| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the spell:
Bane fills your enemies with fear and doubt. Each affected creature takes a –1 penalty on attack rolls and a –1 penalty on saving throws against fear effects. Bane counters and dispels bless.
Is the first sentence of the spell fluff or is it mechanics? Do my allies got affected by the spell? (asuuming that they are within range and they fail the spell).
Here is the spell:
Bane fills your enemies with fear and doubt. Each affected creature takes a –1 penalty on attack rolls and a –1 penalty on saving throws against fear effects. Bane counters and dispels bless.Is the first sentence of the spell fluff or is it mechanics? Do my allies got affected by the spell? (asuuming that they are within range and they fail the spell).
Just enemies.
Actually, that first sentence is almost always considered fluff. Since the targeting changed from 3.5, where it stated "enemies within 50 feet" to "50 foot radius burst, centered on you", I'd actually rule that, by RAW, it affects allies.
I'd agree with Evil Dave were we playing at my table though. However, Rules Forum requires RAW rulings.
Actually, that first sentence is almost always considered fluff. Since the targeting changed from 3.5, where it stated "enemies within 50 feet" to "50 foot radius burst, centered on you", I'd actually rule that, by RAW, it affects allies.
I'd agree with Evil Dave were we playing at my table though. However, Rules Forum requires RAW rulings.
The convention is indeed that the first sentence is usually considered fluff. However, it makes this spell an extremely bad choice if it affects allies as well. In this case, I would expect that the first sentence is more than fluff and means that the spell does not affect allies. I think that excluding the first sentence of the description and calling that RAW is a little pedantic in this case.
The flip side to this coin is saying that unless I ignore the first sentence of the description, I'm houseruling the spell. There's no good argument for excluding parts of the description based solely on convention.
Actually, that first sentence is almost always considered fluff. Since the targeting changed from 3.5, where it stated "enemies within 50 feet" to "50 foot radius burst, centered on you", I'd actually rule that, by RAW, it affects allies.
I'd agree with Evil Dave were we playing at my table though. However, Rules Forum requires RAW rulings.
The convention is indeed that the first sentence is usually considered fluff. However, it makes this spell an extremely bad choice if it affects allies as well. In this case, I would expect that the first sentence is more than fluff and means that the spell does not affect allies. I think that excluding the first sentence of the description and calling that RAW is a little pedantic in this case.
The flip side to this coin is saying that unless I ignore the first sentence of the description, I'm houseruling the spell. There's no good argument for excluding parts of the description based solely on convention.
Well, the targeting of the spell was explicitly changed from 3.5, so it seems that it was an intentional choice by the Paizo staff. Was that a good decision? *shrug* I know, that at my table, we rule that the targeting is "enemies within 50 feet".
Well, the targeting of the spell was explicitly changed from 3.5, so it seems that it was an intentional choice by the Paizo staff. Was that a good decision? *shrug* I know, that at my table, we rule that the targeting is "enemies within 50 feet".
True, it was changed. Also, note that the area for the Bless spell now reads "The caster and all allies within a 50-ft. burst, centered on the caster," which was probably changed to eliminate confusion. If Bane and Bless counter and dispel one another, they should have analagous targeting. This is supported by the first line of the Bane description, even if the areas are not consistent.
But now that we've beaten that dead horse: Leo, did we answer your question?
Yes of course, i also think that it should not affect allies but i think that RAW it does.
Anyway my DM houseruled it that it does affect only enemies (a good decision IMO).
Yes of course, i also think that it should not affect allies but i think that RAW it does.
Anyway my DM houseruled it that it does affect only enemies (a good decision IMO).
The description says that it only affects enemies. You're not houseruling it.
Actually, that first sentence is almost always considered fluff. Since the targeting changed from 3.5, where it stated "enemies within 50 feet" to "50 foot radius burst, centered on you", I'd actually rule that, by RAW, it affects allies.
No, you won't. Because you can't rule what the RAW is, because it's the RAW! :P
Beyond that, I have never seen any rule that the first sentence is to be considered fluff without any bearing on the spell's effects.
Thus I'd say that a spell that says it fills enemies with dread but will affect everyone (so the other ones just get a penalty even though they're not filled with dread?) is neither according to the RAW, nor does it make any sense.
Since "Does it make sense" is one of the most important considerations (certainly way above "could a crazy person interpret the vague wording that way"), the "enemies only" interpretation is the only one I'll consider.
Actually, that first sentence is almost always considered fluff. Since the targeting changed from 3.5, where it stated "enemies within 50 feet" to "50 foot radius burst, centered on you", I'd actually rule that, by RAW, it affects allies.No, you won't. Because you can't rule what the RAW is, because it's the RAW! :P
Beyond that, I have never seen any rule that the first sentence is to be considered fluff without any bearing on the spell's effects.
Thus I'd say that a spell that says it fills enemies with dread but will affect everyone (so the other ones just get a penalty even though they're not filled with dread?) is neither according to the RAW, nor does it make any sense.
Since "Does it make sense" is one of the most important considerations (certainly way above "could a crazy person interpret the vague wording that way"), the "enemies only" interpretation is the only one I'll consider.
I agree with you on the "Does it make sense" part, what i simply say is that the wording may need an errata or clarification because the first sentence of the spell reads "Bane fills your enemies with fear and doubt." which by itself has no mechanical value.
I also think that the most probable explanation is that this sentence was put there so that people will understand the purpose of the spell.
I agree with you on the "Does it make sense" part, what i simply say is that the wording may need an errata or clarification because the first sentence of the spell reads "Bane fills your enemies with fear and doubt." which by itself has no mechanical value.
I also think that the most probable explanation is that this sentence was put there so that people will understand the purpose of the spell.
I'd rather have the Devs keep working on putting out more great gaming material than coming here and clarifying minor inconsistencies in the rules. I apreciate that they're actually reading the boards and chiming in sometimes, but let's not abuse them.
How does "Bane fills your enemies with fear and doubt" not have any mechanical value? If it were the second sentence of the description instead of the first would it be valid?
I'd rather have the Devs keep working on putting out more great gaming material than coming here and clarifying minor inconsistencies in the rules. I apreciate that they're actually reading the boards and chiming in sometimes, but let's not abuse them.
I think i can go behind that.
Just to make myself clear: I know how this spell intends to work, i just continue this for the sake of discussion.
How does "Bane fills your enemies with fear and doubt" not have any mechanical value? If it were the second sentence of the description instead of the first would it be valid?
No it wouldn't matter if it wasn't the first sentence of the description. What i meant with mechanical value is that it doesn't uses any system terms, have you seen any term named "fills an enemy" or "fill something", also about fear and doubt, what is (from the system's point of view) "fear and doubt"? is it some condition? is it some kind of penalty?
That's what i meant, i can understand that the purpose of the spell is to affect only enemies (unless a dev tells us otherwise), i am just saying that the rules on the spell don't reflect that.I don't know if you remember a thread that popped up during this week (iirc). It was about someone's player reading of the shield spell and that because the description of the spell said that it creates a disk in front of you the bonus from the spell would not count when i attacked you from behind, which there is absolutely no system term about front and back as there isn't any term about the "fills your enemies with fear and doubt". I am not sure if i make a lot of sense with this example, if not i blame my lack of sleep.
No it wouldn't matter if it wasn't the first sentence of the description. What i meant with mechanical value is that it doesn't uses any system terms, have you seen any term named "fills an enemy" or "fill something", also about fear and doubt, what is (from the system's point of view) "fear and doubt"? is it some condition? is it some kind of penalty?
That's what i meant, i can understand that the purpose of the spell is to affect only enemies (unless a dev tells us otherwise), i am just saying that the rules on the spell don't reflect that.I don't know if you remember a thread that popped up during this week (iirc). It was about someone's player reading of the shield spell and that because the description of the spell said that it creates a disk in front of you the bonus from the spell would not count when i attacked you from behind, which there is absolutely no system term about front and back as there isn't any term about the "fills your enemies with fear and doubt". I am not sure if i make a lot of sense with this example, if not i blame my lack of sleep.
I see what you're saying here. You're right that 'fear,' 'doubt,' 'fills' are not game terms in this description. I don't think that there's any possible way to claim that the word 'enemies' means that it includes your allies, however, whether it is a game term or not.
I see what you're saying here. You're right that 'fear,' 'doubt,' 'fills' are not game terms in this description. I don't think that there's any possible way to claim that the word 'enemies' means that it includes your allies, however, whether it is a game term or not.
You have a point.
But still the word enemies is on a sentence that has no other system terms.More importantly:
Why does the spell uses the word creatures for the rest of the spell description? Why doesn't it use the word enemies again?
Actually, that first sentence is almost always considered fluff. Since the targeting changed from 3.5, where it stated "enemies within 50 feet" to "50 foot radius burst, centered on you", I'd actually rule that, by RAW, it affects allies.No, you won't. Because you can't rule what the RAW is, because it's the RAW! :P
Beyond that, I have never seen any rule that the first sentence is to be considered fluff without any bearing on the spell's effects.
Thus I'd say that a spell that says it fills enemies with dread but will affect everyone (so the other ones just get a penalty even though they're not filled with dread?) is neither according to the RAW, nor does it make any sense.
Since "Does it make sense" is one of the most important considerations (certainly way above "could a crazy person interpret the vague wording that way"), the "enemies only" interpretation is the only one I'll consider.
+1 Agree
You have a point.
But still the word enemies is on a sentence that has no other system terms.
More importantly:
Why does the spell uses the word creatures for the rest of the spell description? Why doesn't it use the word enemies again?
The word 'and' isn't a game term, but is still critical to correct reading of game rules. The word enemies can't be simply thrown out when it enhances understanding of the spell. My guess as to why it says 'creatures' was to exclude 'objects,' but that really isn't important. It could say 'targets,' for example, and still not invalidate the word 'enemies' before, even if it was a poor choice of word.
Writing can always be clearer, but Paizo didn't intend to change Bane into a worthless spell. There isn't much point in overanalyzing their diction.
Writing can always be clearer, but Paizo didn't intend to change Bane into a worthless spell.
Point.
There isn't much point in overanalyzing their diction.
I agree, enough rule-lawyering.
Thanks for the sparring.
Writing can always be clearer, but Paizo didn't intend to change Bane into a worthless spell.
Point.
There isn't much point in overanalyzing their diction.
I agree, enough rule-lawyering.
Thanks for the sparring.
No problem.