Inquisitor's Stalwart feature question

[Ryan Moffitt]

My game group had a disagreement about how this feature works. If my inquisitor makes a fortitude save versus a Sound Burst spell do i take damage? The way I understand Stalwart, if the spell has a save of "Fortitude Partial" or "Will Partial" a save negates all of the spells effects. Could someone please clarify. Thanks in advance for your help. Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but i looked for about an hour.

[DM_Blake]

Tough call. I can see both sides of the argument:

For: Making the save against Soundburst reduces the overall effect which, according to the Stalwart ability, means the Inquisitor suffers no effect at all.

Against: Soundburst has one base effect: 1d8 damage. There is no save vs. this effect at all, and therefore no way to reduce it. There is a secondary effect and a successful save eliminates that effect entirely. Since the Inquisitor did not actually reduce any effect of the spell, he would still suffer the full 1d8 damage.

Both arguments have merit, and I cannot find any rule or any forum discussion that addresses the matter.

However, if I were to make an unresearched DM Judgment Call, I would say there are precious few spells in the book that have Fort or Will saves for partial effect. Very very few. And Stalwart is an 11th level ability after all (who uses a Soundburst against an 11th level character anwyay?). So, based on the relatively high level of Stalwart and the extremely limited uses the character will get out of it, I would rule that if anything might apply, then it should apply. Of course, being DM, I would reserve the right to decide what might apply on a case-by-case basis, but I would try to be not just fair, but generous, in that decision.

[Ryan Moffitt]

Thank you for your thorough response. You essentially hit all the main points of the disagreement. IMO Sound Burst is worded oddly. Seemed to me, that it should have been worded like the orbs of 3.5(i.e.orb of acid). Which the 3.5 equivalent of Stalwart(Mettle) worked against.

[Anburaid]

I am of the opinion that the inquisitor in this case would not take the damage. Stalwart is like evasion, if you make the save you get away clean.

[Caineach]

The problem I have with this ability is that there is at least 1 case where a lower level spell and its improvement are different. The low level one offers no save, and just causes an effect. The higher level one causes that effect on a successful or unseccessful save, but has an added effect for failed saves. This makes the lower level spell more powerful against the inquisitor, and I don't really like that. I wish I could remember the spell...

[Karui Kage]

I would say he still suffered damage. Let's look at Evasion for comparison. Against something that allows a reflex save for half damage, you take all or you take none. This is basically Stalwart but with Fort/Will saves.

If soundburst's save allowed you to ignore the secondary effect AND reduce the 1d8 by half, then I'd say it works. As it is, there is no 'half' effect. You always take the damage, the save just changes whether or not you take the secondary effect.

To go by the text:
"If she makes a Fortitude or Will saving throw against an attack that has a reduced effect on a successful save, she instead avoids the effect entirely."

Soundburst has two effects. One of these cannot be reduced on a successful save. The other is already avoided entirely if you save. Stalwart looks like it would not apply then.

[DaBoss]

I am one of the other players in this game and should add something to this. The problem as I saw it last night is that the effect was not a spell, it was a mechanical trap, and according to the way the GM described the trap is that there were two effects; one in which you had to make a Saving Throw or be stunned and a second that was damage that degraded over range. Whether you made the save or not, you took full damage from the mechanical device according to how far away from the device you were.

Now, to me the question is, If Ryan made his save (he did), would he take the damage from the effect, or would his Stalwart ability cause negate the damage as well as the stun effect?

To be honest, I agree with the GM that he would have taken the damage, but at the same time, I am hoping that you guys disagree because we could really use the help in this adventure (down to two party members from the original four... Ryan's Inquisitor and my Wizard) and are fighting a Slaad incursion!

[Karui Kage]

Sorry DaBoss, I have to agree with the DM on this one. The way I see it, there are two effects associated with the trap/sound burst. One is the stunning one, which is negated entirely with a save or happens without, no partial effect. Stalwart doesn't seem to come into play there. The other effect is similar, a saving throw doesn't reduce it at all, it just happens. Stalwart definitely wouldn't help there.

I think you guys ran it just perfectly in this instance.

[Ryan Moffitt]

While I do see the argument that the damage and the stun are two separate effects, they are a part of the same spell. There are not many, if any fort or will saves for half damage. Fort saves and Will saves generally take out either a small piece or large piece of the effect in question which is why Stalwart and Evasion are worded differently.

Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level or higher, a monk can avoid
damage from many area-effect attacks. If a monk makes
a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that
normally deals half damage on a successful save, he instead
takes no damage.

Stalwart (Ex): At 11th level, an inquisitor can use mental
and physical resiliency to avoid certain attacks. If she
makes a Fortitude or Will saving throw against an attack
that has a reduced effect on a successful save, she instead
avoids the effect entirely.

As per the GM, the traps effect was based on the spell Sound Burst. Sound Burst's Saving throw states "Fortitude Partial" indicating a fort save removes part of the effect. Also, the spells flavor text says "You blast an area with a tremendous cacophony". While the language of the spell makes it seem as though the damage and stunning effect are separate effects, they are both part of the "cacophony". In my opinion Stalwart is intended to work against this type of spell, but there is an ambiguity in the language.

EDIT: Also, thanks all for your opinions. Especially you Boss! On another note, do the designers watch these boards? is there a chance we can get an official stance for future reference?