Something like this would normally have to get a clarification or answer in the general Pathfinder rules forum before someone in the PFS will say anything.
|
So yesterday was my first Pathfinder Society experience, but I came across an all-too-common ruling concerning disrupting casting.
Simply put, I wanted to ready an action to cast Create Water over a caster when they began to cast a spell. According to page 207 of the Core Rulebook, I thought this was entirely reasonable. The judge, however, disagreed.
Now at the time I didn't feel the need to press for a reason, considering we were already sitting seven players and the combat was taking quite a long time and I didn't want to draw it out and was able to take other actions, but I was hoping other judges out there might be able to point me to a reason why the use of Create Water would not be a reasonable disruption for spellcasting, requiring a concentration check.
Also, beyond stopping play or taking the time to discuss (or argue, as the case may be), is there another recourse for pursuing such a dispute in PFS? An official ruling on various controversial or difficult topics or a FAQ listing anywhere?
Core rules page 206 makes it pretty clear that your GM was incorrect in his assessment. The caster should have made a concentration check with a DC of 10 + 0 + your casting attribute bonus vs Create Water.
Not knowing the full situation obviously, but it sounds on the surface like the GM didn't know the rule and you did. For the sake of expedience the GM decided to press on. At the very least I would make the time at the end to talk with the GM to try and either understand where he was coming from in not allowing something that is a written rule, or educate him as to the existence of said. In the nicest way possible :)
And now that the forums are letting me post again and it is too late to edit my first post, I was going to add that after reading the spell description, that I would have had no problem with the spell doing what you had wanted it to do. The water created by the spell does not have to be created inside a container or bowl or anything like that. It can also be created as a downpour, like the spell says or simply as a single mass of water that comes crashing down onto the target's head. I can tell you for sure that a couple of gallons of water crashing down onto my head out of nowhere would be very distracting. Heck, if the opposing caster did not know that you were casting something as well, I would not even have let him have a concentration check, but would have ruled whatever he was doing was disrupted, provided his initiative did not beat yours and he did not finish his spell before you finished casting yours.
As for your other question, generally the next step to take if you feel your GM is violating the rules in a serious or major way would be to go and talk to the Event Coordinator, unless they are the same person, of course.
|
|
I agree with your DM. It's a 0th level spell which does no damage and does not have a saving throw. The Prestidigation spell specifically says that it can not affect the concentration of spell casters. I would handle Create Water in exactly the same way.
It's fine that Prestidigation says that, Create Water however doesn't. And since there are provisions in the rules for 'non-damaging disruptive spells' with or without saving throws...seems pretty black/white to me.
|
|
It's fine that Prestidigation says that, Create Water however doesn't. And since there are provisions in the rules for 'non-damaging disruptive spells' with or without saving throws...seems pretty black/white to me.It may seem black or white to you, but as a DM, I'm not going to let someone cast Create Water to disrupt a spellcaster. It's a cantrip so the cost to cast it is zero. The spell description doesn't give any information to determine its effects if someone is under it. It doesn't do any damage nor does it say that it forces a Concentration check on casters.
There are so many finge cases like this that one can never get an "official" answer to all of them. This is why GMs are not robots. Whether one agrees with or disagrees with a ruling isn't really the point, but rather that GMs should have the ability to make these decisions at the table as they see fit. I certainly hope that we as the PFS community don't start micromanaging every call GMs make on the boards and expecting that we will run games by committee, or worse, that Paizo staff will do so for us.
|
There are so many finge cases like this that one can never get an "official" answer to all of them. This is why GMs are not robots. Whether one agrees with or disagrees with a ruling isn't really the point, but rather that GMs should have the ability to make these decisions at the table as they see fit. I certainly hope that we as the PFS community don't start micromanaging every call GMs make on the boards and expecting that we will run games by committee, or worse, that Paizo staff will do so for us.
+1
I also would like to add that creativity is a double-edged sword. If you reward that kind of player creativity (which isn't covered by the rules, not an intended use of the spell) then it sets a precedent also. Like the example someone gave of giving a PC an AC bonus from kicking a chair between him and his opponent in a tavern brawl. Now that player might carry a chair into the dungeon and drop it into the next fight he gets into. However, I agree with Yoda that this is something each GM should decide for their own table. If the player doesn't like it then they should respect the GM's decision and try something else.
|
|
There are so many finge cases like this that one can never get an "official" answer to all of them. This is why GMs are not robots. Whether one agrees with or disagrees with a ruling isn't really the point, but rather that GMs should have the ability to make these decisions at the table as they see fit. I certainly hope that we as the PFS community don't start micromanaging every call GMs make on the boards and expecting that we will run games by committee, or worse, that Paizo staff will do so for us.
I am certainly not advocating that. In the past I have come out very strongly in favor of the table judgment and I stand by that. However, as I player I also expect a reasoned explanation as to why. Because you don't like, or understand, a rule is not a reasoned explanation in an organized play environment however.
It may seem black or white to you, but as a DM, I'm not going to let someone cast Create Water to disrupt a spellcaster. It's a cantrip so the cost to cast it is zero. The spell description doesn't give any information to determine its effects if someone is under it. It doesn't do any damage nor does it say that it forces a Concentration check on casters.
Spell: If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting.
If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell’s saving throw DC + the level of the spell you’re casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it’s the DC that the spell’s saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster’s ability score).
In organized play you are just ignoring a rule you don't like. That's not cool. In your home game, do whatever you like. Clearly there is a cost to casting it, you just don't feel the cost is high enough. It cost you foresight to memorize something useful and a standard action to cast it. Looking at the RAW, Create Water is certainly 'a spell' and dropping 16 pounds of water on you (min) is going to 'affect' you.
Create Water
School conjuration (creation) [water]; Level cleric 0, druid 0, paladin 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect up to 2 gallons of water/level
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
This spell generates wholesome, drinkable water, just like clean
rain water. Water can be created in an area as small as will actually
contain the liquid, or in an area three times as large—possibly
creating a downpour or filling many small receptacles. This water
disappears after 1 day if not consumed.
Note: Conjuration spells can’t create substances or objects
within a creature. Water weighs about 8 pounds per gallon. One
cubic foot of water contains roughly 8 gallons and weighs about
60 pounds.
|
Honestly, I think this is an example of a player who was creative, this is role playing. This isn't granting a bonus or anything, 2+ gallons of water is distracting. The concentration rule doesn't state you need to damage an opposing spell caster, Zizazat states it correctly. As a GM sometimes players are smarter and more creative than your NPC opponents. Hopefully the enemy spell caster is worth his salt and can handle a bit of water. Oh and for those who don't think 2+ gallons of water can be distracting, try going through water boarding training or yet ask your cat.
So yesterday was my first Pathfinder Society experience, but I came across an all-too-common ruling concerning disrupting casting.
Simply put, I wanted to ready an action to cast Create Water over a caster when they began to cast a spell. According to page 207 of the Core Rulebook, I thought this was entirely reasonable. The judge, however, disagreed.
Note that you can't cast Create Water in thin air:
"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."That said, table variation is something that you'll have to get used to. Conceding graciously is difficult sometimes, but it's a skill well-worth practicing!
|
Note that you can't cast Create Water in thin air:
"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."
True, but if he changed it to the caster's crotch area... it would be just as distracting, and the cloth absorbing the water and letting it through would be a 'surface capable of supporting it'.
alternatly the caster's body in general is a 'surface capable of supporting it'... haven't you seen coaches get gatorade-ed after a big game
Note that you can't cast Create Water in thin air:
"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."That said, table variation is something that you'll have to get used to. Conceding graciously is difficult sometimes, but it's a skill well-worth practicing!
Ah, but the spell says you can have the water appear in the form of a downpour, and that sounds to me like it is being created into thin air.
|
|
Note that you can't cast Create Water in thin air:
"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."
And what about casting it in a 4" diameter column using the top of his head as a surface capable of supporting it (then letting gravity do the rest)? :)
|
|
Ah, but the spell says you can have the water appear in the form of a downpour, and that sounds to me like it is being created into thin air.
Note that you can't cast Create Water in thin air:
"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."That said, table variation is something that you'll have to get used to. Conceding graciously is difficult sometimes, but it's a skill well-worth practicing!
+1 I have to agree with that. The question is how much force does the water come down with. Downpour sounds to me like rain, bit like a bucket load being dropped. And honestly that would make it more of an RPG question rather than PFS question. I'm interested in how this plays out.
Two gallons poured out on you head is alot if not expected. Two Gallons spread out over a five foot square and dropped, not really that big a deal.
|
|
Two gallons poured out on you head is alot if not expected. Two Gallons spread out over a five foot square and dropped, not really that big a deal.
Remember though 2 gallons / level, a 3rd (48 lbs!) or 4th (64 lbs!!) level caster dropping this on someone starts boarding on ridiculous pretty much no matter how you slice it :) Even if it 'only' falls with the force of gravity from 1 or 2 inches....
|
True, but if he changed it to the caster's crotch area... it would be just as distracting, and the cloth absorbing the water and letting it through would be a 'surface capable of supporting it'.alternatly the caster's body in general is a 'surface capable of supporting it'... haven't you seen coaches get gatorade-ed after a big game
Anything a character wears/uses, is considered to BE the person. Thus you can't use mage hand to undo a persons pant buckle to pants them mid-combat etc. So if it's not a targetable spell, you can't use it to target someone.
Edit: Which after reading the spell "create Water" There is no Target section, thus you would not be able to target a character with it. So I'd be ruling based on the spell description.
Further, the whole gatorade reference doesn't really work, because that gatorade is not being supported, it hits the person and about 99% ends up on the field under the coach. Thus proving that 100% of that gatorade is not staying in that coaches clothes, and he's not supporting the liquid.
Ah, but the spell says you can have the water appear in the form of a downpour, and that sounds to me like it is being created into thin air.
Note that you can't cast Create Water in thin air:
"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."That said, table variation is something that you'll have to get used to. Conceding graciously is difficult sometimes, but it's a skill well-worth practicing!
Oh, I'd allow it to work (it's pretty harmless), but I don't think it's the slam-dunk that some people are making it out to be. I think it's well within the bounds of "table variation".
|
|
Edit: Which after reading the spell "create Water" There is no Target section, thus you would not be able to target a character with it. So I'd be ruling based on the spell description.
There seems to be some wording issues with the Conjuration spell description (pg. 209) and the spell description. It's pretty clear that you CAN create water inside an object capable of holding the liquid (per the spell) however page 209 seems to make it seem as though you couldn't do that at all, and since you also seemingly can't conjure it into thin air this spell is now useless :)
Also I would like to point out this conjuration is an 'effect' and not an 'object.' So much confusion for such a simple (and awesome) idea!
|
|
+1 I have to agree with that. The question is how much force does the water come down with. Downpour sounds to me like rain, bit like a bucket load being dropped. And honestly that would make it more of an RPG question rather than PFS question. I'm interested in how this plays out.
And the concentration check table has an entry for rain - DC = 5+ Spell Level. This check should be trivial for any spellcaster.
However, upping the DC to 10 + Spell Level because you created water instead of a natural rain isn't going to fly at my tables (barring an official ruling).
|
|
+1 I have to agree with that. The question is how much force does the water come down with. Downpour sounds to me like rain, bit like a bucket load being dropped. And honestly that would make it more of an RPG question rather than PFS question. I'm interested in how this plays out.And the concentration check table has an entry for rain - DC = 5+ Spell Level. This check should be trivial for any spellcaster.
However, upping the DC to 10 + Spell Level because you created water instead of a natural rain isn't going to fly at my tables (barring an official ruling).
I'll agree that generating it as rain could potentially cause a distraction and a DC 5+ Spell level would seem fair, and worthy of the creatitivity.
I'll agree that generating it as rain could potentially cause a distraction and a DC 5+ Spell level would seem fair, and worthy of the creatitivity.+1 I have to agree with that. The question is how much force does the water come down with. Downpour sounds to me like rain, bit like a bucket load being dropped. And honestly that would make it more of an RPG question rather than PFS question. I'm interested in how this plays out.And the concentration check table has an entry for rain - DC = 5+ Spell Level. This check should be trivial for any spellcaster.
However, upping the DC to 10 + Spell Level because you created water instead of a natural rain isn't going to fly at my tables (barring an official ruling).
But rain has such a crappy DC because, well, you know it is raining and and you are basically trying to keep it out of your eyes or keep your spell components dry, etc. The DC of 10+ fits this much better because you are not expecting to be hit by a downpour out of nowhere, especially if it is a sunny day or if you are inside.
And, come on, in the OP's description this was attempted on an NPC caster, not on a PC, and as I said before, I would reward his creativity, by not even giving the NPC caster a chance to get a concentration check if he did not know he was having a spell cast at him. There is a section in the Guide titled Reward Creative Solutions and my reward would be as stated, not to say "the rules do not say you can do this, so you can't. period."
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
+1 I have to agree with that. The question is how much force does the water come down with. Downpour sounds to me like rain, bit like a bucket load being dropped. And honestly that would make it more of an RPG question rather than PFS question. I'm interested in how this plays out.And the concentration check table has an entry for rain - DC = 5+ Spell Level. This check should be trivial for any spellcaster.
However, upping the DC to 10 + Spell Level because you created water instead of a natural rain isn't going to fly at my tables (barring an official ruling).
Agreed. I freaking hate Create Water. It, along with Prestidigitation (sp?), are the biggest pains in the ass. I'm all for player creativity, but these are 0 level spells. If I had a nickel for everytime someone uses Create Water to try and get Grease off of them, or damage a swarm, or do any number of other things that are outside the bounds for a 0 level spell, I could buy a candy bar. Maybe two.
I think allowing Create Water to disrupt spellcasting is a very bad ruling, particularly with a non-trivial DC - it allows the water creator to spam targets with Create Water to disrupt spellcasting. I wouldn't allow it at my table, or at least not with a DC that is appropriate for a 0 level spell. Maybe if you required a ranged touch attack, that could help - after all, you could hold and spam ray of frost to try and disrupt spellcasting too.
The problem with Create Water (or, maybe the benefit of Create Water, depending on how you look at it), is that the very nature of the spell invites this sort of creativity. I was much more tolerant of that type of creativity back when there were a finite number of cantrips, but with an infinite number, I'm much less happy.
Create Water also gets used to do things like fill pit traps with water, which I also find annoying. It reminds me of the tactic of starting a building on fire to kill the monsters inside instead of going in and fighting them - it's a clever trick once, but grows old very quickly.
|
|
Oh by the way Mammon, welcome to the society. I do hope that this endeavor hasn't soured you on the living campaign. As you can see there are allot of people with allot of knowledge to help you with any situation. I am sorry your first table was so large that you felt your voice was not warranted in this case, it was. As a veteran GM I always welcome my PC's perspective. I hope you continue to enjoy the game and make to some of the conventions.
|
|
Yea, I think just based on this conversation. As a player you're going to get a different answer for just about as many GM's there are. I personally tend to run about the middle, let you do more with less while using A+ logic and creativity. Essentially, if you can make me go "Hey that's a really cool idea." and isn't completely over the top. Sure. I'll let it work.
Some GM's are a lot more strict about what flies, and some GM's will let you do anything you want. I think the only fair approach is to have a quick idea how you think the spell should work prepared, and ask the GM when you think the attempt is appropriate.
@sebastion: I agree with you there, Ray of Frost for spell interruption is a more sure fire way to get a real concentration check. I still rule a DC 5 + Spell level using the rain feature, and it'd only work once an encounter. Also a fairly good way for a PC Wizard/Cleric to waste a turn that could do something WAY more useful than raining on the enemy caster. If anything you're going to irritate the hell out of your enemy and get his attention directly.
I put the whole thing on the same level of throwing your shoe at the caster.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
@sebastion: I agree with you there, Ray of Frost for spell interruption is a more sure fire way to get a real concentration check. I still rule a DC 5 + Spell level using the rain feature, and it'd only work once an encounter. Also a fairly good way for a PC Wizard/Cleric to waste a turn that could do something WAY more useful than raining on the enemy caster. If anything you're going to irritate the hell out of your enemy and get his attention directly.I put the whole thing on the same level of throwing your shoe at the caster.
That's a good point - it is something of a wasted action.
I so want to see a player throw a shoe now. And, better yet, get a critical hit with it.
|
I had a great time playinsaturday, and things like this wouldn't stop that. I just posted here to get an idea of what would make a dm not let it count. Unfortunately it seems to be based on preference rather than actual text (which should be reserved for home games rather than organized play) but eh, what can you do?
I guess I'll continue to keep trying it and take the ruling every time :-\
Btw, I know that the other organized play campaign I played in had the Spell Description trumps all else ruling but I haven't seen anything like that in pathfinder. Is that a standing rule or just an understood practice here at the PFS?
It is also important to say that every DM does not have the core rule book, advanced player's guide, or or the rest of the Paizo product memorized and at times a GM will need to make a call on the fly instead of spending to much time stopping the game and stopping the fun.
I know rules lawyering is apart of the game but you have to consider other factors other than RAW.
1. Many people running games in store play on a fix time scale. IE Game starts at 6 and the store closes at 10. You got to get the module running.
2. GM's can ALWAYS correct mistake after game when time permits. Remember this is about fun more than anything else. If an error comes up let it go until the game is over and present the issue.
3. GM's are human and make mistakes. That goes for a 0 star to 5 Star GM. I am sure Doug Doug as messed up a few things in his many games on the way and I know I have screwed up here and there. It happens.
I am sure Doug Doug as messed up a few things in his many games on the way and I know I have screwed up here and there. It happens.
Actually he never has. Never. He's a robot.
Zizazat, Create Water wouldn't have saved Kuduro from the might of Mickey Ticklefeet.
As far as Create Water goes, yes it's a zero level spell, but so is acid splash. For a simple ranged touch attack, you can force a concentration check of DC 12+. Why not grant that for Create Water? (perhaps make them roll a ranged touch attack to actually hit them with the water?)
Screwing up one of my NPC's spells with Create Water is fine. The next encounter they'll carry an umbrella. :P
The next encounter they'll carry an umbrella. :PWhich can also be used like a baseball bat to deflect the shoe.
Someone should call George W. and ask if he would have had trouble casting a first level spell when that shoe was thrown at him in Iraq.
edit: Removed political joke about our former President's intelligence (score).
edit: Removed political joke about our former President's intelligence (score).
All the while maintaining the insult contained therein in your effort to be transparent. Very clever.
|
|
As far as Create Water goes, yes it's a zero level spell, but so is acid splash. For a simple ranged touch attack, you can force a concentration check of DC 12+. Why not grant that for Create Water? (perhaps make them roll a ranged touch attack to actually hit them with the water?)
Acid Splash not only requires an attack roll, but it also does damage. If Create Water did damage or had a saving throw or specifically required an attack roll to target a creature, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As a judge, I would far rather rule that Create Water doesn't affect a spellcaster's concentration than add a ranged touch attack roll to the spell in order to allow the spell to do so.
|
|
As far as Create Water goes, yes it's a zero level spell, but so is acid splash. For a simple ranged touch attack, you can force a concentration check of DC 12+. Why not grant that for Create Water? (perhaps make them roll a ranged touch attack to actually hit them with the water?)Acid Splash not only requires an attack roll, but it also does damage. If Create Water did damage or had a saving throw or specifically required an attack roll to target a creature, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As a judge, I would far rather rule that Create Water doesn't affect a spellcaster's concentration than add a ranged touch attack roll to the spell in order to allow the spell to do so.
Help me out here. How does the rule as written (Core Rules p206) not applY?
"Spell: If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting.
If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell's saving throw DC + the level of the spell you're casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it's the DC that the spell's saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster's ability score)" [emphasis mine]
Are you saying the rule is wrong and you will simply ignore it in favor of your own house rule?
|
|
As far as Create Water goes, yes it's a zero level spell, but so is acid splash. For a simple ranged touch attack, you can force a concentration check of DC 12+. Why not grant that for Create Water? (perhaps make them roll a ranged touch attack to actually hit them with the water?)Acid Splash not only requires an attack roll, but it also does damage. If Create Water did damage or had a saving throw or specifically required an attack roll to target a creature, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As a judge, I would far rather rule that Create Water doesn't affect a spellcaster's concentration than add a ranged touch attack roll to the spell in order to allow the spell to do so.
Help me out here. How does the rule as written (Core Rules p206) not applY?
"Spell: If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting.
If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell's saving throw DC + the level of the spell you're casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it's the DC that the spell's saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster's ability score)" [emphasis mine]
Are you saying the rule is wrong and you will simply ignore it in favor of your own house rule?
The reason it doesn't count is because the spell has no targetable effect. That's the "Effect" they're referencing. No more than your spell will require a concentration check when your buddy casts bulls strength or owl's wisdom on you to be more likely.
Further: someone mentioned above about being consistent. I reward player creativity for surprising me. Also, I will retract the once per encounter rule in my thought process. The more I think about it, the more I'm against it.
Also, as for the 16 lbs of water. You can't generate it in thin air, and it's not targetable. You can not target someone unless the spell's description says specifically you can target them. Thus you can't cast the spell on someone. It doesn't even have an area of effect notation, unless it's in the form of rain. The only way this spell is going to work as a distraction is if you're facing the Wicked Witch of the West.
As far as rain as a casting penalty. I'd be arguing a hard downpour, not a 6 second annoyance. Speaking from experience, I've never found a light rain distracting. I've marched in it in band, done drills in the military, and a dozen other tasks that take a form of concentration without having an issue while in a light rain. A 2 gallon, 6 second storm does not count as a downpour IMO.
As far as rain as a casting penalty. I'd be arguing a hard downpour, not a 6 second annoyance. Speaking from experience, I've never found a light rain distracting. I've marched in it in band, done drills in the military, and a dozen other tasks that take a form of concentration without having an issue while in a light rain. A 2 gallon, 6 second storm does not count as a downpour IMO.
What people have failed to mention is that the spell is two gallons PER level. Maybe at first level that two gallons in the form of a downpour is not much by your ruling, but a 5th level character is creating 10 gallons in the form of a downpour and a 10th level character is creating 20 gallons. The spell also specifically says that a cubic foot of water is 8 gallons and weighs 60 pounds. Now if you could not use the spell to form that solid cube of water, then they would not have put that in the description. So a high level caster should be perfectly capable of making that water cube above an enemy's head and having 60+ pounds fall down onto them. That will not only break concentration, that will knock your ass to the ground.
|
|
Well, I disagree. I don't think this spell should ever have an offensive effect greater than any other 0-level spell. I don't think the spell was ever intended as offensive spell. I think the spell was a nifty way to give people water or water crops, or something along those lines. If a player tries to pull this on me at this point after this discussion, I'd probably have to try not to be annoyed with him after debating a 0-level spell for so long. 0-level spells should not require this much thought. So, unless Paizo comes out and ends this argument, that's where I rule.
