For example, a spell that affects you while casting requires a concentration check. Or various metamagics like disruptive or flaring spell refer to the triggering condition being affected by a spell.
I can't find the definition for this. Obviously damage is, or a clear cut named, standard status effect like causing you to become fatigued.
But what about obscuring your vision, like a fog cloud, is that affecting you (if you're inside it)? What if I use prestidigitation to clean your boots? Prestidigitation specifically says it cannot damage or affect the concentration of spellcasters, but triggering a flaring metamagic would be neither of those things, for example.
What about walking through an entangle area but making your save? You're still affected by it in terms of it being difficult terrain that is physically slowing you down to half speed, or does that not count? Does this trigger the metamagic / concentration checks?
Erm, your dictionary definition contradicted your post. A fog cloud does "make a difference to" somebody inside of it, rather plainly. It makes the difference of seeing or not. In normal English usage, it is definitely affecting them.
If it meant to say "target" instead then that would be crystal clear. But also if you made it "target" then fireball would not qualify.
I don't see any clear definition in the rules or in your post that simultaneously defines fireball as counting but fog cloud as not counting. That is what I'm asking for if it exists.
Individual descriptions have not helped, as indicated by the examples in the OP of individual spells that are ambiguous in this regard. In the main example here, fog cloud's individual description DOES outline an effect that it has on people: impeding their vision. So does fireball: damage and combustion.
Similarly, entangle does have an effect on you even under the most conservative definition, if you move at all. Because even if you made your check, your speed has been reduced by the new difficult terrain, that's an effect on your that makes a difference to your tactics.
Erm, your dictionary definition contradicted your post. A fog cloud does "make a difference to" somebody inside of it, rather plainly. It makes the difference of seeing or not. In normal English usage, it is definitely affecting them.
Similarly, entangle does have an effect on you even under the most conservative definition, if you move at all. Because even if you made your check, your speed has been reduced by the new difficult terrain, that's an effect on your that makes a difference to your tactics.
Wrong on both counts.
Both spells affect THE TERRAIN, which happens to have unfortunate consequences for anyone who stumbles into the area. They do not make a difference to you specifically.
They do not make a difference to you specifically.
And how you arrived at this conclusion, i.e. the exact definition of "make a difference to you" is what I am asking for and still do not understand your perspective on.
Even just ANY consistent, objectively applicable rule would be good. Ideally one supported by RAW too though.
Because plain English alone doesn't cut it. By normal English, terrain being changed when you are in the terrain does make a difference to you specifically. So if you mean something else by it, what? Please spell out.
Quote:
does stuff (damage, MLP:FiM fanfic hallucinations, status effects good and bad)
A flat list of things that count is one way that would work potentially. Is this list of yours actually comprehensive in your opinion? Damage, status effects, and hallucinations?
This list seems problematic in that for example it includes merely seeing an illusion out of the corner of your eye if it's a member of the figment subschool, since that is described as a false sensory experience i.e. a hallucination.
So Silent image forces a concentration check on every caster that can see it, even a mile away, for its whole duration, because it's causing a hallucination?
Because plain English alone doesn't cut it. By normal English, terrain being changed when you are in the terrain does make a difference to you specifically. So if you mean something else by it, what? Please spell out.
But it doesn't.
Here's a scenario.
You're walking around outside. It begins to get dark.
Because it's getting dark, it has become harder to see.
That is a change in terrain. Nothing about you has changed. You are not affected by the darkness, though it being dark outside has impaired your vision. Your are entirely unchanged from before it was dark.
Now, you go outside the next day, and it begins to rain.
The rain falls on you. You become wet.
That is something that has specifically affected you, not JUST the world around you. You have changed form being dry, to being wet. The rain has affected you.
Now look at the difference between Fog Cloud and Fireball. The Fog Cloud is when it gets dark. It is an area of effect that changes how the terrain is. It does not change you, though it impairs your vision.
Fireball meanwhile triggers a change of states on anything in its area. You went from not being on fire, to being on fire. The Fireball affected you.
The rules text on this is even more confused and self-contradictory than the English language, and that's saying a lot.
Take a look:
Magic wrote:
Once you know which creatures (or objects or areas) are affected, and whether those creatures have made successful saving throws (if any were allowed), you can apply whatever results a spell entails
Magic wrote:
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
Magic wrote:
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
Magic wrote:
Area: Some spells affect an area.
Magic wrote:
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see.
Magic wrote:
A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes.
Magic wrote:
Creatures: A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped burst, or some other shape.
Magic wrote:
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
Magic wrote:
Subjects, Effects, and Areas: If the spell affects creatures directly, the result travels with the subjects for the spell's duration. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Such an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends. If the spell affects an area, then the spell stays with that area for its duration.
Magic wrote:
If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature.
However, there are conclusions that can be drawn from this. Here's my interpretation:
If a spell targets one or more creatures, it affects them.
If a spell creates an effect, it does not affect creatures, even if the effect it creates does.
If a spell does something to creatures in an area, it affects them.
If a spell does something in an area, but doesn't mention the creatures within that area, it does not effect them.
No matter the type, if a spell allows spell resistance, it is considered to be affecting the creatures that it allows spell resistance for.
If the spell has absolutely no actual effect on a creature in one of the above ways, because of a missed attack roll, a successful save, or a failed check vs. SR, then it doesn't affect them.
This isn't 100% RAW, but it's actually pretty close, with a patchwork of what I feel is common sense. Anyone see any gaping flaws?
Here, I evaluated some of the spells mentioned based on the criteria I previously proposed. Again, this is still my interpretation.
Fog Cloud: No. It creates an effect.
Prestidigitation: No. It can only affect objects.
Entangle: No. It affects plants in the area.
Hold Person: Yes. Fireball: Yes. It affects all creatures in the area.
Silent Image: No. It creates an effect.
Entangle is sort of iffy, but I think the rest are solid.
How are you coming to the idea that silent image forces a concentration check of any kind?
I don't think it should. I was following the logical conclusion set out by Turin the Mad's suggested list of qualifying effects. He included hallucinations, so since figments are hallucinations by definition, silent image would qualify if that were the list being used.
Similarly:
Quote:
That is something that has specifically affected you, not JUST the world around you. You have changed form being dry, to being wet. The rain has affected you.
By this interpretation, silent image also forces concentration checks on all spellcasters viewing one. Because a figment is clearly described as a change in your perceptions, not in the world. It's mucking with your brain, and is changing YOU. So a silent image of a low cloud in the sky now shuts down all casters on the battlefield, no save, no idea why their spells are failing, etc... can't be right.
Quote:
Check the saving throw for the spell or whatever is you are evaluating:
If it is a "negates", and you make your save, then it does not affect you.
If it is partial, it always at least partially affects you.
If it is none, it will always affect you fully.
So then fog cloud does force a concentration check on anybody inside it casting? "Saving throw: none"
Quote:
If a spell targets one or more creatures, it affects them.
If a spell creates an effect, it does not affect creatures, even if the effect it creates does.
If a spell does something to creatures in an area, it affects them.
If a spell does something in an area, but doesn't mention the creatures within that area, it does not effect them.
Thanks for all the quotes, I had read most but not all of them. The problem I had was that although it positively identifies a few very specific random things like line spells, and it negatively discounts a few things successful saves against stuff, for the most part it doesn't go beyond these random examples to any comprehensive rules anywhere, positive or negative. And most of the text is just like "Well once you've determined this... do blah" Yeah thanks, Paizo. I HAVEN'T determined it yet...
Anyway targeting is clear, agreed.
The other three I'm not so sure. For example the last point on your list seems contradicted explicitly in the case of, say, lines and emanations. If a spell has one of those shapes, it's been explicitly called out as qualifying off that alone, whether it mentions creatures or not.
Other things that the rules seem clear on but that sound bizarre:
Detect animals or plants, for example, is a "cone shaped emanation." Emanation is called out as affecting, but it doesn't change any status, no save, they aren't even aware they are being detected.
On the other hand, if you think "no" then what if I have an arcane mark on my skin? Detect magic will make it glow. And it's a cone spell that HAS done something (utterly trivial) to my body. Concentration check?
As another example, "Line in the Sand" is a "burst" spell, but doesn't actually do anything at all until an AoO is triggered, if ever. Yet even if everyone stands still afterward (they were indeed "caught in the radius" though), "bursts" affect, so they are still affected anyway?
Anyway... it's seeming like the answer is "house rule it" Sigh.
So then fog cloud does force a concentration check on anybody inside it casting? "Saving throw: none"
Does the effect that Fog cloud creates describe as one of it's effects that you are required to make a concentration check?
Nope, ergo...no concentration check required. None of the conditions that force a concentration check are being applied by fog cloud, regardless of whether they are affected by the spell or not.
does stuff (damage, MLP:FiM fanfic hallucinations, status effects good and bad)
A flat list of things that count is one way that would work potentially. Is this list of yours actually comprehensive in your opinion? Damage, status effects, and hallucinations?
You missed the intended humor in my post, Crimeo.
Your query is extremely vague, so the answers have been either specific (Rynjin and others), humorously intended (mine) or are as vague as your OP.
All spells have an "effect" that "affects" one or more targets, whether the target(s) be characters, creatures, the environment, objects or a combination of them. Sometimes the target is not deliberately chosen, they just happen to be wherever they are when the effect affects them, i.e. a fireball or an earthquake. Sometimes the effect affects one or more targets deliberately chosen by the caster, whether by touch or simply willing the effect upon the target(s). Once in a while there is a combination of both of these parameters.
There is no one answer because spells do not have the same effects affecting their target(s), let alone the same parameters across schools. If they did, there would be all of a dozen or two or so spells that scaled with spell level, done.
Instead each spell is an instance of causing a specific effect or combination of effects that affect the combination of creatures/environment/objects previously mentioned.
It's really not. Various abilities and feats and things say "If a creature is affected by a spell, then _____"
My question: What the hell does "affected by a spell" mean, as in the PRECISE definition? Not "you should know it when you see it" but an actual rule, be it a list of very specific criteria to meet, that I can take any spell, apply to it, and objectively determine if, say, flaring spell will have its flare effects or not. And if so, where in the RAW does it say it?
Quintain for example gave me a list of criteria with 4 distinct categories for saving throws. Great! But then when I go and apply it word for word, he says "oh no, but also this other criteria that I didn't mention before that it also has to mention affecting in the text." Note that if it has to mention affecting in the spell text, then fireball doesn't qualify, btw. (also where does it say this or the other criteria in RAW?)
Avoron gave me some specific quotes, which is great! But when they are applied, they lead to some seemingly silly results. Such as Line in the Sand affecting creatures who stand still even though it hasn't really done anything yet (it still caught the creature in a burst effect radius). Silly doesn't mean it's not RAW, but just double checking.
And yours was apparently a joke.
So... I seem to still be left without a complete set of rules that I can apply universally. Ideally with references. There may not be such a thing, maybe Avoron's patchwork is the best there is. If so ok.
My question: What the hell does "affected by a spell" mean, as in the PRECISE definition? Not "you should know it when you see it" but an actual rule, be it a list of very specific criteria to meet, that I can take any spell, apply to it, and objectively determine if, say, flaring spell will have its flare effects or not. And if so, where in the RAW does it say it?
Nowhere. If you're looking for every term to be precisely defined, you're looking at the wrong game. Use your common sense IS the RAW in this case.
Okay, assuming no RAW, I AM trying to use my common sense next instead.
First step is the common sense is to try based on actual meaning of the word. In this case, it would be anything that physically changes you (injury, food), OR acts on your body without lasting change (wind), OR impresses upon your mind or emotions (music affects you, beauty affects you), OR even has indirect abstract influences on your life (the poor job market affects me). But this is far too inclusive for the game. That would be every spell.
So the next step in common sense is just make up any old set of criteria and ignore the English definition. I still can't think of any one set of rules that I could tell to players ahead of time that would let them know what to expect out of a game generically, and doesn't lead to a bunch of corner cases that don't make sense. I.e. a set of objective rules I'd be willing to stick to.
Would really like to avoid listing every spell out or playing without people knowing what to expect to plan ahead (esp. with the metamagic feats as they are part of long term building).
You're still being vague. You want to know what the precise definition of being effected by a spell is. The real question that we need to know is why do you need to know? For what purpose, what scenario, what situation makes it so important to have this definition?
One more interesting criterion for iffy burst spells, as if the ones I gave weren't complicated enough.
Magic wrote:
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners)
So if total cover wouldn't help the character against a certain part of a burst spell, that part is not actually "affecting" them.
In terms of Line in the Sand, it makes sense to me. It makes certain creatures easier for you to attack. That's an effect it has on those creatures.
And if they had total cover, it stops them from being affected.
You answered your own question. Each spell has this "description" that describes what the spell's effect has an affect on. The result is already included on a per-spell basis for you.
It's really not. Various abilities and feats and things say "If a creature is affected by a spell, then _____"
Yeah, I suggest you re-read all of the feat texts regarding Metamagics here. All of them, such as Rime Spell, Dazing Spell, Toppling Spell, et. al., give specific conditions as to what triggers them; if they take damage against a certain spell type, fail a saving throw, etc. Each one of them has such verbiage.
None of this "If a creature is affected by a(n) X spell, then Y" is present in these feats, and this is probably the most common area where I'd expect the "affected" phrasing to apply.
But it doesn't.
If you could provide other examples as to what you're trying to ascertain, then we can give you a better answer in regards to the example; obviously, mileage will vary from ability to ability.
"Targets affected by a disruptive spell must make concentration checks when using spells or spell-like abilities..."
So if they are "affected" then it triggers, if they are not "affected" then it doesn't. Thus, a concrete test of being affected is needed.
Another example is that in the general magic rules (Chap 9 core rulebook), it mentions that spellcasters in general have to pass a concentration check if "affected" by spells during casting. This is listed separately from the "taking damage" concentration check. How do I know when to make this concentration check be required? Need a concrete test of "affecting"
I really don't understand why "If X, then Y." "Okay, need definition for X please?" is a controversial question apparently.
Quote:
So if total cover wouldn't help the character against a certain part of a burst spell, that part is not actually "affecting" them.
Right I think that just means that a bust spell literally bursts outward, so if you're behind a wall, you are shadowed from the magic. It doesn't "wrap around" things out to its radius or go through walls. That part makes sense.
Quote:
You answered your own question.
No, I mean if you use the plain English meaning, it would be concluding that every spell affects everyone nearby it. Not that every spell is merely a candidate (of course it is).
And yes, every spell mentions what it does, but that doesn't really help, I need to know what sorts of things that spells do count or not. If you just say "anything that mentioned stuff affecting creatures in the spell text" then fog cloud qualifies, because it grants creatures concealment and affects their vision, makes them lose their dexterity bonus to AC against incoming missiles potentially, etc. etc.
If any of those kinds of effects count, then virtually every spell will qualify. If only some of them count, then I need a rule for which ones.
Ahhh, yes, the old "use your common sense" answer.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but this answer is worthless even if it is the right answer. I'm pretty sure it's been proven countless times right here on this message board that there is no "common sense" - each player/GM has his own "unique sense" that may vary wildly (or not vary at all, or may vary marginally) from the "unique sense" of any other player/GM. All these "unique senses" usually have little in "common" with anyone else's "unique senses", or at least certainly are unpredictable enough that we should not expect any one person's "unique sense" to match our own "unique sense" or the "unique sense" of the devs.
Aside from all of that, nobody would buy a 1-page Core Rulebook that said: "There is only one rule: use your common sense." and that was it. No classes, no races, no ability scores, no BAB, no maneuvers, no spells, no items, no rules at all. Just that one.
We wouldn't buy that.
We also wouldn't buy a CRB that had, say, 10 rules in it and then told us to use our common sense. Or 50 rules. Or 100 rules. That's not enough. Writing a partial (re: incomplete) list of rules and then telling the players to use their common sense would NEVER be acceptable.
We not only wouldn't buy it, we wouldn't tolerate it.
We buy a game with rules specifically because we know that when we sit down with 5 or 6 friends and try to play this game, we'll all have different notions of what should work and what shouldn't - but the rulebook literally puts us all on the same page.
So any point where the rulebook devolves into "use your common sense" is where our experience with those 5-6 friends devolves into arguments every time our "unique sense" has little in "common" with their "unique sense".
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Crimeo you're asking for a one sentence answer to a question that changes WITH EVERY SPELL IN THE BOOK.
Are you seriously debating with your DMs on whether you get hit with a fireball if you're standing in the area of effect? And you're not beng precise with verbiage either. Some of those metamagic read "if damaged by the spell".
DM_Blake is being almost as bad in his insistence that rules be 100 percent complete. In checkers that's possible. In a wargame with roleplaying elements bolted on and both of them increasing in interactive complexity, that's simply not possible.
If he wants a game with that kind of consistency he should stick to board games... with the possible exception of Go.
I'd be surprised if any game session didn't have at some point a debate on the game rules. Even if it's something along the lines of 'What action was it for me to break that grapple? Even if I'm chomping with Animal Fury?'.
A GENERAL rule about whether you're affected directly by the spell? Is the spell actually hitting you. Fireball? Sizzle. Fog cloud? Not so much. Cloudy days don't really stop you from doing stuff (other than, in this case, seeing what you're going to do it to, which I'd say is more valuable, isn't it?). But the edge cases and the particulars means that you ... effectively have multiple cases involving multiple rulings. We can base it on a principle of 'what's being hit by the magic?' but trying to winnow down things too far sounds like rehashing alignment debates.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Qaianna wrote:
I'd be surprised if any game session didn't have at some point a debate on the game rules. Even if it's something along the lines of 'What action was it for me to break that grapple? Even if I'm chomping with Animal Fury?'.
A GENERAL rule about whether you're affected directly by the spell? Is the spell actually hitting you. Fireball? Sizzle. Fog cloud? Not so much. Cloudy days don't really stop you from doing stuff (other than, in this case, seeing what you're going to do it to, which I'd say is more valuable, isn't it?). But the edge cases and the particulars means that you ... effectively have multiple cases involving multiple rulings. We can base it on a principle of 'what's being hit by the magic?' but trying to winnow down things too far sounds like rehashing alignment debates.
Problem is Crimeo doesn't want to specify after repeated requests to do so. So I suspect he's looking for a blunt force endorsement from the messageboards to beat up his DM with.
I invite him to prove me wrong by coming clean on his agenda with this question.
Ahhh, yes, the old "use your common sense" answer.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but this answer is worthless even if it is the right answer. I'm pretty sure it's been proven countless times right here on this message board that there is no "common sense" - each player/GM has his own "unique sense" that may vary wildly (or not vary at all, or may vary marginally) from the "unique sense" of any other player/GM. All these "unique senses" usually have little in "common" with anyone else's "unique senses", or at least certainly are unpredictable enough that we should not expect any one person's "unique sense" to match our own "unique sense" or the "unique sense" of the devs.
Aside from all of that, nobody would buy a 1-page Core Rulebook that said: "There is only one rule: use your common sense." and that was it. No classes, no races, no ability scores, no BAB, no maneuvers, no spells, no items, no rules at all. Just that one.
We wouldn't buy that.
We also wouldn't buy a CRB that had, say, 10 rules in it and then told us to use our common sense. Or 50 rules. Or 100 rules. That's not enough. Writing a partial (re: incomplete) list of rules and then telling the players to use their common sense would NEVER be acceptable.
We not only wouldn't buy it, we wouldn't tolerate it.
We buy a game with rules specifically because we know that when we sit down with 5 or 6 friends and try to play this game, we'll all have different notions of what should work and what shouldn't - but the rulebook literally puts us all on the same page.
So any point where the rulebook devolves into "use your common sense" is where our experience with those 5-6 friends devolves into arguments every time our "unique sense" has little in "common" with their "unique sense".
In some cases, you are correct.
Considering this rule (and lack of clarity thereof) has been around since at least the inception of Pathfinder (so 7 years now, I believe?) and was probably a part of 3.0 and 3.5, and I've never before now heard of someone have a problem with understanding what being affected by a spell meant (either first, second, or thirdhand), I imagine that sense must be pretty darn common.
Would it be preferable if the term was defined? Of course.
But it's not. At all. The OP is asking for a definition that doesn't exist beyond the dictionary term which, when applied properly, gives the results likely intended by the game.
Unfortunately, he didn't like that answer and kept asking for a nonexistent RAW citation, so I gave him a more handwave-y one.
OK if your question is in regards to the Disruptive Metamagic feat, then any creature targeted, within the area, or partially affected by the modified spell would make the concentration check. Disruptive modifies any spell to cause it to be disruptive to others casting.
You have to use (as I call it) Visual/Mechanical Logic. Logically how would a disruptive silent image work visually? Easy the image distorts and wavers while its being observed and although most would say then the person observing should get the will save to disbelieve, I say that its more the observer thinks something is wrong with his eyes and tries to focus (concentrate) on it and thus takes concentration away from casting, requiring him to make a concentration check to cast any spells.
Disruptive Fireball - Intense amount of pain requires concentration check to cast back. of course if you hit them with one while they are casting the damage causes them to make one anyway to finish casting.
Disruptive Fog Cloud - the Fog cloud breaks here and there, granting brief visual targeting, again the person casting the spell begins to concentrate more on the openings and attempts to wait for one to cast his spell requiring him to make a concentration check to cast the spell when he finally does.
There is no RAW definition for what an "affect" is, as this changes from spell to spell. Next step is to use Common Sense (Visual/Mechanical Logic), Common Sense does not mean try to break down the definition, by this way you're still trying to use RAW as RAW is a way of DEFINING the game terms. Common Sense means to use your own knowledge/experience/imagination to come up with the answer.
As someone else stated your looking at the wrong game if you want a lawyer like document categorizing each individual thing this game has to offer. This is a Fantasy game, which by Definition, means using your imagination, as a Fantasy is something you desire wrought by your imagination.
Again, illusions (of the sort Silent Image are) and Fog Cloud don't affect a creature. They affect terrain.
Actually, they don't even affect the existing terrain. They create their own effect that is entirely separate.
Magic wrote:
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
Silent Image wrote:
Effect visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
Fog Cloud wrote:
Effect fog spreads in 20-ft. radius
I quoted this rule in my earlier post as well. There's actually substantially more written rules on this than everyone seems to be acknowledging, it's just that you really have to dig and piece it together to get a complete picture.
Are you seriously debating with your DMs on whether you get hit with a fireball if you're standing in the area of effect? And you're not beng precise with verbiage either. Some of those metamagic read "if damaged by the spell".
I am the DM. I want to give players a clear ruling ahead of time, and if necessary house rules. Because as a player, I hate when DM's make up s&*! on the spot and my assumptions turn out wrong and I wasted a bunch of feats, etc. Clarity in advance is ideal for everyone.
Also, I am not talking about any metamagic feats that specify damage. I'm talking only about things (metamagic and otherwise) that specify "Affect" as the trigger.
Quote:
OK if your question is in regards to the Disruptive Metamagic feat, then any creature targeted, within the area, or partially **AFFECTED** by the modified spell would make the concentration check.
Emphasis mine. So they're affected if they're affected? This does not really help much. You can't use the same word in its own definition. Otherwise, targeted I think is clearly qualifying. Being in the area less so (any RAW citation?). That would mean that fog cloud forced concentration checks for example, even WITHOUT a disruptive metamagic, because basic concentration rules in chapter 9 core book say that any spell affecting you other than damage requires concentration checks normally.
Quote:
OK if your question is in regards to the Disruptive Metamagic feat, then any creature targeted, within the area, or partially affected by the modified spell would make the concentration check.
I agree this is what I have to do if there is no help from the actual rules. Individually spin a story for each thing. But I'm merely trying to avoid that if possible. It may not be possible.
Quote:
Again, illusions (of the sort Silent Image are) and Fog Cloud don't affect a creature. They affect terrain.
Agreed. It affects the terrain. It also affects the people in it by common English, unless you have a RAW citation otherwise.
Creatures in the fog have their official game status change to partial or full concealment. Their vision is *affected* by being blocked, and subsequently their knowledge is *affected* (like locations of creatures outside). They will be slightly moistened by fog droplets. Their speed will be *affected* due to having to go slower to not trip over things (or same speed but chance of tripping), Etc.
Quote:
Again, illusions (of the sort Silent Image are) and Fog Cloud don't affect a creature. They affect terrain.
I saw the quote. The effect it creates is a fog. The (magical spell) fog then affects a bunch of stuff in game... if it didn't nobody would ever cast the spell.
I would agree that if it had a duration of instantaneous and made a mundane fog, things would be different, but as is, anything the fog does is still the spell doing it.
I've already shown you why that's wrong. You'd have a much easier time of this if you'd stop being willfully obtuse.
You said that the only way to rule is by dictionary, and by dictionary, a fog affects people in a whole bunch of ways listed above.
Are you suggesting it is not grammatical to say that fog affects your vision, affects your knowledge, and affects your safe running speed (last one I don't think is RAW, but is "common sense". Other two are RAW.)? If so, please explain why. If not, then I am following your dictionary rule, and the conclusion is the spell affects creatures.
@ Crimeo: Okay, thank you for the clarification. I think I have an idea of what you're trying to get answered. So, let's start with the Disruptive Metamagic.
Here's the full text:
Disruptive Spell wrote:
Targets affected by a disruptive spell must make concentration checks when using spells or spell-like abilities (DC equals the save DC of the disruptive spell plus the level of the spell being cast) for 1 round. Targets that avoid the spell’s effects avoid this feat’s effect as well.
So, the Metamagic states that all targets affected by the spell are required to make concentration checks (similar to being affected by a non-damaging spell while casting) for an entire round (instead of just the spell). This is great if you know you're fighting several Quickened Spellcasters, but this would be more of a minor Anti-Magic tool for a Spellcasting BBEG, since most enemy casters will be higher level than the party PCs. But that's tangential to the point.
Now, one of the things that we can look to as to a help of defining whether something is affected or not, we take a peek at Spell Resistance. Here's what it says:
Spell Resistance wrote:
Spell resistance is a special defensive ability. If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature. The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. Include any adjustments to your caster level to this caster level check.
The Spell Resistance entry and the descriptive text of a spell description tell you whether spell resistance protects creatures from the spell. In many cases, spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place.
So, let's assume we're casting a Quickened Disruptive Silence and an Intensified Empowered Maximized Disruptive Magic Missiles. (Don't ask, it's just an example.) The enemy in question has Spell Resistance. Now, for simplicity's sake, let's start with the Magic Missiles first. These target one enemy within range (assuming no total cover), and deal their damage. Because the enemy has Spell Resistance, and is being targeted by Magic Missiles, the spellcaster has to make a caster level check to affect the enemy with the Magic Missiles. If he succeeds, the spell properly affects the enemy as normal. If he fails, the spell doesn't affect the enemy, meaning no Disruptive applies.
Now, spells like Silence are where it becomes difficult; remember the whole "mileage may vary" statements? Here's where they come in. Let's first reference the entire Silence description.
Silence wrote:
Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the affected area. All sound is stopped: Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, and no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area. The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a mobile object. The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any. Items in a creature's possession or magic items that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance, but unattended objects and points in space do not. Creatures in an area of a silence spell are immune to sonic or language-based attacks, spells, and effects.
Reviewing all that we've gone over so far, Spell Resistance, if applicable, makes the target unaffected by the spell, assuming they were the target of the spell to begin with. Unless they are specifically targeted by a spell, Spell Resistance would not apply, especially if cast on a center or some other object (my favorite is using a platinum coin as silencing bait, then following up with a Darkness spell).
Now, Silence, as I've bolded above, has 3 possible targets, which must be chosen at the time of casting. It has A. a point in space, such as a grid intersection, similar to that of Fireball, B. an object within range, mobile or stationary, or C. a creature. If the target can move, the effect moves with them. If the creature with Spell Resistance is in the area (or close enough to another object or creature) that the Silence is cast upon, he would not get a Spell Resistance check, nor would be considered "affected" by the Silence spell, since the spell is specifically affecting a point in space or a mobile object/other creature. However, if the creature with Spell Resistance was targeted specifically by the caster, he would get a Spell Resistance check, and if the caster level check succeeds, then the caster would be forced to make a concentration check if he wants to cast a spell (assuming they are casting Silent Metamagic spells) for the entire round.
I hope this answers your question. Of course, YMMV.
A Disruptive Wall of Fire also affects your vision and knowledge of what is on the other side. But it is not the spell that is affecting you.
If it affects your vision, then why is it not a spell that is affecting you? The fire IS the spell. And the fire is affecting my vision.
I don't like this result any more than you, which is why I'm looking for some way of wording a ruling on what "affect" means so that the intuition line up with the objective ruling on as many spells as possible.
Just saying "well, you know, the dictionary meaning" doesn't work, because it would lead to things like a wall of fire affecting you and forcing concentration checks just by blocking your vision.
Darksol: The spell resistance bit is very interesting, thank you.
It would seem by that definition though that Fireball does not affect creatures, as it does not target any. However, the wording hints at another way of putting it that might work better. When it says "entering a spell already in effect..."
So how about... "You are affected by a spell if you are either A) targeted, or B) Are in the area of effect of a spell at the moment it is cast" ? (A could be made to have an exception for making a save on a negate spell)
This also covers fireball, etc. And it makes fogcloud and such reasonable with a compromise: Fog springing up around you AS you're casting is distracting, for example, but it already being there is not. So it works, but only if a readied action or some such would it be relevant.
"Targets that avoid the spell’s effects avoid this feat’s effect as well"
Effect: FOG spreads in 20-ft. radius
Description:... The FOG obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet.
Ok so the description of Disruptive is the first sentence and 2 parts of the Fog Cloud spell are next. if we look at the 2 same words that are bolded.
It says targets that avoid the effect, and the effect of the spell is Fog. thus if someone is standing in the middle of the fog when it is cast then they are affected by the spells effect, and should have to make a concentration check, since they couldn't avoid the fog.
Second the Effect is Fog and in the Description it says the FOG obscures sight, this can be taken to say that creatures in the fog are AFFECTED by obscured vision.
So if this is a Disruptive Fog Cloud, then A. people in the fog cloud were unable to avoid the effect when it was cast and thus now need to make a concentration check, and b. this is reinforced by the fact that the fog cloud affects their vision.
The fact that the Fog Cloud specifically says it affects your vision is pretty clear. Wall of Fire on the other hand does not say that it affects your vision but logically a 10 foot high wall of flame would block your vision so this instance would not work.
More carefully drafted... A spell "affects" you if:
A) It targets you.
B) It is an area spell, the area is placed or moves on top of you (not you into it), and you are aware of the spell. This only affects you for the brief moment at which it begins to cover you.
C) It forces you to roll either a "negates" or a "partial" saving throw, regardless of success or failure of the save. OR...
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
Yeah, I know... WHICH spells are like that...? This sentence is effectively useless/meaningless, since it does not identify in any way which ones it's talking about exactly.
And it is clearly not the case that ALL spells creating/summoning things fail to affect already present things, because fireball.
So "some unspecified subset of spells do ___". Ok... thanks Paizo.
I've pretty much given up on RAW at this point. Gonna just stick with my above list of house rules, unless anybody sees a glaring unintuitive result of it.
Benefit: The electricity, fire, or light effects of the affected spell create a flaring that dazzles creatures that take damage from the spell. A flare spell causes a creature that takes fire or electricity damage from the affected spell to become dazzled for a number of rounds equal to the actual level of the spell. A flaring spell only affects spells with a fire, light, or electricity descriptor.
What spells it works with is pretty clearly defined. The definition also very easily rules out Prestidigitation and Fog Cloud, neither of which have the proper descriptors, nor do they do fire or electricity damage.
Wall of Fire would work, but again, you can see in the description of the feat exactly when it apply, when they take DAMAGE from the spell.
Much of this thread reads like you can't see the trees, because you're too busy trying to look at the whole forest. The answer is smaller than you're expecting.
As for Disruptive Spell, the operative word you keep glossing over is "targets". The spell has to TARGET them. If the spell doesn't TARGET them, then Disruptive Spell has no effect.
Irontruth, there are at least a dozen different things that trigger on affect. Maybe two, three dozen, maybe 100, I don't even know. It seems to be all over the place. It's not any specific one of them I care about. I'm writing up a set of house rules for a game I will be DMing, and want to nail them down as much as possible before beginning, due to past bad experiences.
Flaring spell actually doesn't talk about affecting creatures I don't think. Disruptive spell does though and then specifies target too. Bouncing spell specifies target, but you still have to evaluate whether an "effect" occurred in order to know if it bounces or not. The core rulebook concentration check mentions "interfering or distracting in some way"... And so on, they're all a little different. But rather than FIND, then sift through every little circumstance and solve individually, I was hoping for one meaning of affect so that anything that comes up could be objectively decided on the fly with only the pre-posted rules. Ideally.
Crimeo, I guess I needed to quote more of the rule for it to be clear. "Effect" is a possible aspect of a spell that is listed in the statblock for certain spells, like so:
Silent Image wrote:
Effect visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
Fog Cloud wrote:
Effect fog spreads in 20-ft. radius
Here's the full rules text, to make the context more clear.
Aiming a Spell:
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.
If a ray spell has a duration, it's the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.
If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.
Spread: Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection. The effect can extend around corners and into areas that you can't see. Figure distance by actual distance traveled, taking into account turns the spell effect takes. When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them. As with movement, do not trace diagonals across corners. You must designate the point of origin for such an effect, but you need not have line of effect (see below) to all portions of the effect.
Area: Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.
You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell's area, anything within that square is within the spell's area. If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.
Burst, Emanation, or Spread: Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell's point of origin and measure its effect from that point.
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.
An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.
A spread spell extends out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes.
Cone, Cylinder, Line, or Sphere: Most spells that affect an area have a particular shape.
A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and widens out as it goes. Most cones are either bursts or emanations (see above), and thus won't go around corners.
When casting a cylinder-shaped spell, you select the spell's point of origin. This point is the center of a horizontal circle, and the spell shoots down from the circle, filling a cylinder. A cylinder-shaped spell ignores any obstructions within its area.
A line-shaped spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes.
A sphere-shaped spell expands from its point of origin to fill a spherical area. Spheres may be bursts, emanations, or spreads.
Creatures: A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped burst, or some other shape.
Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead. Creatures in the spell's area that are not of the appropriate type do not count against the creatures affected.
Objects: A spell with this kind of area affects objects within an area you select (as Creatures, but affecting objects instead).
Other: A spell can have a unique area, as defined in its description.
(S) Shapeable: If an area or effect entry ends with “(S),” you can shape the spell. A shaped effect or area can have no dimension smaller than 10 feet. Many effects or areas are given as cubes to make it easy to model irregular shapes. Three-dimensional volumes are most often needed to define aerial or underwater effects and areas.
So, if a spell just has an effect, but not a target or an area, then it is not considered "affecting" anything that is already there.
Yes, I understand all that. But it leads to weirdness. For example, if an emanation "affects" everything caught in its area, then casting "Detect Magic" will seemingly force a concentration check (or whatever is at issue) on anybody in a 60 foot cone as a cantrip, if they meet other criteria.
"Burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area"
"Emanation functions like a burst"
Detect Magic says "cone-shaped emanation"
So does fog cloud, spreads act "like bursts." And Yet myself and almost everybody in the thread has an intuitive problem with that. So yes, maybe RAW does seem to be nearly all-inclusive, but if so RAW is kind of bad seeming. But I'm happy with my alternative that I put together instead. I mean, that could just be a wrap to the thread!
Ahhh, yes, the old "use your common sense" answer.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but this answer is worthless even if it is the right answer. I'm pretty sure it's been proven countless times right here on this message board that there is no "common sense" - each player/GM has his own "unique sense" that may vary wildly (or not vary at all, or may vary marginally) from the "unique sense" of any other player/GM. All these "unique senses" usually have little in "common" with anyone else's "unique senses", or at least certainly are unpredictable enough that we should not expect any one person's "unique sense" to match our own "unique sense" or the "unique sense" of the devs.
Aside from all of that, nobody would buy a 1-page Core Rulebook that said: "There is only one rule: use your common sense." and that was it. No classes, no races, no ability scores, no BAB, no maneuvers, no spells, no items, no rules at all. Just that one.
We wouldn't buy that.
We also wouldn't buy a CRB that had, say, 10 rules in it and then told us to use our common sense. Or 50 rules. Or 100 rules. That's not enough. Writing a partial (re: incomplete) list of rules and then telling the players to use their common sense would NEVER be acceptable.
We not only wouldn't buy it, we wouldn't tolerate it.
We buy a game with rules specifically because we know that when we sit down with 5 or 6 friends and try to play this game, we'll all have different notions of what should work and what shouldn't - but the rulebook literally puts us all on the same page.
So any point where the rulebook devolves into "use your common sense" is where our experience with those 5-6 friends devolves into arguments every time our "unique sense" has little in "common" with their "unique sense".
Nobody tell this guy about Whitewolf, Amber, Paranoia, D&D, or dozens of other games.
Targets affected by a disruptive spell must make concentration checks when using spells or spell-like abilities (DC equals the save DC of the disruptive spell plus the level of the spell being cast) for 1 round. Targets that avoid the spell’s effects avoid this feat’s effect as well.
The feat is very clear. Targets of the spell must make a concentration check. You must read through every single spell in order to understand if each one specifically targets creatures. Obviously targeted spells like bestow curse and the like will qualify, but for AoE spells you will need to read them. For instance.
Fireball wrote:
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.
Fireball specifically states that it effects creatures, therefore it would force the check.
Obscuring Mist wrote:
A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary. The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target).
A moderate wind (11+ mph), such as from a gust of wind spell, disperses the fog in 4 rounds. A strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round. A fireball, flame strike, or similar spell burns away the fog in the explosive or fiery spell's area. A wall of fire burns away the fog in the area into which it deals damage.
This spell does not function underwater.
Obscuring mist does not specify targeting creatures, rather it indirectly effects them by effecting the terrain they are in. Therefore it would not force the save.
There is no blanket answer for your question, it depends on each spell.
A good rule of thumb could be these two guidelines (although I'm not 100% sure, I'm pretty sure): If the spell would make you drop invisibility, it would probably work with disruptive. If the spell allows spell resistance, it would probably work with disruptive. There may be exceptions (I haven't memorized every spell ever), but I think at least 95% of the time that should work.
If you want some finite answers, tell us every single spell you plan on using, and we can answer each one individually.
Edit: I suppose a blanket statement possibly could be "only if it effects them directly". But again, I feel like there may be exceptions if somebody goes through the hundreds of available spells.
Irontruth, there are at least a dozen different things that trigger on affect. Maybe two, three dozen, maybe 100, I don't even know. It seems to be all over the place. It's not any specific one of them I care about. I'm writing up a set of house rules for a game I will be DMing, and want to nail them down as much as possible before beginning, due to past bad experiences.
Flaring spell actually doesn't talk about affecting creatures I don't think. Disruptive spell does though and then specifies target too. Bouncing spell specifies target, but you still have to evaluate whether an "effect" occurred in order to know if it bounces or not. The core rulebook concentration check mentions "interfering or distracting in some way"... And so on, they're all a little different. But rather than FIND, then sift through every little circumstance and solve individually, I was hoping for one meaning of affect so that anything that comes up could be objectively decided on the fly with only the pre-posted rules. Ideally.
Again, you're still missing the trees for the forest. To continue the analogy:
You: I need a generic rule that tells me how tall a tree is.
Us: What kind of tree do you have in mind, they come in many sizes.
You: I don't want to talk about specific kinds of trees, I just need to know how tall ALL of them are.
The answer is IN THE SPECIFICS. If you don't want to look at the specifics, you aren't going to see the answer.
