| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why on earth does this spell allow for spell resistance? It's a transmutation effect. It doesn't attack directly like fireball or lightning bolt. It transmutes stone terrain into spiked stone terrain which, in true non-magical fashion, shred the enemy moving through the area.
How does a creature with spell resistance ignore that exactly?
As a GM I wouldn't know where to begin on ruling on such a thing. As a player I would be totally miffed at any GM who told me golems were somehow immune to walking through spikes.
So I submit the following for FAQing: Why does spike growth and spike stones allow for spell resistance when they are clearly an indirect form of attack, such as wall of thorns, black tentacles, and entangle? Is this a typo or similar error? If not, how does spell resistance interact with these spells exactly? Does a golem walking through a spiked field dispel the entire effect for example?
As a GM, wouldn't you feel it was equally stupid to have a golem whose speed was halved by injury to his stony golem legs?
Despite the fact that the spell does "piercing damage," spell damage is unaffected by DR, creating a weird corner-case where a Barbarian with a +1 greataxe has a hard time damaging a stone golem, but these spikes of stone would not only bypass DR/adamantine, but hamper the golems already woeful speed.
So the spell allows for spell resistance, even though it doesn't make a lot of sense, because otherwise an even stupider result would occur.
|
As a GM, wouldn't you feel it was equally stupid to have a golem whose speed was halved by injury to his stony golem legs?
Despite the fact that the spell does "piercing damage," spell damage is unaffected by DR, creating a weird corner-case where a Barbarian with a +1 greataxe has a hard time damaging a stone golem, but these spikes of stone would not only bypass DR/adamantine, but hamper the golems already woeful speed.
So the spell allows for spell resistance, even though it doesn't make a lot of sense, because otherwise an even stupider result would occur.
Why would the spell bypass DR exactly? Are you referring to the rule that says "spells bypass DR"? Yeah, that rule was not in reference to physical damage types (those must still bypass DR). It's there to prevent people from trying to apply DR against untyped damage (no type means no bypassing types, right?)
The Golem could easily be slowed by having chunks of stone sticking out at odd angles (whether those angles are created by the addition or removal of stone is mostly irrelevant).
I vote that this spell shouldn't allow SR.
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.
This comes up every couple months since 3.5 at least. Houserule however you want, but Spells bypass DR. It's cut and dried.
A monks Ki Pool is a supernatural (Su) ability, so it is not affected by DR.
Edit: Oh, you're talking about the monk moving through the spikes. Yup. it sure would. The spell allows SR, Monks get SR. It is what it is.
SR does seem goofy for this spell.
|
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.This comes up every couple months since 3.5 at least. Houserule however you want, but Spells bypass SR. It's cut and dried.
A monks Ki Pool is a supernatural (Su) ability, so it is not affected by DR.
I am okay with that, I just keep thinking that I saw a dev state something about it for Pathfinder. I could be wrong.
For the monk, I was referring to :
Diamond Soul (Ex): At 13th level, a monk gains spell resistance equal to his current monk level + 10. In order to affect the monk with a spell, a spellcaster must get a result on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) that equals or exceeds the monk's spell resistance.
So a monk has a chance of walking through a spike stone field with no effect.
Despite the fact that the spell does "piercing damage," spell damage is unaffected by DR...
When a spell mentions that a specific type of damage caused is bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, that DOES have to overcome a creature's DR. Some spells create magic effects, while others use magic to create physical effects; that's a major theme of conjuration magic (and creation magic in particular).
If you hit an ooze with the Split ability with the appropriate type of damage, be that from a spell or weapon, it will split.
And if you drop a spell that, say, does piercing damage on something with damage reduction like 5/bludgeoning, that piercing damage will get offset by the damage reduction.
Casting ice storm on a mix of zombies and skeletons would indeed be complex. The zombies would reduce the damage taken from the bludgeoning portion of the spell but take full damage from the cold, while the skeletons would just ignore the cold damage entirely and take full damage from the bludgeoning.
MOST spells don't inflict bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage at all. And most spells don't inflict multiple types of damage either. Lightning bolt, for example, just causes electricity damage. It bypasses DR entirely but not electricity resistance or electricity immunity. And unless the spell description says so specifically, bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage it inflicts is not automatically also treated as bypassing magic. Again; the damaging object is CREATED by magic and PROPELLED by magic, but is not in and of itself magic.
A spell that conjures a flight of arrows that deals piercing damage should be reduced by DR/bludgeoning or slashing. If it doesn't, then that spell's damage type shouldn't be listed as piercing at all, but untyped damage. Spells and effects that do untyped damage are pretty rare in Pathfinder, since these spells are quite powerful since their damage can't be stopped by any form of immunity, resistance, or damage reduction.
|
|
Thanks RD, I was about to make a post linking to that exact quote, but it seems you've ninja'd me.
@Oamu: It is an extreme break in verisimilitude that magic would automatically bypass DR when dealing physical damage. This would mean that if a rock were to fall on you, you'd have to check to see whether or not a "lift and drop rock" spell was used to lift it before determining whether your DR counted, despite no magic remaining in the object at the time of impact. This is far sillier than Spike Stones requiring an SR check, IMO.
The simple solution is "No. Spike Stones should not require SR."
Why on earth does this spell allow for spell resistance? It's a transmutation effect. It doesn't attack directly like fireball or lightning bolt. It transmutes stone terrain into spiked stone terrain which, in true non-magical fashion, shred the enemy moving through the area.
How does a creature with spell resistance ignore that exactly?
Well, its not an instantaneous effect, so the magic that forms the spikes has a duration and is constantly keeping the surface in its spiked form. The spikes are formed and maintained by magic. Maybe a creature with spell resistance, coming into contact with the spike, can somehow negate the magic holding that spike in shape causing it to revert to its normal surface. Once the creature is past, the magic is able to reform the spike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trivial, if the rocky ground, stone floor or similar surface has got SR it can use its SR, let grounds and floors have nice stuff!.
Sheesh. If it comes up so often that these discussions are still going on, you'd think it would make it into the errata.
So the Golem would be unaffected by the spikes, because they can't bypass it's DR, but still risk being slowed by the damage they don't inflict on it's not-wounded legs.
That still makes no sense. I'm glad my group has no druids.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks RD. That quote had SR vs my Search fu and I failed my check.
No problem at all. It's easy when you bookmark the developers' archived posts. After that you just search every post they've ever made for appropriate key words.
Posts by Jason Buhlman
Posts by James Jacobs
Posts by Ravingdork
Posts by Sean KmReynolds
Simply click the appropriate link above, bookmark it, and use the search function to search their posts. Never lose a ruling again! :D
Thanks RD, I was about to make a post linking to that exact quote, but it seems you've ninja'd me.
@Oamu: It is an extreme break in verisimilitude that magic would automatically bypass DR when dealing physical damage. This would mean that if a rock were to fall on you, you'd have to check to see whether or not a "lift and drop rock" spell was used to lift it before determining whether your DR counted, despite no magic remaining in the object at the time of impact. This is far sillier than Spike Stones requiring an SR check, IMO.
The simple solution is "No. Spike Stones should not require SR."
Except that's not simple either--like my Golem example. The spikes cannot harm the golem, because they don't deal enough base damage to bypass it's DR. Why should it have to make a Reflex save to avoid the damage it cannot take or be wounded, which it cannot be, and thus be slowed, which cripples it's ability to work in combat? It's a hornet's nest of nonsense.
|
|
Thanks RD. That quote had SR vs my Search fu and I failed my check.It's easy when you bookmark the developers' archived posts. After that you just search every post they've ever made for appropriate key words.
Posts by Jason Buhlman
Posts by James Jacobs
Posts by Ravingdork
Posts by Sean KmReynoldsSimply click the appropriate link above, bookmark it, and use the search function to search their posts. Never lose a ruling again! :D
LOL, I will have to. although, one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same.
So the Golem would be unaffected by the spikes, because they can't bypass it's DR, but still risk being slowed by the damage they don't inflict on it's not-wounded legs.That still makes no sense. I'm glad my group has no druids.
If you don't take damage, secondary effects are negated, as usual for DR. Specifically, you only get slowed by this spell if you take damage (but the effect of pseudo-difficult terrain remains).
"Any creature that takes damage from this spell must also succeed
on a Reflex save to avoid injuries to its feet and legs[etc...]"
So the Golem would be unaffected by the spikes, because they can't bypass it's DR, but still risk being slowed by the damage they don't inflict on it's not-wounded legs.That still makes no sense. I'm glad my group has no druids.
If you don't take damage, secondary effects are negated, as usual for DR. Specifically, you only get slowed by this spell if you take damage (but the effect of pseudo-difficult terrain remains).
"Any creature that takes damage from this spell must also succeed
on a Reflex save to avoid injuries to its feet and legs[etc...]"
So it's fine. The Golem from Ravingdork's original example cannot be affected by the spell, because, yes, he is immune to walking through spikes, even without the SR. I am okay with this.
Whether or not golems would be effected by this spell isn't the issue. The idea that certain barbarians and dwarves can run through a field of spikes with impunity due to their SR is totally nonsensical!
LOL, I will have to. although, one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same.
I included my archived posts because there are people who find my posts extremely valuable. I did not mean to imply that I was a developer.
Whether or not golems would be effected by this spell isn't the issue. The idea that certain barbarians and dwarves can run through a field of spikes with impunity due to their SR is totally nonsensical!
Sure it is, but I was only fixated on your original example. You guys can fight out the non-golem implications as long as I don't have to worry about stony spikes piercing my invulnerable clay legs.
The idea that certain barbarians and dwarves can run through a field of spikes with impunity due to their SR is totally nonsensical!
No its not. Magic holds the spikes into shape. If that magic is somehow negated (such as by spell resistance), that spike reverts to back to the normal surface. View it as the spikes shrinking then regrowing around the character as they pass.
Whether or not golems would be effected by this spell isn't the issue. The idea that certain barbarians and dwarves can run through a field of spikes with impunity due to their SR is totally nonsensical!
I included my archived posts because there are people who find my posts extremely valuable. I did not mean to imply that I was a developer.LOL, I will have to. although, one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same.
On my end it doesn't break immersion to envision.
|
|
The idea that certain barbarians and dwarves can run through a field of spikes with impunity due to their SR is totally nonsensical!No its not. Magic holds the spikes into shape. If that magic is somehow negated (such as by spell resistance), that spike reverts to back to the normal surface. View it as the spikes shrinking then regrowing around the character as they pass.
Usually spells do not "regrow" after being resisted by SR. They go away. Summon spells, conjured weaponry, etc are examples of this. Even if they have multiple targets, once something with SR resists it, it's gone.
Then again, that might only apply to conjuration effects.
Either way, you make good points about why SR should work. I was (for some reason) under the impression that the duration was instantaneous. Since there is a valid reason for SR to work, and the spell says SR works, I will retract my former statement in support of the idea that it shouldn't be affected by SR. (In other words, the spell works as written.)
Obviously, I disagree. The only thing the ongoing magic does is create the spikes. The spikes deal damage not because they are magical, but because they are sharp and pointy.
Spell resistance shouldn't apply to this spell any more than it should a dagger thrust.
In any case, I suspect it is a mistake, a typo, and so created this thread in hopes of getting clarification. FAQ away if you think it as odd as I!
Oh, and depending on one's interpretation, the spikes may well get through damage reduction: the interpretation being whether you check for DR for every 5 feet, or at the end of every movement.
The difference could be 1d8 four times versus 4d8.
|
|
Obviously, I disagree. The only thing the ongoing magic does is create the spikes. The spikes deal damage not because they are magical, but because they are sharp and pointy.
Spell resistance shouldn't apply to this spell any more than it should a dagger thrust.
In any case, I suspect it is a mistake, a typo, and so created this thread in hopes of getting clarification. FAQ away if you think it as odd as I!
For magic with ongoing energy (aka, a duration), it doesn't matter whether the magic is dealing the damage directly or not. What matter is if there is still magic in the item when it contacts you, and if that magic is required to deal damage. If the answer to both is "yes", SR would unravel it before the damage is dealt.
In this case, if you were to watch the situation in slow-motion, the spike edges ever closer until it just barely makes contact, at which point the magic in it is destabilized by the creature's SR and the spike instantly reverts to being whatever it was before the spell touched it. If the spike attempts to regrow with the destabilizing agent still present, it is destabilized again before dealing damage (for simplicity, one roll is used per creature-spell pair).
Unless stated otherwise it is assumed that the magic can recover from this once the interrupting agent is gone (in other words, once the creature leaves the square).
|
|
The idea that certain barbarians and dwarves can run through a field of spikes with impunity due to their SR is totally nonsensical!No its not. Magic holds the spikes into shape. If that magic is somehow negated (such as by spell resistance), that spike reverts to back to the normal surface. View it as the spikes shrinking then regrowing around the character as they pass.
And yet, Wall of Thorns (piercing damage from a spell with duration), Black Tentacles (untyped! damage from a spell with duration), and entangle do not allow SR.
The other spell like this one Spike Growth also allows SR when it does not make sense.
Obviously, I disagree. The only thing the ongoing magic does is create the spikes. The spikes deal damage not because they are magical, but because they are sharp and pointy.
Spell resistance shouldn't apply to this spell any more than it should a dagger thrust.
In any case, I suspect it is a mistake, a typo, and so created this thread in hopes of getting clarification. FAQ away if you think it as odd as I!
Well, if the magic simply creates the spikes, why would they go away at the end of the spell's duration? It seems like, if the spell is cast, and spikes grow, and many, many hours later, after everyone has left the scene to down a pint, the spikes meld back into the earth--then magic must be present the whole time.
Can the spell be dispelled? Dismissed? Do the spikes go away in an antimagic field? Then magic is there the whole time, saturating and maintaining those spikes.
|
|
Obviously, I disagree. The only thing the ongoing magic does is create the spikes. The spikes deal damage not because they are magical, but because they are sharp and pointy.
Spell resistance shouldn't apply to this spell any more than it should a dagger thrust.
In any case, I suspect it is a mistake, a typo, and so created this thread in hopes of getting clarification. FAQ away if you think it as odd as I!
Well, if the magic simply creates the spikes, why would they go away at the end of the spell's duration? It seems like, if the spell is cast, and spikes grow, and many, many hours later, after everyone has left the scene to down a pint, the spikes meld back into the earth--then magic must be present the whole time.
Can the spell be dispelled? Dismissed? Do the spikes go away in an antimagic field? Then magic is there the whole time, saturating and maintaining those spikes.
Please see my post above about wall of thorns, black tentacles, and entangle. All of these are spell with duration that do damage and do not allow SR.
Whether or not the magic is maintaining the spikes' shape is a moot argument. Magic immunity and similar defenses protect you against magic, not spikes.
Oh, and depending on one's interpretation, the spikes may well get through damage reduction: the interpretation being whether you check for DR for every 5 feet, or at the end of every movement.
The difference could be 1d8 four times versus 4d8.
Sure, you could also check DR only once per round, no matter how many swings the barbarian gets with his axe, if you wanted to houserule wacky stuff like that. You could do it with Fire resistance too, so those extra three scorching rays get full damage, after the first one bypasses the resistance. A houserule like that would roll around in my game like a cinderblock in a dryer, but you could do that.
I have edited my first post to include a FAQ section, for clarity.
Please see my post above about wall of thorns, black tentacles, and entangle. All of these are spell with duration that do damage and do not allow SR.
So use those spells instead of Spike Stones. Problem solved.
Seriously, there are lots of other spells from other spell lists at other levels and available to other classes that are useful for a host of other reasons. I don't think that has much to do with this.
Whether or not the magic is maintaining the spikes' shape is a moot argument. Magic immunity and similar defenses protect you against magic, not spikes.
These are spikes made by magic, held together by magic, and eventually dissolved by magic. It's the difference between a Bonfire (no SR) and a Fireball (Yes SR).
Please see my post above about wall of thorns, black tentacles, and entangle. All of these are spell with duration that do damage and do not allow SR.So use those spells instead of Spike Stones. Problem solved.
On my end, Happler's post would lead me to think that those 3 listed spells SHOULD have SR:yes added to them for the exact reasons mentioned above and not that Spike Stones should be SR:no.
On my end, Happler's post would lead me to think that those 3 listed spells SHOULD have SR:yes added to them for the exact reasons mentioned above and not that Spike Stones should be SR:no.Please see my post above about wall of thorns, black tentacles, and entangle. All of these are spell with duration that do damage and do not allow SR.So use those spells instead of Spike Stones. Problem solved.
Except that would go against the existing trend, making it somewhat illogical and unlikely to happen.
What I'm trying to find out is why spike stones and spike growth don't follow the existing trends set forth by Pathfinder and previous editions (where indirect attack spells typically ignored SR).
What I'm trying to find out is why spike stones and spike growth don't follow the existing trends set forth by Pathfinder and previous editions (where indirect attack spells typically ignored SR).
Because they just do? The magic system is full of inconsistencies. Just because something works one way for a spell or three, doesn't mean thats how it works for another spell.
Consistency would be nice, but WotC likes to do stuff just because they can, with no reason.
What I'm trying to find out is why spike stones and spike growth don't follow the existing trends set forth by Pathfinder and previous editions (where indirect attack spells typically ignored SR).Because they just do? The magic system is full of inconsistencies. Just because something works one way for a spell or three, doesn't mean thats how it works for another spell.
Consistency would be nice, but WotC likes to do stuff just because they can, with no reason.
Perhaps, but I've never known Paizo to do things without reason. If it is a holdover from WotC, then certainly there is no harm in allowing me to bring the inconsistency to designer attention so that they might clarify how they feel it should be?
Disagreeing with me on the matter is one thing, but I am still often surprised at how much actual opposition I face when I make a thread like this one. A change such as the one I propose here couldn't possibly hurt other peoples' games, could it? AS always, I'm merely trying to help Paizo make a better game.
Disagreeing with me on the matter is one thing, but I am still often surprised at how much actual opposition I face when I make a thread like this one. A change such as the one I propose here couldn't possibly hurt other peoples' games, could it? AS always, I'm merely trying to help Paizo make a better game.
It's less opposition then debate from what i see. YMMV
Sure, Paizo could change it if they wanted to. But every thing that gets changed hurts the "backwards compatibility" that Pathfinder was supposed to have. Pathfinders developers clearly has no problem with changing things, seeing as how nearly every ruling I've seen one of them make is usually the exact opposite of the way it worked in 3.5.
And of course there is opposition to change. There always will be. Some people see the current ruleset as perfect, and not needing of change. Why go breaking something that works fine as is? (Personally, thats not my opinion. I'm in favor of scrapping nearly the entire rulebook and starting over from the beginning.)
What I'm trying to find out is why spike stones and spike growth don't follow the existing trends set forth by Pathfinder and previous editions (where indirect attack spells typically ignored SR).Because they just do? The magic system is full of inconsistencies. Just because something works one way for a spell or three, doesn't mean thats how it works for another spell.
Consistency would be nice, but WotC likes to do stuff just because they can, with no reason.
Perhaps, but I've never known Paizo to do things without reason. If it is a holdover from WotC, then certainly there is no harm in allowing me to bring the inconsistency to designer attention so that they might clarify how they feel it should be?
Disagreeing with me on the matter is one thing, but I am still often surprised at how much actual opposition I face when I make a thread like this one. A change such as the one I propose here couldn't possibly hurt other peoples' games, could it? AS always, I'm merely trying to help Paizo make a better game.
I think you're looking for the wrong kind of consistency, is the problem. You're looking for consistency between Spell (A) that limits movement on the battlefield and Spell (B) that limits movement on the battlefield, in all the ways they function, without considering whether A and B come from different classes, whether they are different level spells, whether they have vastly different durations, etcetera.
A 1st level spell (A) that creates plants that grow up out of the ground and hinder the foe needs to function differently than a 5th level spell (B) that creates plants that grow up out of the ground and hinder a foe. They are different because they need to be. The higher level one needs to affect a larger area, or be harder to avoid, or have a shorter casting time, or whatever. There are going to be functional, mechanical differences all down the line. There needs to be more different about these spells than what needs to be the same.
Since so muchof a spell's functionality delves into relative intangibles (Spell resistance, what kind of save, attack roll or instant damage), some thematically similar spells are going to have vastly different in-game effects. This isn't a problem that needs to be fixed. They, in many cases, are different because it is appropriate for them to be different in that way. It makes them work better. Trying to shoehorn different spells into some kind of unified theory doesn't make the game work any better.
A change such as the one I propose here couldn't possibly hurt other peoples' games, could it? AS always, I'm merely trying to help Paizo make a better game.
Here, I have another suggestion. Try this, as a thought experiment.
Rather than looking at the mechanics of the spell, wondering why the mechanics of the spell don't match the described effect, and looking to change the mechanical effect, why not try to change the described effect to more closely describe the mechanics? I can tell you, there will be far fewer unseen ramifications that creep into your game than tweaking spell effects.
For example, perhaps spike stones creates a warded area of animated spikes of stone, that camouflage themselves until a target steps into the warded area. When a target enters said area, the spikes break free from the ground, unerringly striking the target's legs (1d8 piercing damage) for each 5' he moves through. As this is occurring, the ground shifts and buckles, creating the effect of difficult terrain. The animated spikes are hideously sharp, and wedge deeply into the targets legs, causing anyone damaged by them to limp along at reduced speed.
Boom. Spell and effect, married at last. SR works because it interferes with the active magical effect that moves the spikes.
A change such as the one I propose here couldn't possibly hurt other peoples' games, could it? AS always, I'm merely trying to help Paizo make a better game.Here, I have another suggestion. Try this, as a thought experiment.
Rather than looking at the mechanics of the spell, wondering why the mechanics of the spell don't match the described effect, and looking to change the mechanical effect, why not try to change the described effect to more closely describe the mechanics? I can tell you, there will be far fewer unseen ramifications that creep into your game than tweaking spell effects.
For example, perhaps spike stones creates a warded area of animated spikes of stone, that camouflage themselves until a target steps into the warded area. When a target enters said area, the spikes break free from the ground, unerringly striking the target's legs (1d8 piercing damage) for each 5' he moves through. As this is occurring, the ground shifts and buckles, creating the effect of difficult terrain. The animated spikes are hideously sharp, and wedge deeply into the targets legs, causing anyone damaged by them to limp along at reduced speed.
Boom. Spell and effect, married at last. SR works because it interferes with the active magical effect that moves the spikes.
I might buy that if magic moving things always provoked SR. As is, that isn't the case. Using telekinesis to throw a boulder at someone is a fine example of what I mean.
I might buy that if magic moving things always provoked SR. As is, that isn't the case. Using telekinesis to throw a boulder at someone is a fine example of what I mean.
I'm asking you to buy the concept, though, not necessarily my execution. See, if the problem is "Mechanics don't jibe with descriptor," why is your solution always to rejigger the mechanics? Why is it always to make the spell, or feat, or class feature just a little bit better? To make it do just a little bit more?
Edit: Also, things are never going to consistently apply across 9 spell levels and however many different classes. That was my earlier point. Expecting "magic moving things" to "Always" bump against SR will never, never happen. Because eventually, there will be a level 1 "magic moving things" spell, and a level 7 "magic moving things" spell. The level 7 wizard spell with the full round casting time will need to be mechanically better than the level 1 swift Ranger spell. This is false consistency you are trying to find. You will never be able to reconcile it.
I think the main reason it has "SR: Yes" is because, for some bizarre reason, it is considered a Magical Trap.
It seems like the spell is a lot less like:
"Hey, that hallway is all spiky and stuff--weird."
and a lot more like:
"Oh, that hallway looks totally smooth and normal--oh crap! Why is everything turning into spikes and stabbing my legs?! I wish I had made the Rogue search for traps!"
I mean, it requires a DC: 29 Perception check to find it. The magic (and the SR) is because the spikes are not just there, they magically appear to stab people that step in their area.
I think the main reason it has "SR: Yes" is because, for some bizarre reason, it is considered a Magical Trap.
It seems like the spell is a lot less like:
"Hey, that hallway is all spiky and stuff--weird."
and a lot more like:
"Oh, that hallway looks totally smooth and normal--oh crap! Why is everything turning into spikes and stabbing my legs?! I wish I had made the Rogue search for traps!"
I mean, it requires a DC: 29 Perception check to find it. The magic (and the SR) is because the spikes are not just there, they magically appear to stab people that step in their area.
Now this makes much more sense to me.
I'm still hoping to get confirmation from a developer, however.
I'm still hoping to get confirmation from a developer, however.
Confirmation that SR:Yes is "Not a typo?"
I'm still curious, here. You really expect all spells that do thematically similar things to adhere to an arbitrary mechanical limitation at the cost of gameplay?
As in, if there was a first-level spell that fired a bolt of superheated mud at a target, and it allowed SR, and there was a fifth-level spell that created a wave of super-heated mud, it should also allow SR, since they're similar in described function? And if the higher-level spell didn't allow SR, it would be inconsistent enough that you would need developers to confirm that yes, that was an intentional design element, and that spells are different sometimes?
At the cost of gameplay? What "cost" are you referring to exactly? Whether it is "SR: Yes" or or "SR: No," I don't see how it becomes a cost of any kind.
At the cost of gameplay? What "cost" are you referring to exactly? Whether it is "SR: Yes" or or "SR: No," I don't see how it becomes a cost of any kind.
Well, in my earlier posts I talk about how spells are designed to work well, for a particular class, at a particular level, etcetera. They are consistent in that a first level Wizard spell is generally better than a first-level Ranger spell, and a ninth-level Wizard spell is always better, mechanically, than a fifth-level Cleric spell.
This is for a reason. If a spell has SR:no, that makes it mechanically better than a spell that has SR:yes. It's one of the elements of creating a spell for a particular class, level, etcetera. It's one of the design elements that can be tweaked in order to craft the spell.
Deciding that "All fire spells should be SR:Yes because consistency" hurts game design because it's limiting for no beneficial reason. A High-level SR:no spell might be necessary to fight Cold subtype creatures (like dragoms) with high SR. Constraining spell design by saying this spell has fire, that spell has fire they need to both be "consistent" SR-wise hurts game design. There's no benefit for doing it. It makes it harder to design, for the sake of fulfilling something that has no bearing on how smoothly the game plays.