature within the cone is affected according to its HD.

Illusion wrote:
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.

1. Why? The spell does what it says it does.

2. Why? The spell does what it says it does.
3. Anything that can't see is sightless, that's the definition of sightless. Anyone who is blind can't see and is therefore sightless.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I caught some of the other thread. I'll try and give you an answer and then offer some thoughts on your situation because i think it may save you a lot of angst in the future.

1. There's no way to offer proof of something that doesn't exist.

2. Reading the spell, the only definitive statement regarding what your asking is what you've identifed: "Sightless" creatures are unnaffected. Sightless creatures is without sight. The effect of this clause is that you must be able to see the spell for it to take affect.

3. "Sight" means you can see. If your eyes require light to see, then without light, you are effectively sightless because you lack the power to see. This is different than blind but sightlss includes those who are blind.

3. In our world, to see something, it must emit radiation or reflect radiation. Sonar is not sight, it's echo-location. There's nothing in the spell that indicates it creates light or affects the level of brightness in the area. The term "vivid" colors does not mean that light is emitted. Something which only reflects light can have "vivid" colors.

4. Per RAW, there is no requirement to see colors. So technically, a person with Darkvision would be affected by Color Spray cast in non-magical darkness. The spell says "sightless" creatures are unaffected, it does not say creatures using Darkvision are unaffected.

However, one certainly argue that that since Darkvision is devoid of color, the spell fails to work. I'd caution against that approach to the interpreting the rules of an RPG, but don't hold it against me if I do it later!

I wrote all that down in hopes you'll consider my advice. I read your troubles with your GM and I've been in your shoes. As a player, you'll run across GMs who you just may not be able to run a game you'll enjoy. One of the biggest challenges as a player is to be able to walk away from the game. I've run across GMs who just don't process the rules the way I do. You can try to get them to listen to your version of reality, but at some point you'll have to accept their differences or just walk away. It's really hard when you feel you have no alternatives, but you'll be doing yourself and the GM a favor.


Like I wrote, I am asking people to provide their arguments, but I did it in a non-traditional fashion. I should have written it differently, but I think it's even more silly to ask the first two when it seems absolutely concrete.

Sightless defined in the game? Sightless CREATURE defined in the game? Sightless creature seems to imply a creature deprived of sight, like the sensory concept is lacking. Pattern is saying you don't even have to see it to be suffer it's effects, so sightless creature seems odd to include if it just means that you currently have the blinded condition, and not specifically a creature that doesn't have that sense.


What N N 959 and LeGrande said.


Rapanuii wrote:

Like I wrote, I am asking people to provide their arguments, but I did it in a non-traditional fashion. I should have written it differently, but I think it's even more silly to ask the first two when it seems absolutely concrete.

Sightless defined in the game? Sightless CREATURE defined in the game? Sightless creature seems to imply a creature deprived of sight, like the sensory concept is lacking. Pattern is saying you don't even have to see it to be suffer it's effects, so sightless creature seems odd to include if it just means that you currently have the blinded condition, and not specifically a creature that doesn't have that sense.

Look, this is honest feedback and not an attempt to be rude or snide. If Paizo had to include a dictionary with every copy of the rule book they'd go out of business. Sightless means sight less ... cannot see ... at all. It doesn't matter if it's permanent or not. If at any point in time you can't see, then at that point in time you are sightless.

Conditions wrote:
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

A creature, any creature, that has been blinded is now sightless. It doesn't matter if they could once or if they might be able to again in the future.

EDIT: Sightless


I wouldn't interpret your response to have been rude, and yes, it's reasonable that not everything is defined. My question was genuine, and I'm asking if these things exist or not. I don't think they do.

Is what I'm suggesting not reasonable to consider? I might be wrong, but please appreciate my argument.

Pattern spells. Are there any that exist that don't include the inclusion of not working in slightless creatures? If there isn't, then why do the pattern rules explicitly state that just being caught in it is enough to cause the effects. I feel the intent of sightless creature is to describe what I've written.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Rapanuii wrote:

1. Provide me with proof this spell causes any sort of light to exist at all.

2. Provide me with proof/raw argument that says you need light to have this spell have use

3. What exactly is a sightless creature, and how is it different than someone under the blind condition.

1) Ask you GM. But it is a pattern and usually needs to be seen. If sightless, blind or in a dark room you can't see the pattern.

2) Ask your GM, see answer for #1.

3) Ooze


Rapanuii wrote:

I wouldn't interpret your response to have been rude, and yes, it's reasonable that not everything is defined. My question was genuine, and I'm asking if these things exist or not. I don't think they do.

Is what I'm suggesting not reasonable to consider? I might be wrong, but please appreciate my argument.

Pattern spells. Are there any that exist that don't include the inclusion of not working in slightless creatures? If there isn't, then why do the pattern rules explicitly state that just being caught in it is enough to cause the effects. I feel the intent of sightless creature is to describe what I've written.

1. Don't expect perfection and crystal clarity in how the rules are written. Errata is proof positive that the authors don't always write what they mean.

Quote:
why do the pattern rules explicitly state that just being caught in it is enough to cause the effects

2. My guess is that this is to prevent PCs/NPCs from saying they close their eyes during the round it's cast. I've personally seen PCs try and pull this trick. If you aren't sightless, then it doesn't matter if you technically see the effect or not. If you are in the area, you are affected unless you are "sightless". Without that clarification, you're opening the door for tons of arguments about how what PCs/NPCs were looking at, etc.

I suppose someone could put a bag over their head and that might count. There's also a suggestion from SKR that if you close your eyes for a full round, then you can gain the blinded condition. Probably a fair trade off if you're in combat.


I think it's a pretty big presumption to assume that "blinded" and "sightless" are the same thing. If you are in a dark room and have no way to see in the dark, you are effectively blind, but you are not "sightless"; you're just not currently seeing anything because no light is reflecting from objects into your eyes (or, at least, insufficient for sight).

Regarding the "light" created by the illusion, it's magic. Magic can do things that aren't readily supported by physics, at least not the physics we have in real life. And even then, there's a simple experiment you can do. Close your eyes and squeeze them very tight. You'll experience a wild pattern of "colors" and other "visual" experiences, even though your eyes are closed, due to the pressure you apply to your optic nerve. "Vision" is simply the interpretation by our brain based on (very scant) data that our eyes pick up. The brain makes tons of assumptions based on this information to create the visual experience. Optical illusions can generate plenty of false conclusions in the brain such as motion where there isn't any, color where there isn't any, contrast where there isn't any, etc. A pattern is, in essence, a magically created optical illusion that centers in some point in space and, from there, triggers the optic nerve in some manner that causes the brain to perceive the pattern. The pattern isn't actually there; if you had a camcorder or other video recorder, it probably wouldn't register any pattern. But the magic energy centered in that location trigger perception of the image which may include such an intense overloading of the visual center of the brain that your brain refuses to acknowledge any other visual information. Thus, you are blinded, but you are technically not sightless. You still see; your eyes pick up the information, but your brain chucks it out based on a false assumption that it is too bright to see.


Rapanuii wrote:
I wouldn't interpret your response to have been rude, and yes, it's reasonable that not everything is defined. My question was genuine, and I'm asking if these things exist or not. I don't think they do.

It's important, more important than anything else, to realize you're dealing with magic in a magical world. Magic has no requirement to follow the real-world laws of physics in any way. The spell is a pattern, the CRB definition of pattern says an image is created that others can see. The spell then mitigates this by pointing out that sightless creature are not affected.

Rapanuii wrote:
Is what I'm suggesting not reasonable to consider? I might be wrong, but please appreciate my argument.

It's not that I don't appreciate your argument, I'm telling you you're wrong if you think either: A) The spell can affect something that is currently blind but wasn't always; or B) The spell creates light. A human in a totally dark area would not be affected by Color Spray because they cannot see, someone with darkvision would because they can.

Rapanuii wrote:
Pattern spells. Are there any that exist that don't include the inclusion of not working in slightless creatures? If there isn't, then why do the pattern rules explicitly state that just being caught in it is enough to cause the effects. I feel the intent of sightless creature is to describe what I've written.

Look at the Pattern definition again, it says it "creates an image that others can see" but it is a mind-affecting effect. It has to specify that because it is not a figment which "creates a false sensation." Its real effect is not to make you perceive something that isn't there, it's to cause a mental condition. That being said, you have to be able to see it in order to suffer the condition. A figment does its effect whether you can see it or not, a pattern doesn't.

If you feel that the intent of sightless creature is ONLY a creature that never has and never will have a sense of sight, then I can't help you. You might be the only person who would interpret the word that way, and it seems to me an impossible task to convince you otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
I think it's a pretty big presumption to assume that "blinded" and "sightless" are the same thing. If you are in a dark room and have no way to see in the dark, you are effectively blind, but you are not "sightless"; you're just not currently seeing anything because no light is reflecting from objects into your eyes (or, at least, insufficient for sight).

Let me try this, the link might have been missed by some:

Dictionary.com wrote:

sightless[sahyt-lis]

adjective
1.unable to see; blind.
2.invisible.

Liberty's Edge

And dictionary definitions are not always complete game definitions, especially when you have creatures that exist and are incapable of sight at all, often through having no eyes, and are thus sightless.

Shadow Lodge

Bestiary 3
Sea Anemone, Giant
Has Sightless (Ex) in its discription.

Check it out.


Look an illusion is not real. It has no substance, it emits no light of its own. You have to have light to see an illusion. This argument IIRC was settled back in the 'Dungeon' days when there was no internet just a letters column.

Otherwise you could light your way in a dungeon by creating an illusionary torchbearer.

But that said I've seen it ruled both ways.


N N 959 wrote:
2. My guess is that this is to prevent PCs/NPCs from saying they close their eyes during the round it's cast. I've personally seen PCs try and pull this trick. If you aren't sightless, then it doesn't matter if you technically see the effect or not. If you are in the area, you are affected unless you are "sightless". Without that clarification, you're opening the door for tons of arguments about how what PCs/NPCs were looking at, etc.

There are no more facing rules. Because of this all creatures and characters face every direction for at least some part of every round unless explicitly stated otherwise. When fighting a medusa you could close your eyes to avoid the gaze attack, you could also turn your back and use a reflective surface to view it. Either of those will cause a penalty in combat but are viable ways to avoid the petrification.


Fomsie wrote:
And dictionary definitions are not always complete game definitions, especially when you have creatures that exist and are incapable of sight at all, often through having no eyes, and are thus sightless.

That's fine and doesn't contradict the fact that someone who is temporarily blind is sightless.


Again, that's fine to have your definition link, and I understand the simplicity to the definition. It's not necessary to debate what sightless means in the least, so we don't need to bring that up again.

Appreciate the argument for what it is, and base your responses accordingly. It's stated as slightless CREATURES, and I find it reasonable to interpret that to mean creatures who lack the absolute ability to comprehend sight. No reference point for vivid colors, thus their mind can't process the illusion in their mind.

Can see, and has to see are different. I'm reading that creatures that have the ability to see this cone may visually see it. Perhaps the cone could only exist to the target, and no one else can see it, but everyone with sight can see it.

Simply seeing the color spray has no effect, you must be within where it's happening to suffer the effects, which reflects mechanically by being in the cone.

I see that if you have the sense of sight available to your creature type, then the cone regardless of light or your condition of being blinded works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rapanuii wrote:

Again, that's fine to have your definition link, and I understand the simplicity to the definition. It's not necessary to debate what sightless means in the least, so we don't need to bring that up again.

Appreciate the argument for what it is, and base your responses accordingly. It's stated as slightless CREATURES, and I find it reasonable to interpret that to mean creatures who lack the absolute ability to comprehend sight. No reference point for vivid colors, thus their mind can't process the illusion in their mind.

Can see, and has to see are different. I'm reading that creatures that have the ability to see this cone may visually see it. Perhaps the cone could only exist to the target, and no one else can see it, but everyone with sight can see it.

Simply seeing the color spray has no effect, you must be within where it's happening to suffer the effects, which reflects mechanically by being in the cone.

I see that if you have the sense of sight available to your creature type, then the cone regardless of light or your condition of being blinded works.

Alright, this is it then I'm giving up. I'm not going to sit on one thread on the Internet interpreting the meanings of words with someone who will never agree.

Here is the real, true, correct answer to the question:

Who is right in this case? The GM. Regardless of what he says or how you feel about it, the GM is right. You know why? Because it's his game. As I said in the other thread you posted, your best option at this point is to abandon the game you're currently in based on the GM's behavior.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Color Spray does work if you cast it in the dark.

The only issue is whether your target creatures are either blind, or specifically immune to it's effects.

If neither of the above is true, the light level of the area, or lack of it, are irrelevant.


Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Look an illusion is not real. It has no substance, it emits no light of its own. You have to have light to see an illusion. This argument IIRC was settled back in the 'Dungeon' days when there was no internet just a letters column.

Otherwise you could light your way in a dungeon by creating an illusionary torchbearer.

But that said I've seen it ruled both ways.

it's mind effecting, so the illusion is happening in the mind since it's not actually there. If it was there then it wouldn't be an illusion. Read illusion school, and it states about the effects not being there, or it's preventing you from processing things that actually do exist.


Simon Legrande wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
2. My guess is that this is to prevent PCs/NPCs from saying they close their eyes during the round it's cast. I've personally seen PCs try and pull this trick. If you aren't sightless, then it doesn't matter if you technically see the effect or not. If you are in the area, you are affected unless you are "sightless". Without that clarification, you're opening the door for tons of arguments about how what PCs/NPCs were looking at, etc.
There are no more facing rules. Because of this all creatures and characters face every direction for at least some part of every round unless explicitly stated otherwise. When fighting a medusa you could close your eyes to avoid the gaze attack, you could also turn your back and use a reflective surface to view it. Either of those will cause a penalty in combat but are viable ways to avoid the petrification.

Color spray, as written, rules out an explicit statement of looking away from the direction of the spell.

To obtain the "blinded" condition, SKR suggested you need to close your eyes for a full round. You can't just blink your eyes to avoid color spray or avoid the challenges in hitting someone with mirror image.


To put things back on track.

Sightless creature... Please recognize the argument that it's something that is distinctly different that being under some blinded condition. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE, but for the sake of the thread and a coherent discussion, that is what is being debated.


Rapanuii wrote:
it's mind effecting, so the illusion is happening in the mind since it's not actually there. If it was there then it wouldn't be an illusion. Read illusion school, and it states about the effects not being there, or it's preventing you from processing things that actually do exist.

No, that's not what pattern spell states. It affects the mind, it is not happning "in" the mind. let's read the quote:

PRD wrote:
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
PRD wrote:
Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression.

Note the phrase, "those who preceive it..." This is critical in understanding that one must perceive the figment. It's not cast in someone's mind, it's cast out in the open. When you perceive the figment, THEN it affects your mind. If you cannot perceive the figment...because there's no light to see it....then it won't affect you.


Sightless is unable to see. If you cannot see, you do not possess sight, and are sightless. And there's plenty of reason to write it this way: - - - "blind" implies that it WOULDN'T work on someone with a bag over their head.
- "unable to see" is inability to see, which is different than, say, wearing a heavy cloth over your eyes.

That said, sightless is also a trait attached to several monsters. Is it a problem that in game lingo and real world lingo often overlap? Probably. But there is no direct answer to this. It'd probably be fair to go with the DM's call.

1. On the other thing... Honestly, I'd taken color spray to be light emitting before reading this post. But if it's a flash of light so powerful it causes status conditions... Well we have a level 0 spell with that general function: Flare. Flare has the Evocation [light] descriptor and the effect of "A flash of light". Color spray lacks those.

2a. "Burning hands" wouldn't work on a creature 15 ft. away if there was a 20' by 20' stone wall between us. This doesn't need to be specified. Likewise, if a spell works based on vision, then if there is no vision it shouldn't work.

2b. HOWEVER, "Caught in it" provides some interesting questions. To this, we should look at some different spells with the pattern descriptor. I'm picking "Rainbow Pattern" because unlike color spray, this spell has a duration of more than "instantaneous."

Anyway, "If the view of the lights is completely blocked, creatures who can't see them are no longer affected." It also states sightless creatures are immune. I think this is more or less evidence that sightless and "cannot see" are essentially meant to mean the same thing here.

Of course, this also adds new problems in that it creates "lights" but does not have the "light" descriptor. Oh well.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

Bestiary 3

Sea Anemone, Giant
Has Sightless (Ex) in its description.

Check it out.

Sightless (Ex) A sea anemone is blind and is not affected by any effect that relies on sight, such as gaze attacks or blindness

So, if I close my eyes, put a blindfold on, or am in total darkness, you're saying I'll be sightless like it states here, right? Someone using curse that just needs a successful touch attack to cause me to be permanently blind will auto fail, right?

I feel this actually exists in this instance because they categorize this creature as vermin, and that creature type doesn't cover what it's about, which is that it is a sightless CREATURE.


In my mind its all how a spell is interpreted, how a gm would describe a spell that isn't given adequate flavoring to rule on something like this. I would vote that I would not work due to my interpretation of the description vivid colors spring forth from your hand. In my mind it'd be a seizure inducing type thing due to bright rapid colors, a sightless creature would be unaffected due to lack of seeing said colors, also a color blind person in my mind would be unaffected for what its worth. This is a spell that in my opinion requires it to be seen to have any affect, magic should not be played as omnipotent, it need more limits than what its been given.


N N 959 wrote:

PRD wrote:
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.

First off, you like the others conveniently don't continue reading and end your bold too short. Please read notice but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it because that seems to be extremely relevant.

I'm not going to have a conversation about things actually existing or not. The illusion doesn't actually exist, and thus is an illusion, and illusions are interpreted within your mind. The magic is happening, and your mind processes it. You're able to visually see using your sight, and the magic creates something that is actually not there, and your mind forms it into the illusion that is being made.

Now, back to your bold part about those being able to see it, especially those WHO CAN PERCEIVE IT (creatures that have a reference point and have/had sensory ability to see), which people OUTSIDE can visually view the color spray, but those in the CONE are SUBJECT to its EFFECTS.


The way I have interpreted this spell for my games is that color spray does not create any light because it does not have the appropriate spell tags. However the spell does not require anyone to see it with their eyes as it creates the effect in their minds.

If seeing the colors visually was the trigger then there would not be an area of effect as it would affect anyone seeing it. Anyone caught in the 15ft cone is affected by the spell unless they have the sightless tag. Sightless meaning lacking the capability to see, not just a temporary absence.

If the designers meant blinded why not just use the word blinded? The only reason is to convey a different meaning. It makes sense that a creature that has no visual motor cortex would be unaffected by something that created clashing vivid colors that screws with the function of that area of the brain.

So basically anyone within the 15ft cone area of effect is affected by the spell unless they have the sightless tag regardless of lighting conditions or being blinded. This is how I rule it in my games and it keeps it simple and straight forward. I understand and respect that others may rule it differently as there is ambiguity in the rules around this spell.


Go and re-read what a Pattern creates.

"an image that others can see..."

That pattern exists. It is a thing which exists. It can be seen. It "affects" your mind. It isn't cast inside your head. It only affects your mind if you are caught in it or perceive it.

Specific to Color Spray If you are sightless, it doesn't affect your mind. Why? Because you can't perceive it. Even if you are caught in it the spell, it doesn't affect you if you are sightless. Why? I'm going to repeat myself: Because it can't be seen.

SPECIFIC TRUMPS GENERAL


BiggDawg wrote:
The way I have interpreted this spell for my games is that color spray does not create any light because it does not have the appropriate spell tags. However the spell does not require anyone to see it with their eyes as it creates the effect in their minds.

Thank you for your post, but I have been wondering something all this time, and where does ANYONE get the impression that this spell produces any light at all? What word gives off any impression that it might do this, because I don't see it at all, and perhaps I'm just over looking it.


N N 959 wrote:

Go and re-read what a Pattern creates.

"an image that others can see..."

That pattern exists. It is a thing which exists. It can be seen. It "affects" your mind. It isn't cast inside your head. It only affects your mind if you are caught in it or perceive it.

Specific to Color Spray If you are sightless, it doesn't affect your mind. Why? Because you can't perceive it. Even if you are caught in it the spell, it doesn't affect you if you are sightless. Why? I'm going to repeat myself: Because it can't be seen.

SPECIFIC TRUMPS GENERAL

Again, I for real this time am not going to have a discussion about illusions existing or not, because on default they don't exist. I understand you are rationalizing that the illusion can be reprieved, but it isn't actually there. Unless something I personally feel is of value comes up from you mentioning this, then I will just ignore it for the sake of the discussion.

Not to talk down to you, but look up what an illusion is by definition, and hopefully you'll realize your confusion is understanding this concept.


Okay so how does someone who has never seen or experienced sight suddenly become affected by illusions that produce color to cause its various conditions.
I'm not so much as using mechanics, I prefer ruling by flavor when I gm, if I believe something shouldnt happen because it doesn't make sense I will not let a player do it but. Nor would I do it.
Unless someone can describe how a sightless person can see suddenly when they can't see it should be ruled as ineffective.


Archae wrote:

Okay so how does someone who has never seen or experienced sight suddenly become affected by illusions that produce color to cause its various conditions.

I'm not so much as using mechanics, I prefer ruling by flavor when I gm, if I believe something shouldnt happen because it doesn't make sense I will not let a player do it but. Nor would I do it.
Unless someone can describe how a sightless person can see suddenly when they can't see it should be ruled as ineffective.

THEY DON'T!


It's strange that the pattern sub school which clearly states that the spell works if the creature is caught in it has the only spells that clearly state that they don't work on sightless creatures. This just seems like the spell is talking about creatures without the capability of such a sense.

I suppose if you have a human character that was born without sight absolutely you could house rule they aren't affected, but by RAW this seems to be talking specially about certain creatures that lack this sense.


Rapanuii wrote:
Archae wrote:

Okay so how does someone who has never seen or experienced sight suddenly become affected by illusions that produce color to cause its various conditions.

I'm not so much as using mechanics, I prefer ruling by flavor when I gm, if I believe something shouldnt happen because it doesn't make sense I will not let a player do it but. Nor would I do it.
Unless someone can describe how a sightless person can see suddenly when they can't see it should be ruled as ineffective.
THEY DON'T!

look I'm reading the CRB whilst reading this it says a vivid cone a clashing colors springs for from your hand. By very detention color is a perception of light, sightless people are blind meaning they cannot perceive light.


Rapanuii wrote:


I suppose if you have a human character that was born without sight absolutely you could house rule they aren't affected, but by RAW this seems to be talking specially about certain creatures that lack this sense.

I would agree if the creature lacked a visual motor cortex, but just being blind wouldn't be sufficient in my mind as their brain can still interpret visual signals they just have defective eyes which don't send any.


However if color spray produces light then yes it would work in the dark I mean, if something has experienced sight then yes I would rule it working then as well.


Archae wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
Archae wrote:

Okay so how does someone who has never seen or experienced sight suddenly become affected by illusions that produce color to cause its various conditions.

I'm not so much as using mechanics, I prefer ruling by flavor when I gm, if I believe something shouldnt happen because it doesn't make sense I will not let a player do it but. Nor would I do it.
Unless someone can describe how a sightless person can see suddenly when they can't see it should be ruled as ineffective.
THEY DON'T!
look I'm reading the CRB whilst reading this it says a vivid cone a clashing colors springs for from your hand. By very detention color is a perception of light, sightless people are blind meaning they cannot perceive light.

My original reply was agreeing that someone with no concept of the sense of sight wouldn't be affected by this, which is my argument for what the rules are actually stating when mentioning SIGHTLESS CREATURES.

This is a fantasy game where crazy magical spells happen which make no sense sometimes with certain elements. The base requirements are that you are able to have sight on the creature, implying it possess the concept of this sense to articulate things appropriately in their brain, and that you are within the cone (area of affect) which is the part about being "caught up" in it.

If others could reciprocate an understanding for this line of logic regardless of their positions of the matter, then I feel things will go a lot smoother.


BiggDawg wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:


I suppose if you have a human character that was born without sight absolutely you could house rule they aren't affected, but by RAW this seems to be talking specially about certain creatures that lack this sense.

I would agree if the creature lacked a visual motor cortex, but just being blind wouldn't be sufficient in my mind as their brain can still interpret visual signals they just have defective eyes which don't send any.

By creature type and then subtypes you would rule out a human in pathfinder has the ability to see, and regardless of them being born from the womb to the tomb with no sight sense, they by RAW would be subjected to this spell. I would house rule with consideration that this human never had the ability to ever possess the concept of any aspects of sight, due to simply not have access to any reference point EVER.

I believe we are on the same page, and I hope I cleared what I wrote up for you.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

basically, if you're facing a one trick pony sorcerer with color spray as his/her only spell, you put a blindfold on and you advance on him/her; blind-fight feat would help in this case...


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
basically, if you're facing a one trick pony sorcerer with color spray as his/her only spell, you put a blindfold on and you advance on him/her; blind-fight feat would help in this case...

The blindfolded and foolish being is hit with the line of effect color spray and then being caught up in it must make a will save. In his mind vivid bright colors cause the effects to occur that are just too intense to handle, and then the sorcerer commences the victory jingle jangle, while then readying an action to do it all over again, because they can.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rapanuii wrote:

To put things back on track.

Sightless creature... Please recognize the argument that it's something that is distinctly different that being under some blinded condition. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE, but for the sake of the thread and a coherent discussion, that is what is being debated.

If you don't choose to use the obvious dictionary definition, that is your choice when you GM.

As you've already stated you don't care who is GM'ing, this is an utterly pointless thread. It's not defined in the rules? It doesn't have an inferred definition in another rule? Use the Dictionary.

*sigh* A Pattern spell is not inside your mind, it is not a phantasm.


Majuba wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:

To put things back on track.

Sightless creature... Please recognize the argument that it's something that is distinctly different that being under some blinded condition. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE, but for the sake of the thread and a coherent discussion, that is what is being debated.

If you don't choose to use the obvious dictionary definition, that is your choice when you GM.

As you've already stated you don't care who is GM'ing, this is an utterly pointless thread. It's not defined in the rules? It doesn't have an inferred definition in another rule? Use the Dictionary.

People are interpreting a sightless creature to mean a creature who at the moment is blinded. The argument is that it's referring to creatures with the inability to see absolutely by their creature descriptions and such.

No one is debating what sightless means by definition, rather we have all agreed that it indeed means you can't see. Can you understand what is happening right now?

Whoever is GMing is completely irrelevant to this thread, because we're discussing the RULES of the GENERAL GAME. This has no bearing on the conditions of specifically who is running the game. Saying that Roger Rabbit is running my game doesn't change the objective nature of what the rules mean. Roger Rabbit is more than welcomed to run things his way, but that doesn't make him correct in this regard, but in terms for how his game works it does, because it's his game in which he may do whatever he wishes.

Also, refer to illusions and how they work. Please refer to it being a mind effecting spell as well. You're in the area of effect, thus you get subjected to the effects of the spell if you're not a sightless creature.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

sightless = creatures that never have the capability to see. They aren't "built" to see.

blind = a creature that lost its sight or could see if its eyes were working properly.

the above should be common sense.

As for ruling I'd say that No matter what "Sightless Creatures" are not affected. Like the above said, "the creature lacked a visual motor cortex". The spell just doesn't work on them.

I'd rule that Color Spray does work on those within the cone if they are creatures that do not have the "Sightless" trait even if they are blind. Why? Because the spell effects those in the cone and it's mind affecting. Even if the creature has their eyes closed the spell still causes lights in the minds of those that are within the cone. The spell doesn't affect those outside of the cone so they do not see the lights because they aren't in the area of effect.

A person can still see colors while their eyes are closed or if they push on their eyes while they are closed. This counts for temporarily or permanently blind creature also as they have the mechanics behind the eyelids that process visuals.

The spell is mind affecting so I'd rule that both Seeing and Blind creautres' minds still becomes affected as the illusion is in the heads of those caught in the Cone shaped burst.

EDIT: I'd also probably rule that those outside of the Cone burst of Color Spray wouldn't see anything. I'd think that if they saw the colors also they would be subject to the spell also, which isn't the case. How would being in the 15' cone of effect area or 30' away make any difference on how Color Spray appeared to creatures if it was purely visual? Which is why I'd rule the spell as a Pattern in the Minds of those that are caught in the area.

1 to 50 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Color Spray... Light? "Sightless CREATURE" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.