spell target specificity

[Unicore]

So I have noticed that the target description of spells is largely looking the same as it was in PF1. One question I have is if we will have an in world explanation for what is and is not a creature?

For example, I understand why it might be problematic for magic missile to be able to target objects (force damage can bust stuff up pretty quickly, but when do objects become creatures and why can I target an animated object with a magic missile but not target the object before it was animated.

Clearly the difference between living and not living is not a usable metric for this distinction, since those have specific game relevance, but what is the difference between a magically animated object or a magically summoned wall or other created effect?

I also hope there is some logical consistency to defining the targets of spells. Like magic missile has always specified creatures, but then there are spells like scorching ray that avoid listing a target at all, but shocking grasp does list a target.

[David knott 242]

The traditional definition of a creature since D&D 3.0 has been anything that has wisdom and charisma scores. I would be very surprised if that definition changes in PF2.

[Captain Morgan]

If I was gonna think about it too hard, I might say it locks in on masses of positive or negative energy. I don't think that quite encompasses all creatures, but even golems are made using spirits, right? Not sure on other constructs.

I think magic missile may need to target "creatures" less because it will target objects, and more because if it never misses and can target anything you can start shooting out the eyes of a dragon or something. Hence, +/- energy seeking makes some sense.

[Shiroi]

I'd rather do away with targeting altogether. A spell works, or doesn't, on objects and creatures. Dominate X shouldn't distinguish between man and monster, because why would a wazard invent two separate spells? Why would such spells treat things differently based on how intelligent they are, or whether they walk primarily in a bipedal or other form? For that matter, there are humanoid species which are further from human than some monsters and somehow the dominate spell still knows the difference.

Force missile should be able to target objects, just not specific parts. Dominate X should be able to work on anything, perhaps things with int 3+ should get a bonus or roll every round where lesser beings are more completely overwhelmed. Even if you made dominate spells function on 'target less than x hit dice', it would make more sense. Magical growth spell should work on a person, a dog, or a tree. They're all biological in nature. Perhaps living target would be appropriate for that spell, but certainly not specific creature types.

Targeting definitely needs to be simplified, and personally I think the answer is to remove most if not all references to specific types of target, and general disclaimer that some spells may not have any significant effect on some types of target as appropriate. For instance, flesh to stone can taget a tree, but since it is neither flesh nor stone it will have no effect. You may cast detect thoughts on a rock, but rocks have no thoughts. Feel free to remove poison a bush however, because plants can be poisoned and that could relevantly do something in the world. On top of that, you could cast remove poison on a snake and remove the venom from it's attacks for a few days while you fight or perhaps train it as a companion.

Spells don't need such specific instructions, you either have the ability to remove poison from an object or you do not. If the logical implications of that spell are too powerful for x level, make it y level instead where it works better.

[Captain Morgan]

Shiroi wrote:

I'd rather do away with targeting altogether. A spell works, or doesn't, on objects and creatures. Dominate X shouldn't distinguish between man and monster, because why would a wazard invent two separate spells? Why would such spells treat things differently based on how intelligent they are, or whether they walk primarily in a bipedal or other form? For that matter, there are humanoid species which are further from human than some monsters and somehow the dominate spell still knows the difference.

Well, good news! I am pretty sure this wish will be coming true. We haven't seen mention of Dominate Person, Charm Person, Dominate Monster, Charm Animal, or Charm Monster. But we HAVE seen both dominate and charm mentioned in a context that leads me to believe those are the names of the spell.

[Shiroi]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Well, good news! I am pretty sure this wish will be coming true.

Good news indeed! Thanks for the shot of hope for sanity.

[Unicore]

I still want more specificity in spell description format. Maybe I am alone, but it feels weird to me that spells like acid splash and ray of frost use the word target in their descriptive text, but do not call out what it means to be a target in the stat block. If the word Target is designed to be universal enough not to be required in a stat blcok, that is fine, as the assumption would be that what is a target is adequately defined in a general magic session, but a game creates unneeded complexity by having the "target:" appear in the stat block of some spells and not others. Limited targeting should be moved entirely to the stat block so that limitation can be adequately explained in a sentence of text.

[Weather Report]

I think it will be very clear which spells are attacks, like scorching ray, and which are not (charm), and what target means in context (codified).

[AnimatedPaper]

Unicore wrote:

I still want more specificity in spell description format. Maybe I am alone, but it feels weird to me that spells like acid splash and ray of frost use the word target in their descriptive text, but do not call out what it means to be a target in the stat block. If the word Target is designed to be universal enough not to be required in a stat blcok, that is fine, as the assumption would be that what is a target is adequately defined in a general magic session, but a game creates unneeded complexity by having the "target:" appear in the stat block of some spells and not others. Limited targeting should be moved entirely to the stat block so that limitation can be adequately explained in a sentence of text.

I really am not sure what you mean by this. Some spells have targeted effects, some spells do not. Having a target line is only appropriate for spells that you target. If you're instead creating an area effect, or summoning a lantern archon, that target line is unneeded and would create clutter.

Also, the PRD does go into targets, areas, and effects when it comes to spells. I see no reason to assume PF2 would be different in this regard.

Edit: I see what you mean now. I get the logic they're using, but you're right it is a bit inconsistent.

[Unicore]

Edit:

I realize I made an error in that post but it is too late to fix it.

I mean that either every spell should have a "target: xyz," or if spells do not all need to have a "Target: xyz" in the statblock, then it is probably better for targeting information to be contained in the spell description where the different contingencies can be better explained. And the general information of what a target is should be clearly laid out in the rule book in the magic section, with an explanation that any variation from this general rule will be contained in the spell description.

As some what of an aside, PF1 spell blocks and spell descriptions often lacked consistency and this led to confusion as to how exactly spells worked, especially in things like how their saving throws work (haunting mist is a nightmare to interpret). I know that space is an issue, but consistent formatting is the best way to keep consistent spell design and avoid confusion about how individual spells work.

[William Werminster]

David knott 242 wrote:

The traditional definition of a creature since D&D 3.0 has been anything that has wisdom and charisma scores. I would be very surprised if that definition changes in PF2.

I think Unicore refers to more complicated scenarios, like what happens to a creature's body when it dies. I remember a thread in the rules forum a couple months ago, nobody agreed if a dead body was still a creature, an object, or a creature with the dead condition.

[David knott 242]

William Werminster wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

The traditional definition of a creature since D&D 3.0 has been anything that has wisdom and charisma scores. I would be very surprised if that definition changes in PF2.

I think Unicore refers to more complicated scenarios, like what happens to a creature's body when it dies. I remember a thread in the rules forum a couple months ago, nobody agreed if a dead body was still a creature, an object, or a creature with the dead condition.

Well, the example given was an animated object vs. a wall of fire. Since an animated object has a stat block that includes wisdom and charisma scores, it becomes a creature once it is animated.

The dead body is a weird case because you can point to a stat block that has the dead creature's wisdom and charisma -- so the debate becomes whether that stat block is still applicable to the corpse. And we definitely do have conflicting information in PF1 on that one, so I do hope that they straighten that one out in PF2.

And all we have to do is check the playtest rules for any definition of object vs. creature and comment on it if that definition is lacking or if any spell or ritual information contradicts it (for example, by referring to a corpse as a "dead creature", if applicable).

[Weather Report]

William Werminster wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

The traditional definition of a creature since D&D 3.0 has been anything that has wisdom and charisma scores. I would be very surprised if that definition changes in PF2.

I think Unicore refers to more complicated scenarios, like what happens to a creature's body when it dies. I remember a thread in the rules forum a couple months ago, nobody agreed if a dead body was still a creature, an object, or a creature with the dead condition.

Yeah, or a dead creature causing difficult terrain.

[Shiroi]

Pharasma help the poor soul who has to figure out if a construct leaves a corpse or a loot pile.