| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The thread this is a fork of has devolved into the question in the title.
An arcane archer hits a creature with an arrow Imbued with Antimagic Field.
As per the text of Imbue Arrow, where ever the arrow landed will be where the AMF is centered.
The main question seems to be: If an arrow hits an enemy, does the AMF follow the enemy around, since the arrow landed on the enemy (AKA: hit him), and he is now "the center" of the AMF?
I argue that yes, he is the center of the AMF. A wizard casting AMF has it follow him around, so I don't see why the creature hit by an Imbued arrow with AMF wouldn't have it follow him around.
Note that this also has implications for Silence.
edit: The AMF spell text answered one of my questions. How embarrassing.
|
The second question that was recently raised is that if the creature is larger than the AMF, how does that work?
Note that this also has implications for Silence.
That part is easy, it's in the text of the spell. To quote:
'Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.'
Now...as to what exactly *that* means...there you're on your own! ;p
EDIT: As to what exactly that means, for, say a Gargantuan dragon with a (Su) breath weapon...I don't know. It can breath fire if it cranes its head far enough? Or does the fire breath come from the dragon's stomach, really? Who can say?
The second question that was recently raised is that if the creature is larger than the AMF, how does that work?
Note that this also has implications for Silence.
That part is easy, it's in the text of the spell. To quote:
'Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.'
Now...as to what exactly *that* means...there you're on your own! ;p
D'oh! I should've read that part next.
Here's something I had to say from the thread where this originated:
The spell is centered where the arrow lands. If that is part of a creature, it's going to move with that creature, since AMF itself is a moveable area spell that follows its center. I'm not worrying about the ammunition thing. The very first line of the spell says "an invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you." Since the spell is now centered on another creature, it would move with that creature. If you pegged an AMF imbued arrow into a shield, it would move with that shield as the shield is the new center.
I understand that idea that people are saying it is somehow tied to a square, but the spell never functioned that way. Why would it suddenly become tied to a square instead of whatever the arrow hits? That seems to completely change the spell as opposed to just changing where the spell is centered.
|
|
Here's something I had to say from the thread where this originated:
The spell is centered where the arrow lands. If that is part of a creature, it's going to move with that creature, since AMF itself is a moveable area spell that follows its center. I'm not worrying about the ammunition thing. The very first line of the spell says "an invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you." Since the spell is now centered on another creature, it would move with that creature. If you pegged an AMF imbued arrow into a shield, it would move with that shield as the shield is the new center.
I understand that idea that people are saying it is somehow tied to a square, but the spell never functioned that way. Why would it suddenly become tied to a square instead of whatever the arrow hits? That seems to completely change the spell as opposed to just changing where the spell is centered.
My argument for tying it to a square is that it is an effect of Imbue arrow. Imbue arrow changes the spell to target 'where I hit', and how the spell used to work when you cast it yourself becomes irrelevant.
The language of the ability can demonstrably be read either way, and I'm mostly assuming that the person who wrote Imbue arrow didn't consider area spells with ongoing effects and thus neglected to clarify how they function as opposed to the likes of fireball.
I gotcha. I just come down (obviously!) on the side of AMF being a moveable area centered on a certain point. When that point is a creature, object, etc....the spell moves with it, as it did in its original incarnation. I just don't see how the Imbue Arrow text changes it to a fixed point if the point it hits is not fixed...(i.e. a shield or creature) and the spell has never been about a fixed point.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Crossposted from the other thread:
Artifacts are exempt from AMF, so his axe still works.
There may also be an interesting quirk of the action of the spell.
AMF is a 10' r. He's a 15' cubic creature.
Imbue arrow is centered "where the arrow lands, even if the spell could normally be centered only on the caster."
That means that, unlike a caster using AMF on himself, an AMF through an imbue arrow does *NOT* need to be "centered on the caster." More to the point, it is not centered on the centerpoint of the creature you strike.
AMF must be centered on you if you cast it on yourself. Once you imbue it, that rule goes out the window, because the imbue arrow rule is a specific exception to spells you would center on yourself, and it stipulates exactly where the new spell is centered: not on the center of a creature you hit, but where the arrow lands (the exterior of a creature).
Where does the arrow land? The center point of the creature? Not likely; that is going to be INSIDE the creature. For the spell to be centered there would require the spell to be centered somewhere other than where the arrow lands, which is not what imbue arrow does. It doesn't hit and then push the effect somewhere else. It says what it does and it does what it says. Where does the arrow land in PF's abstract combat system? The arrow lands on one of the creature's exterior facings, presumably one of his 9 facing squares (3 x 3 vertical) on the side facing the archer.
Now, AMF *does* say that it moves with you, so Treerazer can't get away from it. He also can't dismiss it, because he's not the caster.
However, since the centerpoint is on his external facing, that means that only 2/3 of him (more or less) is actually INSIDE the AMF. The rest of him is outside. Which means he can use any and all of his abilities just fine. The AMF blocks line of effect on one side of him, so you'd have to adjudicate that for the rest of the battle, making sure to void any effects that passed through the AMF.
It would presumably stop him from teleporting, since he couldn't affect the part of himself still inside the AMF. Otherwise, though, he's home free.
Unless you have another couple of AMF-imbued arrows and can make sure to cover his full volume with none of his parts peeking out.
Have fun!
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?
Ah..as for the "The monster is too big for the area of th spell",
Might I ask if the Meta Magic feat 'Enlarge' is available for Paizo?
Enlarge the area of effect and you're away.
*Bows*
Enlarge is around, but it is different from 3.5
What you want is the Widen metamagic. Widen spell makes AMF a 9th level spell, but it's still doable.
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?
Because they are rendered non-functioning as weaponry. However, you can use mend on the broken arrows you pull out of creatures you've killed, so I don't see why the arrows would literally cease to exist...they just don't work so well being shot from a bow anymore.
Maybe imbue arrow was meant for personal spells only, which is not the same as a target of "you". I do think this one needs to be rewritten.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Here's something I had to say from the thread where this originated:
The spell is centered where the arrow lands. If that is part of a creature, it's going to move with that creature, since AMF itself is a moveable area spell that follows its center.
Yes, it will move with its center.
I'm not worrying about the ammunition thing.
Me neither. "Where it lands" =/= "on the arrow itself."
The very first line of the spell says "an invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you."
Correct. But, the spell is no longer targeting "you," and the imbue arrow ability is clear that the target of the effect is changed by using the ability.
Since the spell is now centered on another creature, it would move with that creature.
Move with them, yes.
Be centered upon them as if they had cast the spell on themselves? No.
If you pegged an AMF imbued arrow into a shield, it would move with that shield as the shield is the new center.
I'd probably buy that; a shield is a specific location on a creature.
I understand that idea that people are saying it is somehow tied to a square, but the spell never functioned that way. Why would it suddenly become tied to a square instead of whatever the arrow hits? That seems to completely change the spell as opposed to just changing where the spell is centered.
In the game, squares and vertices are locations. Creatures are not locations, though a creature occupies a volume
Because imbue arrow changes the spell. It no longer is centered on a creature (i.e., that creature's center point), it is now centered on a location (i.e., "where the arrow lands, which could include a location on a creature or some piece of gear that it is carrying, but not the creature itself, as a creature is not a "where"; it's a "what" or a "whom").
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?Because they are rendered non-functioning as weaponry.
Why?
However, you can use mend on the broken arrows you pull out of creatures you've killed,
How?
so I don't see why the arrows would literally cease to exist...they just don't work so well being shot from a bow anymore.
The arrows are destroyed. How are they both destroyed and continuing to exist?
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?
It's destroyed in the sense that it can't be used again. If the shaft breaks, the arrow head is still in the target. You seem to think that the arrow blinks out of existence, which I find absurd.
Now, the best counterpoint to my argument that I can think of is that Imbue Arrow isn't an attack action. However, this brings up the question of what happens if you target a square that is occupied. It would seem that if your attack roll beat the AC of the creature in the square, the arrow would hit. If it beat the grounds AC, bit not the creature's, it'd hit the ground. If it missed the ground, then you should put the bow away and revoke your Archery card.
Also, FAQing this would be nice. Jame's statements are ambiguous, especially his third.
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?Because they are rendered non-functioning as weaponry.Why?
However, you can use mend on the broken arrows you pull out of creatures you've killed,How?
so I don't see why the arrows would literally cease to exist...they just don't work so well being shot from a bow anymore.The arrows are destroyed. How are they both destroyed and continuing to exist?
Ohhhh Cartigan...Make Whole specifically fixes destroyed items...go read the spell. So I would assume even items that are "destroyed" still exist. So yeah. You can rip arrows out of corpses and repair them so they are no longer "destroyed", which proves they do not vanish into the aether upon inflicting damage. They are just too dull/broken/feathers messed up/whatever to work as ammunition. They don't disintegrate.
I'm going to post Cibet44's post from the other thread here because I thought it was interesting and relevant:
Actually if you look at Imbue Arrow it says "When the arrow is fired, the spell's area is centered where the arrow lands, even if the spell could normally be centered only on the caster."
This is the only mention of an arrow that "lands" not one that "targets" something.
Look at the other Arcane Archer abilities:
"Seeker Arrow (Sp): At 4th level, an arcane archer can launch an arrow at a target "
"Phase Arrow (Sp): At 6th level, an arcane archer can launch an arrow once per day at a target"
"Hail of Arrows (Sp): In lieu of his regular attacks, once per day an arcane archer of 8th level or higher can fire an arrow at each and every target"
"Arrow of Death (Sp): At 10th level, an arcane archer can create a special type of slaying arrow that forces the target"
Imbue arrow has no target. An imbued arrow must land in a space. It can't be used to target a creature. That's why you don't have to worry about the arrow breaking as is argued about above.
This is how we have always interpreted this ability in 3.5 (we would fire it a creatures feet, not actually try to hit the creature). In PF what is confusing the issue is the addition of the text "If the arrow misses, the spell is wasted." This text does not exist in the 3.5 version of the ability. This text gives the impression that you can fire an Imbued Arrow at a creature when in fact you can't. This text should be omitted or changed to "If the arrow does not land, the spell is wasted."
If you do target a creature with it I would rule that you strike the target (according to the hit roll) and the arrow does it's normal arrow and bow damage then the arrow is destroyed. Since it never lands the imbued effect is wasted. Or (if you were a generous DM) you...
I raised that point above, and as I said, it's the only valid objection that I think has been brought up. My question about the AC of the target in the square still stands though.
The text about it not landing meaning it is wasted would seem odd if you could attack with it, or hit someone with it. But it may be there due to Snatch Arrows. That seems farfetched.
An arrow can land in someone's chest. I don't see anything there that changes the way Imbue Arrow works. Even in the original thread James Jacobs acknowledged that the combo works, though he thinks it's overpowered and would houserule it a certain way if a player did it.
The reason the ability doesn't say target is because you don't HAVE to have a target for the ability to function. All of those other abilities need a target or they don't work. That's why there is a discrepancy in the wording. To say that an arrow shot into someone's chest has never landed is just ridiculous. A bird that alights on someone's shoulder has landed...it's not still flying.
Even an arrow that misses lands somewhere. I think the word lands was the wrong word to use. James also said it was not intended to be used that way.
By Cibet's RAW interpretation the tactic fails.
By James RAI interpretation it fails, but by RAW it works.
I think enough the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter of the rules.
Another facter when deciding how someone should rule is how would the PC react if this were done to them. If they are ok with it I might let it fly(no pun intended), but if they would complain then I would not allow them to do it either.
As an example I have had players that asked me could they purchase Vorpal weapons. I don't use them because I don't like killing PC's that way. I simply told the player if he brings them into the game then I bring them into the game also. I also don't like bosses being killed by a one-shot. He decided not to get one.
Even an arrow that misses lands somewhere. I think the word lands was the wrong word to use. James also said it was not intended to be used that way.
By Cibet's RAW interpretation the tactic fails.
By James RAI interpretation it fails, but by RAW it works.I think enough the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter of the rules.
Another facter when deciding how someone should rule is how would the PC react if this were done to them. If they are ok with it I might let it fly(no pun intended), but if they would complain then I would not allow them to do it either.
As an example I have had players that asked me could they purchase Vorpal weapons. I don't use them because I don't like killing PC's that way. I simply told the player if he brings them into the game then I bring them into the game also. I also don't like bosses being killed by a one-shot. He decided not to get one.
The only problem with this is that unless the DM really wants to start throwing a very specific NPC build at the players over and over, the DM isn't going to use this often. A PC built this way can do it a few times per adventuring day if they want or need to, but it would be pretty weird if suddenly the DM started throwing Arcane Archers at you in every dungeon and in every adventure. Now, if you asked me if I would be ok with this if we faced an encounter every now and then where I got pegged with AMF? I would actually be ok with that. I think it could make for a cool encounter. It's not as harmful when it's on one of the PCs as it is when its on the BBEG.
I've even purposefully pegged the party BSF with arrows with this on it before. If we're fighting something that relies on magic of some kind and the fighter can get close to it, sometimes it's easier to just AMF him and let him go to town...
Even an arrow that misses lands somewhere. I think the word lands was the wrong word to use. James also said it was not intended to be used that way.
By Cibet's RAW interpretation the tactic fails.
By James RAI interpretation it fails, but by RAW it works.I think enough the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter of the rules.
Another facter when deciding how someone should rule is how would the PC react if this were done to them. If they are ok with it I might let it fly(no pun intended), but if they would complain then I would not allow them to do it either.
As an example I have had players that asked me could they purchase Vorpal weapons. I don't use them because I don't like killing PC's that way. I simply told the player if he brings them into the game then I bring them into the game also. I also don't like bosses being killed by a one-shot. He decided not to get one.
The only problem with this is that unless the DM really wants to start throwing a very specific NPC build at the players over and over, the DM isn't going to use this often. A PC built this way can do it a few times per adventuring day if they want or need to, but it would be pretty weird if suddenly the DM started throwing Arcane Archers at you in every dungeon and in every adventure. Now, if you asked me if I would be ok with this if we faced an encounter every now and then where I got pegged with AMF? I would actually be ok with that. I think it could make for a cool encounter. It's not as harmful when it's on one of the PCs as it is when its on the BBEG.
I've even purposefully pegged the party BSF with arrows with this on it before. If we're fighting something that relies on magic of some kind and the fighter can get close to it, sometimes it's easier to just AMF him and let him go to town...
I am not saying the GM using the tactic is the same as spamming the tactic.
If I were to use this the party(at least half of them) would probably die. Take away the party's magic gear suddenly changes things a lot. Then you focus fire with other monsters to take party members out one by one.It is not as simple as pegging only one party member so they have to fight without magical weapons. That just defeats the purpose. If I am going to use a tactic I will use it to the best of my abilities.
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?It's destroyed in the sense that it can't be used again. If the shaft breaks, the arrow head is still in the target. You seem to think that the arrow blinks out of existence, which I find absurd.
You seem to think that your overlapping of the real world on the game is how the rules work. It isn't.
Everyone saying the arrow becomes a mobile AMF is evidently, from their posts, asserting that "real world logic" obviously translates to RAW and therefore, despite all evidence to the contrary, the creature gets an AMF glued to their front.
And I still haven't seen Nelson explain how arrows are both destroyed and still existing either.
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?It's destroyed in the sense that it can't be used again. If the shaft breaks, the arrow head is still in the target. You seem to think that the arrow blinks out of existence, which I find absurd.You seem to think that your overlapping of the real world on the game is how the rules work. It isn't.
Everyone saying the arrow becomes a mobile AMF is evidently, from their posts, asserting that "real world logic" obviously translates to RAW and therefore, despite all evidence to the contrary, the creature gets an AMF glued to their front.
And I still haven't seen Nelson explain how arrows are both destroyed and still existing either.
I already explained this to you and showed how it has a basis in the rules. Look at Make Whole as a spell. It specifically refers to fixing destroyed objects. Just stop, man. Your point on the ammunition front is a bad one.
Your point on whether the AMF moves is interesting in that there really isn't convincing evidence for either side. Personally, I see that the spell itself centers on something and moves with it, normally that being the caster. Since with Imbue Arrow you can center that where you shoot the arrow, it follows that if that is a moveable object the field moves with it. I don't really know how you are getting anything else aside from making up your own rules. You have to change MORE rules for your interpretation than for mine. Also, who is saying the ARROW becomes a mobile AMF? I'm certainly not.
An arrow can land in someone's chest. I don't see anything there that changes the way Imbue Arrow works.How does imbue arrow work with a fireball?
Is the area the standard size as a normal fireball?
-James
The point of origin for the fireball would be where it hit, so if that's a creature, then that's the point of origin for the fireball. It would still have its standard area. The stranger question is what happens with a cone of cold or lightning bolt....
Can you peg a person (or even a square) with an Imbue Arrow cone of cold, and then have it be aimed upward so as not to hit adjacent allies? I would think you determine the aiming of the spell when you shoot the arrow, but it is kind of strange to think about vertical lightning bolts shooting out from an arrow in someone's leg....but no weirder than thinking about vertical lightning bolts shooting up from an arrow that hits the ground under a creature.
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?It's destroyed in the sense that it can't be used again. If the shaft breaks, the arrow head is still in the target. You seem to think that the arrow blinks out of existence, which I find absurd.You seem to think that your overlapping of the real world on the game is how the rules work. It isn't.
Everyone saying the arrow becomes a mobile AMF is evidently, from their posts, asserting that "real world logic" obviously translates to RAW and therefore, despite all evidence to the contrary, the creature gets an AMF glued to their front.
And I still haven't seen Nelson explain how arrows are both destroyed and still existing either.
Sylvanite has already explained that "destroyed" doesn't mean disintegrated, winked out of existence, or magically disappears immediately after hitting something. He explained it in a RAW way, and I truly do not understand how you can persist in claiming that an arrow that hits something magically disappears immediately afterwards. At this point you are either intentionally playing dumb to never admit you are wrong due to some silly forum honour issue or doing some effective trolling. You are claiming that there is nothing physical remaining after an arrow hits and are using your intentionally narrow definition of "destroyed" to argue that.
At this point I doubt even Jason B could convince you that arrows don't magically disappear after hitting something because you equate "destroyed" with "utter disintegration" and refuse to be reasonable about this.
As for AMF arguably it would move with you, as it's an emanation, just with the distance calculated from that fixed square... thus in effect it wouldn't move at all.
If you want to AMF an enemy do what everyone does and use your familiar.
-James
Huh? You're getting crazy here. Suddenly the area no longer moves because it's centered on a fixed square that doesn't stay still?
I don't even know what you're trying to say here, but I'll attempt to answer you:
If the spell has a fixed center, but moves with that center as the center moves, how does that negate it being "tagged" onto someone else through Imbue Arrow? However you slice it up, if it is centered on you, but moves with you, then when it is centered on someone or something else that moves, it's going to move with them. I just don't see anything, including rules and/or logic, that would dictate otherwise.
As for the other area spells, I dunno what to tell you. A fireball would be centered around where it hit. If that's on a creature, then it would probably be easiest to adjudicate the area of effect from one of that creature's squares, yes. According to the ability, however, the exact effect would be centered on where the arrow landed...so however you want to go with that is fine. I just don't see it affecting AMF, other than in some of the ways brought up earlier where people have stated the center of AMF would be on the front side of the creature and if the creature was big enough that means it may not cover all of it.
|
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?It's destroyed in the sense that it can't be used again. If the shaft breaks, the arrow head is still in the target. You seem to think that the arrow blinks out of existence, which I find absurd.You seem to think that your overlapping of the real world on the game is how the rules work. It isn't.
...snip...
And I still haven't seen Nelson explain how arrows are both destroyed and still existing either.
de·stroy
–verb (used with object)
1. to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
Huh, according to the definition of "destroy", things do not evaporate into nothingness, instead are merely reduced to "useless fragments". Still exists in the real world though.
Moving to the RAW of Pathfinder:School transmutation; Level cleric 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one object of up to 10 cu. ft./level or one construct creature of any size
This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6).
Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way. When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance.
Well, "destroyed" magic items are explicitly a legal target of Make Whole, whose target has to be an object, which means it can't be a nonexisting idea or memory of an item. So "destroyed" magic items don't disappear into the aether, meaning they still exist. So arrows CAN both be destroyed AND still exist.
As for the other area spells, I dunno what to tell you. A fireball would be centered around where it hit. If that's on a creature, then it would probably be easiest to adjudicate the area of effect from one of that creature's squares, yes. According to the ability, however, the exact effect would be centered on where the arrow landed...so however you want to go with that is fine.Point of origin for spells is always the corner of a square. Period.
You can't have it 'centered' in the middle of a square however you want it to be.
Go through the magic section. The ability you're using changes the location of the point of origin, but not how its defined nor how area spells work.
-James
You are correct about the grid intersection thing. You would hit the creature, pick an intersection that was part of that creature's space (just as if you had cast it on yourself), and the AMF would emanate from there. If that "intersection" moves because the creature moves, then the emanation moves with it. That's a good point to remember, that you need to pick an intersection, thanks.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?It's destroyed in the sense that it can't be used again. If the shaft breaks, the arrow head is still in the target. You seem to think that the arrow blinks out of existence, which I find absurd.You seem to think that your overlapping of the real world on the game is how the rules work. It isn't.
Everyone saying the arrow becomes a mobile AMF is evidently, from their posts, asserting that "real world logic" obviously translates to RAW and therefore, despite all evidence to the contrary, the creature gets an AMF glued to their front.
And I still haven't seen Nelson explain how arrows are both destroyed and still existing either.
If by Nelson you mean me, I ain't said nuthin cuz I ain't got no dog in that fight.
However, since you asked... :)
In actual gameplay, I was DMing some years ago and the PCs wanted to get rid of an icepack in a big crater (one of the Illithiad modules), and there was some giant ice-burrowing monster from Frostburn I had put in there, so the party druid summoned a bunch of fire elementals to start attacking the ice. Ice has hit points, ice can be destroyed. They "destroyed" the ice in the glacier... not MELTED, but destroyed its hp. I may have just been in a jolly mood that day, but that's the way I ruled it working RAW.
However, that was 3.5. Here we are in Pathfinder, and in PF we have two spells, mending and make whole, which address your question. We have two facts in evidence:
1. Target one object up to blah blah size (we're ignoring the construct creature effect cuz it's irrelevant)
2. Spell text: "MW can fix destroyed magic items" and "Magic items that are destroyed can be repaired with this spell" (for mending)
We then have a necessary pattern of game logic:
A. Destroyed magic items are magic items that have been destroyed.
B. Magic items are a subset of objects; therefore, destroyed magic items are a subset of destroyed objects.
C. Mending/Make whole may fix destroyed magic items.
D. Mending/make whole must target an object. They cannot affect things that do not exist, as things that do not exist are not a valid target for either spell, since they are not objects.
E. Since we know that mending and make whole *DO* affect "destroyed magic items," then ipso facto destroyed magic items must be objects, because objects are the only valid targets for mending and make whole (constructs aside).
F. Since destroyed magic items must exist as objects in order to be targetable by spells that specifically state they can target them, we can safely say that they do not not exist.
G. Therefore, we have two examples in the RAW that an object may be both destroyed and still exist as an object, albeit in a destroyed state.
Is the object useable in any way? No.
Is the object annihilated and no longer existent? Also no.
QED.
|
*Lowering oar into the waters*
Okay, I think I see some people's 'disparaging' view of the description of the spell.
Part, the one:** spoiler omitted **
Part, the two:** spoiler omitted **
Now, reading those two sentences separately, then the second sentence would indicate the 'landed' arrow is stationary (I shall ignore the comments of "The arrow/ammunition CEASES TO EXIST", since such a comment is in my mind...stupid...)
However, the arrow/ammunition has NOT just landed i the case of the first sentence. The archer/shooter has NOT just tossed their arrow up into the air, and where it lands they know not where.
Said broken arrow is sticking out of said target.
Ergo, the spells "If it landed on a target, the spell is centered on the target".
Thoughts and other comments. *Bows*
i would agree, however as we are removing the line that states that the ammunition destroys it self for it to make sense i would also add an action of the DMs choice (swift, movement, standard or whatever) for the target to pull the arrow out which would remove the AM field from them. Once pulled out i would prob rule that it is destroyed, removing the field all together.
The ammunition has nothing to do with removing the spell unless you houserule it. The spell is not on the arrow, it is on what the arrow hits.
I already explained this to you and showed how it has a basis in the rules. Look at Make Whole as a spell.
The mending series only deals with destroyed MAGIC items.
Except the new effect isn't centered on the creature. It's centered on a point in space that happens to be the same one part of a creature is occupying. And if ammunition continues to exist after hitting a creature, why are they destroyed?It's destroyed in the sense that it can't be used again. If the shaft breaks, the arrow head is still in the target. You seem to think that the arrow blinks out of existence, which I find absurd.You seem to think that your overlapping of the real world on the game is how the rules work. It isn't.
...snip...
And I still haven't seen Nelson explain how arrows are both destroyed and still existing either.
de·stroy
–verb (used with object)
1. to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
Fail.
Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition
to smash, split, or divide into parts violently; reduce to pieces or fragments
Those aren't the same at all.
You are being very selective with your choices of wording. The emanation is centered on you from AMF, with Imbue arrow it is centered on where the arrow hits. That means the AMF is an area effect centered on the spot the arrow hit. If that spot is on something that moves, the spell moves with it, it's pretty easy to understand.
I do not know why you think that an imbued arrow AMF is still an emanation from you....it's from the spot where the arrow hits.
Now, the original spell is centered on "you" then according to the rules you have to pick a spot on the grid you occupy in order to adjudicate the spell. Same goes for when you hit a creature. You hit the creature, then a spot on the grid that is actually really part of that creature is determined....if the creature moves so does the AMF, just like when it was on "you" but you still had to pick a grid intersection.
You are right in that you do not NEED to attack someone as part of this spell. You are firing an arrow as part of casting the spell. That can be an attack as well as just firing it at a square (also an attack, actually since you'll need to roll to hit it). All of this is reinforced by the part that says if you "miss" the spell is wasted. How can you miss if you're not attacking something?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I already explained this to you and showed how it has a basis in the rules. Look at Make Whole as a spell.The mending series only deals with destroyed MAGIC items.
Even so, it disproves your claim that, in Pathfinder rules, "destroyed" automatically equates to "reduced to nothingness," since there are clear, explicit examples where that is not the case.
Regardless, imbue arrow doesn't place the spell on the ARROW, it places the spell effect on the "place the arrow lands."
Not the arrow.
So, even if the arrow is destroyed utterly, it doesn't matter because the magic inheres to the spot it landed, not the arrow itself.
Am I repeating myself? I think so. :)
James: I respect your opinion, to be honest, and agree with a lot of the stuff you post around here. I really don't have it in me to argue the point anymore as it really just seems to come down to how an individual wants to handle a case where the rules just don't seem to say what to do.
The Imbue Arrow ability needs to be written better. As it stands now, you can use it to put an Emergency Force Sphere around someone AND hit them with an arrow as an immediate action...unless you go by your interpretation that somehow you can fire an arrow but not fire it AT someone which bends gamelogic to the point of creating absurdities. (As I acknowledge my above immediate action thing kind of does, too).
I simply see it as: The ability lets you center a spell where it lands. It lands in someone's chest. The spell is centered there. AMF moves with its center. Clean and simple. Occam style.
The original AMF spell doesn't even seem designed with the whole picking a grid point in mind. I've never seen someone play a 10' burst or emanation from a caster as extending 10' in front of them and only 5' behind them, though by RAW that is apparently what it has to be in some fashion. So I dunno what to tell you on that front.
However you parse it, you're going to have to make an attack roll when using this ability. I think it's ridiculous to say "you can attack only a square, but not an occupant of that square with you arrow you are firing." If that was the intent of the ability it would say so. You disagree. I don't know who is right, because it really isn't covered at all. I do know this is the first time in the existence of this ability I've heard it argued that it can't be used to attack someone. Even in the Treerazer thread James Jacobs seems pretty sure you can do it (though he doesn't like it :p).
I guess it's just GM adjudication territory. Either way, that's really all I have to say about it. I appreciate the discussion and your good logic and control over the rules, however. I'll still read and respond to stuff, but I just can't argue this ability anymore : )
In the game, squares and vertices are locations. Creatures are not locations, though a creature occupies a volume
Because imbue arrow changes the spell. It no longer is centered on a creature (i.e., that creature's center point), it is now centered on a location (i.e., "where the arrow lands, which could include a location on a creature or some piece of gear that it is carrying, but not the creature itself, as a creature is not a "where"; it's a "what" or a "whom").
+1
Even so, it disproves your claim that, in Pathfinder rules, "destroyed" automatically equates to "reduced to nothingness," since there are clear, explicit examples where that is not the case.
I already explained this to you and showed how it has a basis in the rules. Look at Make Whole as a spell.The mending series only deals with destroyed MAGIC items.
There are clear explicit rules that that is not the case for magic items. And given the multitude of places where magic items and mundane items differ, there is no obvious connection between the affecting of destroyed magic items and affecting destroyed mundane items.
Regardless, imbue arrow doesn't place the spell on the ARROW, it places the spell effect on the "place the arrow lands."
Not the arrow.
Two things:
1) For the mobile AMF to be valid, the spell MUST take effect ON THE ARROW. The "space where the arrow lands" is never going to be mobile because a space is always a space.2) Imbue Arrow states the spell is centered where the arrow lands. As I have maintained this entire argument, there is nothing that states that the target creature or object becomes the target of the spell.
On a related note, I don't understand how Imbue Arrow ever fails. Sure, you may not hit your target, but I am fairly certain the arrow has to "land" SOMEWHERE.
|
I would say that you have to use your brains when adjudicating the scenario, because RAW is always stupid and wrong.
If the arrows ceased to be as soon as they were fired, then all things would be immune to arrow/bolt/dart/rock damage because
1. I was hit.
2. I was hurt.
3. The thing that hurt me is gone.
4. by extension, I was hurt by nothing.
5. I am unhurt.
6. Through the power of pure intellect I have become god.
[/blatant troll]
On a more serious note, please try to obey the law of conservation of mass and energy whenever you can.
if treerazer doesn't get stuck with the arrow (with spell effect attached), then you've effectively erased the ability of the player to use his abilities to affect the game (because treerazer becomes immune to the AMF while charging at the wizard) - I can't even begin to explain how frustrating this is to some people, especially those who have control issues that they may or may not be trying to get over.
If the player wants to do something crazy, let him, then have the situation change relative to what you'd expect. If the player insists that it has to work that way, then you immediately use it against them. There should be minions of the BBEG nearby - have them improvise the exact same strategy, they're not blind or deaf!
Players can usually become far more reasonable when they realize that they could be inadvertently attacking their own character.