Well then there isn't a problem as I am not advocating sweeping changes like you describe.
Well then there isn't a problem as I am not advocating sweeping changes like you describe.
Wasn't the whole point of your post that the spell, Spike Stones, should be made into a no SR-spell because other, similar spells, from different spell lists did not allow SR? For "Consistency?"
Indeed, but that is hardly the sweeping change that you seem to be implying.
Indeed, but that is hardly the sweeping change that you seem to be implying.
I'm not implying it, I'm explicitly saying that making mechanical changes to spells with the intent of creating meaningless consistency from spell-to-spell (at the expense of needed spell diversity between classes and levels) is antithetical to good gameplay.
In any case, I don't believe that's your desire, anyway. It's funny, but I've never seen you saying a spell does too much or that it's too powerful. Isn't that funny? You never seem to be arguing that spells of any level ever need adjusting down? For consistency? Isn't that a weird coincidence?
Also, if this is such a tiny issue, as you now are implying, why would you feel the need for a developer to come to the thread and tell you "Yes, the spell is correct as written, as it has been, unchanged for years. No, it's not a typo, unnoticed by everyone since 2003."
When there is little to no consistency in the game, then you end up with many more weird situations (like this one) that are difficult to rule on properly. If you can't see why that is a problem, then there is not point in my arguing with you further.
I mean, is the spike stone field suddenly dispelled just because a magic resistant dwarf ran through it? Nobody knows! Because spells like this one typically don't allow for SR! Those are usually more direct effects.
When there is little to no consistency in the game, then you end up with many more weird situations (like this one) that are difficult to rule on properly. If you can't see why that is a problem, then there is not point in my arguing with you further.
I mean, is the spike stone field suddenly dispelled just because a magic resistant dwarf ran through it? Nobody knows! Because spells like this one typically don't allow for SR! Those are usually more direct effects.
Man, I hope you're not getting sick of this, because I just got laid off, I've got nothing but time, and this is the most fun I've had since christmas.
Can you. Name one. Example. Anywhere. In the rules. Where an ongoing spell with a duration other than instantaneous could have been dispelled by someone's Spell Resistance. Please. Is that possible? Any spell in the rules. Show me an example of SR working like that.
When there is little to no consistency in the game, then you end up with many more weird situations (like this one) that are difficult to rule on properly. If you can't see why that is a problem, then there is not point in my arguing with you further.
I mean, is the spike stone field suddenly dispelled just because a magic resistant dwarf ran through it? Nobody knows! Because spells like this one typically don't allow for SR! Those are usually more direct effects.
Man, I hope you're not getting sick of this, because I just got laid off, I've got nothing but time, and this is the most fun I've had since christmas.
Can you. Name one. Example. Anywhere. In the rules. Where an ongoing spell with a duration other than instantaneous could have been dispelled by someone's Spell Resistance. Please. Is that possible? Any spell in the rules. Show me an example of SR working like that.
Spiritual weapon is but one, there are many others.
Spiritual weapon is but one, there are many others.When there is little to no consistency in the game, then you end up with many more weird situations (like this one) that are difficult to rule on properly. If you can't see why that is a problem, then there is not point in my arguing with you further.
I mean, is the spike stone field suddenly dispelled just because a magic resistant dwarf ran through it? Nobody knows! Because spells like this one typically don't allow for SR! Those are usually more direct effects.
Man, I hope you're not getting sick of this, because I just got laid off, I've got nothing but time, and this is the most fun I've had since christmas.
Can you. Name one. Example. Anywhere. In the rules. Where an ongoing spell with a duration other than instantaneous could have been dispelled by someone's Spell Resistance. Please. Is that possible? Any spell in the rules. Show me an example of SR working like that.
Cool. Good example. How about one with an affected area, like spike stones?
Also, your version of consistency seems to be that "spells with similar thematic effects should be as close to identical with regard to mechanical 'intangible' elements as possible."
Why is that important, for ruling difficult cases? Why would you need say, all spells that move objects to always bypass SR? How does that help rulings? It seems like the vastly different mechanical considerations between say, Telekinesis, and Animate Objects and Mage Hand would be different enough that the minor (you said it was a minor change you were suggesting) aspect of whether they were SR:yes or SR:no would barely alleviate the complicated rules conundrums that come up.
And why does the spell in question always need to be bumped just a little in power. Why do you never suggest a spell is reduced in strength, for the sake of consistency? Why is that?
Cool. Good example. How about one with an affected area, like spike stones?Spiritual weapon is but one, there are many others.When there is little to no consistency in the game, then you end up with many more weird situations (like this one) that are difficult to rule on properly. If you can't see why that is a problem, then there is not point in my arguing with you further.
I mean, is the spike stone field suddenly dispelled just because a magic resistant dwarf ran through it? Nobody knows! Because spells like this one typically don't allow for SR! Those are usually more direct effects.
Man, I hope you're not getting sick of this, because I just got laid off, I've got nothing but time, and this is the most fun I've had since christmas.
Can you. Name one. Example. Anywhere. In the rules. Where an ongoing spell with a duration other than instantaneous could have been dispelled by someone's Spell Resistance. Please. Is that possible? Any spell in the rules. Show me an example of SR working like that.
Can't think of one off the top of my head. I'm sure you are going to turn that one on me as well some how?
Can't think of one off the top of my head. I'm sure you are going to turn that one on me as well some how?
Look, I'm not trying to pick on you. Here's my complaint: You know the rules. Clearly. Inside and out. You don't need help parsing this stuff. That's just a hustle. You seem to post a "Rules Question" with the intention of roping in people who are genuinely trying to help you figure out how something works, in order to garner some kind of support for some off-the-wall scenario that always boils down to:
"Shouldn't spell/feat/class feature X be just a little better?"
The truthful answer in most of these scenarios is no, it shouldn't. It's fine and functional the way it is. At this point most of these game features have been playtested in one form or another for a decade. Spike Stones isn't a horribly underpowered spell because it allows spell resistance. It might be a little better or a little worse than other, similar spells of the same level, but that's a sign of good game design, not inconsistency.
And it's certainly not written in some kind of inscrutable cuiniform, either. You know the spell is written perfectly clearly. You know the it isn't dispelled by SR, because, unlike the example you gave me, it doesn't say that it it's dispelled by SR. You wouldn't post a "Rules Question" asking whether spike stones deals negative energy damage, because it would be absurd to assume that it did something that is in no way stated or implied in it's description.
It's not really the mechanics of the spell that bothers me, it's the implication that spell resistance can somehow stop you from getting stabbed. Stone transmuted into a spike is still just a spike. It's not made of magical energy or anything. It is just a stone spike, however temporary.
It is, quite simply, not a trend that I would like to see reproduced in future publications.
|
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.
The spell damage you every 5' of movement.
You check DR when you take the damage.I don't see where you can get the idea that you should check the DR only at the end of the round.
I is like saying "you get hit 3 times with a sword, sum up all the damage and then apply your DR."
There is a feat to do that but under normal rules each attach is affected separately by the DR.
|
|
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.
The first two are conjuration spells, generally conjuration spells are not subjected to SR. (just to point that out to the guy that said differently in a previous post, summoning spells are not subject to SR, too).
For Entangle (transmutation like Spike stones) your comment is valid. It can be argued that the spell give the ability to move to the plants but is not needed after they have moved in a way to impede your movement while with spike stones the magic is needed to keep the strange shape while the spell damage you (i.e. Entangle allow the plant to move and form a jungle like background, then it is the background that impede your movement, not the spell), but that is so-so as explanation.
It's not really the mechanics of the spell that bothers me, it's the implication that spell resistance can somehow stop you from getting stabbed. Stone transmuted into a spike is still just a spike. It's not made of magical energy or anything. It is just a stone spike, however temporary.
It is, quite simply, not a trend that I would like to see reproduced in future publications.
Perfectly reasonable. Paizo's run through all of the Open content 3.5 stuff at this point. It would be nice if their newer stuff had a clearer, tighter editorial sensibility, but if anything, I'd say the newer stuff is looser.
|
|
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.
Actually Telekinesis as Spell Resistance.
Picking something up with it and hurling it is an exception, but that exception is born from the normal laws of physics, not the spell. You know, inertia.If you look the spell has a normal to Hit when used to hurl something. So the spell isn't guiding the hurled object all the time till he hit the target, spell that work that way (the magic guiding the attack till it hit the target) suffer from SR. It simply pick it up and hurl it. Then it work following the normal rules of a throw object, like a catapult projectile.
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.Actually Telekinesis as Spell Resistance.
Picking something up with it and hurling it is an exception, but that exception is born from the normal laws of physics, not the spell. You know, inertia.
If you look the spell has a normal to Hit when used to hurl something. So the spell isn't guiding the hurled object all the time till he hit the target, spell that work that way (the magic guiding the attack till it hit the target) suffer from SR. It simply pick it up and hurl it. Then it work following the normal rules of a throw object, like a catapult projectile.
Careful. If OamuTheMonk has anything to say about it, inertia doesn't exist in Pathfinder!
SR only applies to telekinesis is you try and pick up a creature with it. If you pick up and hurl a non-magical boulder at said creature, SR never comes into play.
Also, beast shape is an ongoing transmutation spell, but creatures can't resist my claws with spell resistance when I go to impale them. Then why should they get to resist the spiked stones from this spell? It's not just a logical inconsistency, it's illogical period. Damage reduction protects you from getting stabbed, not spell resistance. One defense protects against direct mundane attack forms, the other from direct magical attacks. You generally shouldn't mix and match them. That path leads to confusion.
|
When there is little to no consistency in the game, then you end up with many more weird situations (like this one) that are difficult to rule on properly. If you can't see why that is a problem, then there is not point in my arguing with you further.
I mean, is the spike stone field suddenly dispelled just because a magic resistant dwarf ran through it? Nobody knows! Because spells like this one typically don't allow for SR! Those are usually more direct effects.
Unless the spell states that it dispels it would not. If you check in the Glossary in the book under SR:
Area Spells: Spell resistance applies if the resistant creature is within the spell's area. It protects the resistant creature without affecting the spell itself.
Part of my curiosity comes from this line in the same section:
Spell resistance does not apply if an effect fools the creature's senses or reveals something about the creature.
Does spike stones fool the targets senses to hide themselves? From the tags on the spell it would appear not, but from the description of the spell it may. That is where I see the gray area.
For a conversion project I'm doing, I've been looking at a lot of spells and trying to get a sense of consistency about when SR qualifies and when it does not.
Just about anything that creates a physical object which attacks or grabs--ice storm's hailstones or entangle's vines for two of many examples--does not require SR.
Ergo, based on what I can see, spike stones' design is inconsistent with many precedents provided. It will have to remain to be seen as to whether that was intended, or someone copy pasted a spell block and forgot to change the SR "yes" from the copy-paste to "no." As a GM, for now I will houserule that the spell does not apply to SR, and I've hit the FAQ button.
For a conversion project I'm doing, I've been looking at a lot of spells and trying to get a sense of consistency about when SR qualifies and when it does not.
Just about anything that creates a physical object which attacks or grabs--ice storm's hailstones or entangle's vines for two of many examples--does not require SR.
Ergo, based on what I can see, spike stones' design is inconsistent with many precedents provided. It will have to remain to be seen as to whether that was intended, or someone copy pasted a spell block and forgot to change the SR "yes" from the copy-paste to "no." As a GM, for now I will houserule that the spell does not apply to SR, and I've hit the FAQ button.
Good on you for running your game the way you want.
I still contend that this "consistency" you're touting is false, for the numerous reasons I've already outlined. A spell need to be consistent in very few ways 1) it needs to be better, mechanically, than lower-level spells, generally, 2) it needs to be worse, mechanically than higher-level spells, generally.
Trying to create "consistency" by putting the spells in some kind of unified theory that shoehorns all "magically manipulated terrain" spells in the SR:no box hurts game design. SR is one of the many "intangible" design aspects of a spell, which can be manipulated to create varying spells-even spells that are thematically similar-of varying levels that are different, diverse, and interesting.
There's no plus to creating a design dogma that forces a designers hand toward a less-diverse spell list. It's the same as saying that all subtype (fire) spells should affect an area, because fire storm, fireball, and burning hands all affect an area and that's a "precedent." It brings nothing to the table to be constricted in that manner. It doesn't make the game run any smoother, and it doesn't make the designer's job any easier.
Careful. If OamuTheMonk has anything to say about it, inertia doesn't exist in Pathfinder!
Inertia doesn't exist in Pathfinder.
|
|
Careful. If OamuTheMonk has anything to say about it, inertia doesn't exist in Pathfinder!Inertia doesn't exist in Pathfinder.
yep, no peasant cannons. (aka, pass this rock down the line of 600 peasants in 6 seconds (thus an exit speed of ~340 mph) and have the last one aim it for massive damage.)
Also, a monk moving @ ~54 mph (lvl 20 monk, base speed of 30(+90) running at 480'/6 seconds) should have a heck of a time making a 90° corner without crashing into a a wall.
The rules do not take inertia into account on average. (I am not sure where they do take it into account).
The rules do not take inertia into account on average. (I am not sure where they do take it into account).
No where except for falling damage. It really doesn't exist in the rules for movement.
|
|
For a conversion project I'm doing, I've been looking at a lot of spells and trying to get a sense of consistency about when SR qualifies and when it does not.
Just about anything that creates a physical object which attacks or grabs--ice storm's hailstones or entangle's vines for two of many examples--does not require SR.
Ergo, based on what I can see, spike stones' design is inconsistent with many precedents provided. It will have to remain to be seen as to whether that was intended, or someone copy pasted a spell block and forgot to change the SR "yes" from the copy-paste to "no." As a GM, for now I will houserule that the spell does not apply to SR, and I've hit the FAQ button.
Good on you for running your game the way you want.
I still contend that this "consistency" you're touting is false, for the numerous reasons I've already outlined. A spell need to be consistent in very few ways 1) it needs to be better, mechanically, than lower-level spells, generally, 2) it needs to be worse, mechanically than higher-level spells, generally.
Trying to create "consistency" by putting the spells in some kind of unified theory that shoehorns all "magically manipulated terrain" spells in the SR:no box hurts game design. SR is one of the many "intangible" design aspects of a spell, which can be manipulated to create varying spells-even spells that are thematically similar-of varying levels that are different, diverse, and interesting.
There's no plus to creating a design dogma that forces a designers hand toward a less-diverse spell list. It's the same as saying that all subtype (fire) spells should affect an area, because fire storm, fireball, and burning hands all affect an area and that's a "precedent." It brings nothing to the table to be constricted in that manner. It doesn't make the game run any smoother, and it doesn't make the designer's job any easier.
Are you #!%$ing kidding me? You're basically saying that magic should never have to follow any set of real rules. You're basically saying that we can never apply logic or reason to how magic works, and that having knowledge (arcana) or spellcraft are truly useless as there is no way to actually understand magic.
That's just ludicrous. I would MUCH rather have a system that is 4% less balanced but makes internal sense instead of what you're describing. There are many other ways to balance things, making them internally inconsistent is not one of them. At least, not in a pen and paper game where verisimilitude is king.
SR is a VERY tangible aspect to spells: It applies whenever the spell attempts to create an effect right on or in a creature that has it. The reason that spells that ignore SR tend to be higher level is because they have to create the effect, then move it, rather than simply creating it right on top of the opponent. This means the effect must be self-sustaining in some way, and that's hard.
So there you have it. Charm person has SR because it directly affects you. Fireball has SR because it's creating the fire right on top of you. Flaming Sphere has SR because the magic is attempting to sustain fire that moved to right on top of you. Animate Dead does not because it does not affect a creature, telekinesis does not when it throws objects (but does if it throws a creature, and in that case only cares about the SR of the one being thrown). Magic Mouth has SR if used on a creature, but not if used on an object that then speaks to the creature.
Most energy-damage AoEs require SR because the energy must be sustained in-place to cause damage. Those that don't have some way to avoid that (such as conjuring burning material, or conjuring ice).
That is a consistent system that is (for the most part) applied consistently throughout the spell catalog. The entire point of this thread is, why would this spell qualify?
IMO, the answer could be that the magic is (in this case) holding the stones in the shape that they are, and without the magic they would revert (this is implied by the fact that it has a duration). If this is true, then a creature with SR coming into the area would then be affected by a still-active magical effect and could thus resist it. If it is resisted, it would prevent the magic from sustaining the stone in that shape and the stone would revert.
Are you #!%$ing kidding me? You're basically saying that magic should never have to follow any set of real rules. You're basically saying that we can never apply logic or reason to how magic works, and that having knowledge (arcana) or spellcraft are truly useless as there is no way to actually understand magic.
No, I'm not "#!%$ing kidding" you. The skills Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft both have set mechanical DC's for doing things like figuring out how a spell works. It's right there in the rules, under the skills section. Shows the DC's and everything. Don't know where you got the idea that I thought those skills are useless. They work really well, actually.
SR is a VERY tangible aspect to spells...
I know how SR works. When I say that it's an "intangible" element of game design I mean that, unlike, say, a fireball, which everyone can kind of picture the thematic elements of, SR from a thematic standpoint exists in kind of a nebulous, hazy fashion. Ask a dozen players to describe how SR works without using game terms, and you will see what I mean. Everyone's envisioned answer will be different. SR exists mostly as a rules toggle, a mechanical element that can be used to make spells better (or worse) make monsters tougher, or make magic items more desirable.
So there you have it. Charm person has SR because it directly affects you. Fireball has SR because it's creating the fire right on top of you. Flaming Sphere has SR because the magic is attempting to sustain fire that moved to right on top of you. Animate Dead does not because it does not affect a creature, telekinesis does not when it throws objects (but does if it throws a creature, and in that case only cares about the SR of the one being thrown). Magic Mouth has SR if used on a creature, but not if used on an object that then speaks to the creature.
You're argument is "This spell has SR because X, this other spell also X, so it should have SR."
This is a false equivalence. You say Flaming Sphere has SR because you create fire and move it onto a target, and the created fire goes away. Acid arrow you create acid and throw it at a target--No SR. Why is that? If "X" equals "create dangerous substance, cause it to impact foe, SR applies," then why would that be?
If Fireball, which blasts an area with fire allows SR, and Firefall blasts an area with fire but doesn't allow SR, that makes two thematically similar spells different. It gives casters a reason to use one over the other. The whole game is based on making these fun choices. Diversity in spell selection is a good thing.
You are attempting to shoehorn a false consistency onto the game that brings no positive aspects to gameplay. It doesn't make the game run smoother, it doesn't make spells easier to design or implement (in fact, adhering to this dogma would make designing and balancing spells more difficult), and it doesn't bring fun.
Most energy-damage AoEs require SR because the energy must be sustained in-place to cause damage. Those that don't have some way to avoid that (such as conjuring burning material, or conjuring ice).
So, most spells fall into your "consistency" folder, but some spells don't. Isn't that an example of exactly what this discussion started out talking about? Some spells like this disallow SR, but some don't. Why is this a problem? It's good to have diversity, it's bad to have stifling meaningless restrictions. Why is this even a question?
IMO, the answer could be that the magic is (in this case) holding the stones in the shape that they are, and without the magic they would revert (this is implied by the fact that it has a duration). If this is true, then a creature with SR coming into the area would then be affected by a still-active magical effect and could thus resist it. If it is resisted, it would prevent the magic from sustaining the stone in that shape and the stone would revert.
Lotsa people, including me, suggested this very thing, earlier in the thread. Did you read the thread?
|
|
Yes, I did read the thread, but you seemed to be implying that whether SR works or not should not be a function of how the spell works, but rather a simple mechanic balancing toggle. This leads to an extremely inconsistent world and one that is very hard to adjudicate as a DM. My point with knowledge (arcana) and spellcraft is both have to do with understanding how magic works. If magic doesn't "work" (as your suggestion to use things as mere mechanical balances would have it), then those skills represent little more than rote memorization of spells that exist.
In other words, what I was saying is that you MUST have an explanation for it (however strange) or you cannot properly use it. The explanation for SR is "if I touch magic, it stops working because I inherently unravel magic that is not my own." Did the magic touch you? Well it may have stopped working. Flaming sphere goes out because it must be sustained or the heat will dissipate quickly (and it may be that the heat simply does not exist once the magic is unraveled). Acid Arrow does not because it does not need to be sustained (acid will keep burning without you providing more acid). You are actually the one applying a false equivalence, because these two energies work differently (namely because acid isn't a true energy, it's just treated as one for simplicity of mechanics). I said energy as a general rule before, but acid has always been the odd one out.
Firefall and fireball can both exist, as you describe them. The former would create huge amounts of real heat that get shoved into the direction of the creature. The latter would create magical heat in-place. Because of this, the former would be harder to cast, but it at least has an explanation and that's the entirety of the point I was making: It must have an explanation, however slight, so that these rules can be applied consistently and the world does not simply turn in a giant pile of handwaving and inconsistencies.
Contrary to your opinion, forcing this kind of sensibility DOES bring a gameplay advantage: It makes the world seem more real (immersion) and it gives the DM a tool to judge unforeseen situations with. In exchange, you have to be a little more clever when designing spells.
I only restated why the spell mentioned by the OP would allow SR to use it as an example of how it would fit into a sensible and consistent SR framework.
PS: SR is tangible. Magic is both a game term and a world term. SR is "that which unravels magical energies." There. Easy enough. The fact that it's only a property of creatures then just becomes an oddity.
Firefall and fireball can both exist, as you describe them. The former would create huge amounts of real heat that get shoved into the direction of the creature. The latter would create magical heat in-place. Because of this, the former would be harder to cast, but it at least has an explanation and that's the entirety of the point I was making: It must have an explanation, however slight, so that these rules can be applied consistently and the world does not simply turn in a giant pile of handwaving and inconsistencies.
The inconsistencies are all in your mind. You stated quite plainly that "most" spells follow your expectations (SR-wise) while some dont. That's not inconsistent, it just shows that your idea of how the defining aspects of magic work are flawed. Obviously, they all can't fulfill your expectations of how spells work.
You know how I can tell? Because they don't. Some spells do allow SR under a certain circumstance, while other, similar spells, perhaps on a different class list, or a different level don't allow SR. Where did this idea come from that spells should all work one way, while you point out plainly that sometimes they don't?
Also, your desire to have an "explanation" for how the spell is described--I totally agree. In fact, I suggested earlier in the thread that you clearly. Did not. Read. that a good solution might be to, rather than always try and bump spell functionality up (which I believe to be Ravingdork's primary motivation, every time he starts one of these rhetorical quagmires), rather than adjust the mechanics, adjust the thematic elements to more closely match the mechanics.
Which you then posited a page later. As if no one had brought it up. Which I did.
If magic doesn't "work" (as your suggestion to use things as mere mechanical balances would have it), then those skills represent little more than rote memorization of spells that exist.
Or theories that are vastly more complicated than is worth putting in the book. Magic could still "work" without appearing consistent to us, because we have only game-side information.
The explanation for SR is "if I touch magic, it stops working because I inherently unravel magic that is not my own." Did the magic touch you? Well it may have stopped working.
That is absolutely not true. According to the PRD:
"Spell resistance prevents a spell or a spell-like ability from affecting or harming the resistant creature, but it never removes a magical effect from another creature or negates a spell's effect on another creature. Spell resistance prevents a spell from disrupting another spell.
Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have. The magic continues to affect others normally."
So, no, it doesn't unravel magic, it just totally ignores it.
Flaming sphere goes out because it must be sustained or the heat will dissipate quickly (and it may be that the heat simply does not exist once the magic is unraveled).
From what I've seen in that link, it doesn't go out, it just fails to burn the guy with Spell Resistance.
Acid Arrow does not because it does not need to be sustained (acid will keep burning without you providing more acid). You are actually the one applying a false equivalence, because these two energies work differently (namely because acid isn't a true energy, it's just treated as one for simplicity of mechanics). I said energy as a general rule before, but acid has always been the odd one out.
Ok, so Acid, which is classified specifically as energy doesn't actually work as energy and it's ok to have that kind of exception, but Spike Stones totally can't be an exception.
Also, your premise is false. Corrosive Touch, Virtiolic Mist, Eruptive Pustules, Corrosive Consumption, Acidic Spray, and Burst of Nettles all utilize acid, but they all allow Spell Resistance.
Firefall and fireball can both exist, as you describe them. The former would create huge amounts of real heat that get shoved into the direction of the creature. The latter would create magical heat in-place. Because of this, the former would be harder to cast, but it at least has an explanation and that's the entirety of the point I was making: It must have an explanation, however slight, so that these rules can be applied consistently and the world does not simply turn in a giant pile of handwaving and inconsistencies.
But what about a Sorcerer with the proper bloodline who can use Firefall to cause cold damage? Or Electricity damage? Or Acid damage? All of those things would still happen using a large source of fire as a source, but it suddenly "makes no sense."
The same Elemental sorcerer who uses Cold damage on a Fireball still "sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area." Further, the coldball "can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze." I mean, just the damage type is changed, those secondary effects are actually listed in the spell, not as a side effect of the damage.
In short: Magic doesn't follow rules that we can realistically understand.
Contrary to your opinion, forcing this kind of sensibility DOES bring a gameplay advantage: It makes the world seem more real (immersion) and it gives the DM a tool to judge unforeseen situations with.
I'll let the immersion thing go--that's fine if you find it more immersive. I don't, because I am fine with magic following rules that defy logic, but I accept that others might.
However, why would the DM need to judge unforseen situations? Every spell has an entry of whether or not it allows SR. There's no confusion or judgement calls to make--it's all explicit.
SR is "that which unravels magical energies." There. Easy enough. The fact that it's only a property of creatures then just becomes an oddity.
Again, though, unless there's a rules quote you found that I haven't, SR doesn't unravel anything--it just makes the thing with SR ignore the effects.
Unless the spell states that it dispels it would not. If you check in the Glossary in the book under SR:
Area Spells: Spell resistance applies if the resistant creature is within the spell's area. It protects the resistant creature without affecting the spell itself.
Thanks for the clarification Happler. :)
|
|
I'm going to say this:
Magic, whether it currently does or not, should follows rules we can realistically understand so that we can have a world that doesn't seem completely random and arbitrary. To do otherwise would make predicting the world around you completely impossible, whether as a player or as a DM. Having solid and knowable rules behind them, even if they are complex, or even in some ways vague, is what makes the game feel real. It means that, even if you don't understand all of it, it is something that *can* be understood.
In relation to your elemental sorcerer thing: Historically such abilities came with the qualification "secondary effects that no longer make sense may not happen." Why the sorcerer bloodline ability does not, who knows, but I will tell you: A cold version of fireball will NOT melt things at my table. But a fire version of cone of cold would. The cold version of fireball might, however, freeze objects to the point of shattering (thus allowing it to expand in a similar way to fireball).
In other words, I will ignore RAW when it flies in the face of any semblance of sensibility, because to do otherwise would make DMing way too hard. Fireball does not change how physics works, it just adds fire to it. If you want a spell that changes physics, you need a couple more spell levels behind you so you can have a spell that says "this changes physics such that..."
...a lot of stuff...
Bravo sir. It's nice when someone shows up who agrees with me AND is willing to do the research and legwork I am too lazy to do.
Also, we're a lot of long winded dudes. Every time I reply, the whole damn reply box is jammed full. BLAH BLAH BLAH MAGIC BLAH BLAH BLAH RULES
I'm going to say this:
Magic, whether it currently does or not, should follows rules we can realistically understand so that we can have a world that doesn't seem completely random and arbitrary. To do otherwise would make predicting the world around you completely impossible, whether as a player or as a DM. Having solid and knowable rules behind them, even if they are complex, or even in some ways vague, is what makes the game feel real. It means that, even if you don't understand all of it, it is something that *can* be understood.
In relation to your elemental sorcerer thing: Historically such abilities came with the qualification "secondary effects that no longer make sense may not happen." Why the sorcerer bloodline ability does not, who knows, but I will tell you: A cold version of fireball will NOT melt things at my table. But a fire version of cone of cold would. The cold version of fireball might, however, freeze objects to the point of shattering (thus allowing it to expand in a similar way to fireball).
In other words, I will ignore RAW when it flies in the face of any semblance of sensibility, because to do otherwise would make DMing way too hard. Fireball does not change how physics works, it just adds fire to it. If you want a spell that changes physics, you need a couple more spell levels behind you so you can have a spell that says "this changes physics such that..."
Way to ignore all of the man's specific points. He brought up a lot of important examples of why your search for "consistency" is faulty. How bout that stuff about acid damage "not being a real energy" and all those acid spells that allow SR? Why didn't you respond to those points?
The dude went through a lot of effort to explicitly refute your arguments, and you basically just restated your belief, without addressing it. This is a discussion, not a game of musical chairs. The last poster doesn't win a candy bar or anything.
Acid spells are easy.
Those with "SR: No" likely create or conjure real acid. Those with "SR: Yes" burns people with raw magic in much the same way as acid does (the system, being somewhat abstracted, likely calls it acid damage for simplicity's sake).
Cone of cold, fireball, and lightning bolt aren't real cold, fire, and lightning, respectively. They are raw magical forces that emulate the harmful effects of those elements. After all, cone of cold does not actually freeze things, fireball does not set things on fire and lightning bolt doesn't bloom out when it hits water. Ergo, they are not real fire and lightning.
Fireball and lightning bolt aren't real fire and lightning, respectively. They are raw magical forces that emulate those elements. After all, fireball does not set things on fire and lightning bolt doesn't bloom out when it hits water. Ergo, they are not real fire and lightning.
Fireball does set things on fire.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area.
|
|
I'm going to say this:
Magic, whether it currently does or not, should follows rules we can realistically understand so that we can have a world that doesn't seem completely random and arbitrary. To do otherwise would make predicting the world around you completely impossible, whether as a player or as a DM. Having solid and knowable rules behind them, even if they are complex, or even in some ways vague, is what makes the game feel real. It means that, even if you don't understand all of it, it is something that *can* be understood.
In relation to your elemental sorcerer thing: Historically such abilities came with the qualification "secondary effects that no longer make sense may not happen." Why the sorcerer bloodline ability does not, who knows, but I will tell you: A cold version of fireball will NOT melt things at my table. But a fire version of cone of cold would. The cold version of fireball might, however, freeze objects to the point of shattering (thus allowing it to expand in a similar way to fireball).
In other words, I will ignore RAW when it flies in the face of any semblance of sensibility, because to do otherwise would make DMing way too hard. Fireball does not change how physics works, it just adds fire to it. If you want a spell that changes physics, you need a couple more spell levels behind you so you can have a spell that says "this changes physics such that..."
Way to ignore all of the man's specific points. He brought up a lot of important examples of why your search for "consistency" is faulty. How bout that stuff about acid damage "not being a real energy" and all those acid spells that allow SR? Why didn't you respond to those points?
The dude went through a lot of effort to explicitly refute your arguments, and you basically just restated your belief, without addressing it. This is a discussion, not a game of musical chairs. The last poster doesn't win a candy bar or anything.
Simply put: To avoid an endless discussion. There a comes a point where one person says A to prove B, while the other is saying C to prove D, and neither seems to realize that they're talking past each-other because B/D and A/B are different but similar.
You two are discussing magic as it CURRENTLY stands. I am discussing magic as I view it SHOULD stand. The two are largely similar as there are very few spells that do not fit into a single logical framework.
(Besides, some acid allows SR because its continued existence relies on the magic. This is part of how magic works: Some spells permanently create something and let it loose, other spells create something that only exists for as long as the magic does. The former, if used correctly, can ignore SR. The latter can never ignore SR, or at least I can't think of a way it can. And before you say anything, acid arrow is likely one of the "inconsistent in the logical framework" spells I referred to earlier because it both has a duration and doesn't allow SR, meaning it can be dispelled despite theoretically being non-magical once on the opponent. This is mostly due to the overly simple rule that any spell whose effect lasts for some duration must still be magical, which is not logically true.)
Fireball and lightning bolt aren't real fire and lightning, respectively. They are raw magical forces that emulate those elements. After all, fireball does not set things on fire and lightning bolt doesn't bloom out when it hits water. Ergo, they are not real fire and lightning.
Fireball does set things on fire.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area.
And yet creatures, although burned, are never set on fire. Odd that.
There's also this rule to consider.
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
That is just another one of the magic systems inconsistencies. Fireball sets things on fire, except when it doesn't. Apparently, characters aren't considered combustible.
The magic system is strange anyway. A piece of paper on a table is burned, but that same piece of paper, held in a characters hand out at arms length, is perfectly fine unless the character rolls a 1 on the save.
(Besides, some acid allows SR because its continued existence relies on the magic. This is part of how magic works: Some spells permanently create something and let it loose, other spells create something that only exists for as long as the magic does. The former, if used correctly, can ignore SR. The latter can never ignore SR, or at least I can't think of a way it can. And before you say anything, acid arrow is likely one of the "inconsistent in the logical framework" spells I referred to earlier because it both has a duration and doesn't allow SR, meaning it can be dispelled despite theoretically being non-magical once on the opponent. This is mostly due to the overly simple rule that any spell whose effect lasts for some duration must still be magical, which is not logically true.)
I don't see acid arrow as an anomaly at all.
It is a creation effect. Therefore it is creating REAL acid and then hurling it at the target. The duration doesn't represent how long the spell lasts, but how long the acid burns before it dilutes itself into worthlessness. The acid never truly goes away. It simply becomes worthless inert material after several rounds.
That is just another one of the magic systems inconsistencies. Fireball sets things on fire, except when it doesn't. Apparently, characters aren't considered combustible.
The magic system is strange anyway. A piece of paper on a table is burned, but that same piece of paper, held in a characters hand out at arms length, is perfectly fine unless the character rolls a 1 on the save.
Gotta have abstraction somewhere for simplicity's sake.
|
|
That is just another one of the magic systems inconsistencies. Fireball sets things on fire, except when it doesn't. Apparently, characters aren't considered combustible.
The magic system is strange anyway. A piece of paper on a table is burned, but that same piece of paper, held in a characters hand out at arms length, is perfectly fine unless the character rolls a 1 on the save.
I usually explain this as such: Characters have souls (this is an observable fact in D&D). Those souls offer protection to their mortal bodies (another observable fact, vis-a-vis disintegrate and similar), but need not stop that protection there. Every soul extends that protection a limited distance from their body, protecting various equipment worn by the person. Rolling a natural 1 on a save represents the failure to extend that protection properly.
This also links well with SR, which could be described as a property of the soul. Since the soul extends a short (if vaguely defined) distance from the body, it makes sense that magical effects could be undone before touching the body.
Then again, this is just me attempting to fit a logical framework around something that wasn't necessarily built for it. But hey, whatever makes my game run smoother.
It is a creation effect. Therefore it is creating REAL acid and then hurling it at the target. The duration doesn't represent how long the spell lasts, but how long the acid burns before it dilutes itself into worthlessness. The acid never truly goes away. It simply becomes worthless inert material after several rounds.
Except that because it has a duration it is considered an ongoing spell effect and can thus be dispelled, something you could not do if it was non-magical acid now. (I would probably say you should NOT be able to dispel it, but I don't believe that's how the rules read on this.)
Short answer, in casual language:
* I'm sure there are some inconsistent applications of SR yes/no in various spells.
* There is some SR-explaining text by school in the 3.5 DMG, but it wasn't added to the SRD, so we didn't pick it up for Pathfinder (and apparently didn't notice that it was missing until too late).
* That clarifying text goes a long way toward explaining what SR should and shouldn't apply to, and one element of it is, "if it's a harmful effect on your mind or body, your SR should apply, but otherwise it shouldn't." Which means with respect to a spike stones spell, your SR should apply to the damage, but not to the movement-impairing effects of the spell.
Overall:
* SR is a complex issue and GMs are going to have to make rulings for more of the complex or multieffect spells like spike stones and wall of ice, where some effects of the spell deal damage and some effects are physical obstacles.
That is ... odd given previous clarifications regarding spells that deal bludgeoning damage using DR instead of SR. But it's nothing a GM can't work out. For example, I'm sticking with piercing=DR.
What clarification is that?
In any case, if you fail to penetrate SR, the creature takes no damage.
If you penetrate DR, the creature takes damage from the spike stones... at which point DR/piercing might stop the damage.
Since the spell is a magic trap, I am keen on believing that SR is a shroud of sorts that simply causes magic to either fail or ignore the target in question.
Failing to penetrate SR means the spikes don't even materialize to stab at the target. Because the magic of the spell is detecting those who enter it and a creature with SR is effectively invisible to that detection.
|
That is ... odd given previous clarifications regarding spells that deal bludgeoning damage using DR instead of SR. But it's nothing a GM can't work out. For example, I'm sticking with piercing=DR.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qe9
if its this one, it just clarified that spells that deal typed damage do adhere to DR rules.
if there's SR on the spell, it still has to overcome the creatures SR.
It is an odd spell to have SR.
its like, having SR on a Dig spell. you transmute the landscape. so does the SR reverse that transmuted landscape for the creature with SR? leaving a path of "clear" through the spikes?
|
|
Since the spell is a magic trap, I am keen on believing that SR is a shroud of sorts that simply causes magic to either fail or ignore the target in question.
Failing to penetrate SR means the spikes don't even materialize to stab at the target. Because the magic of the spell is detecting those who enter it and a creature with SR is effectively invisible to that detection.
hmmh, i never considered as a magical trap. i remember something about a perception check to notice the spike, but haven't looked at it in a while.
so conceptually, the ground looks normal, but as someone steps on the spell area / trapped area, spikes rise up to pierce their feet. if they have SR the spikes either fail to pierce, or fail to rise up if the SR check fails? interesting.
That is ... odd given previous clarifications regarding spells that deal bludgeoning damage using DR instead of SR. But it's nothing a GM can't work out. For example, I'm sticking with piercing=DR.http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qe9
if its this one, it just clarified that spells that deal typed damage do adhere to DR rules.
if there's SR on the spell, it still has to overcome the creatures SR.It is an odd spell to have SR.
its like, having SR on a Dig spell. you transmute the landscape. so does the SR reverse that transmuted landscape for the creature with SR? leaving a path of "clear" through the spikes?
That's the one, and I've either misremembered it or am remembering some forum posts from the thread that spawned it.
So, in this case, the damage would be subject to both DR and SR. That's . . . still odd, and counterintuitive to me. I'll continue to play it as DR-only for the damage and SR for the rest.
Edit: Or maybe not. Rereading the spell description, I'll have to think about how to adjudicate it. Applying SR to the whole thing makes more sense flavorwise and makes it easy to adjudicate, but it would be an exception to an otherwise easy to remember rule of thumb. I'll think on it.