| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have seen several times on these fora and in a couple of guides, discussion about how Burning Disarm is a great Catch-22 spell.
The common wisdom seems to be that the person holding the item takes damage unless they make a Reflex save to drop it. So, they are either disarmed if they make the save, or damaged if they don't. Catch-22.
Has this been officially clarified anywhere by chance? Because I don't believe that is how the spell works at all. The Catch-22 isn't automatic.
Burning Disarm does not target the creature holding the object in question. It targets the object. It has a Save Entry of "Reflex negates (Object, see text)."
When an object has (object) in its Save entry, it means the following:
"The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level."
If you use Burning Disarm on an item someone is holding, it is attended, which means the object gets a Reflex save to negate the spell (most likely using the holder's bonus).
That's the key, the Save entry is "negates" and the object is the target and makes the save. That means the rest of the spell, the Catch-22 where the holder has to make a save to drop the item and avoid damage, is not automatic, it can potentially be totally negated by the object succeeding on its save.
In short, my contention is that this spell requires two failed Reflex saves to deal damage (one by the object and one by the holder of the object, though both are likely at the holder's bonus), and to make the character drop the object, one Reflex save still needs to be failed (the object's).
Correct me if I'm wrong, especially if there's something official floating around, but I think people have been vastly overrating this spell.
Dotting
if you read the first line of the spell, it says:
This spell causes a metal object to instantly become red hot. A creature holding the item may attempt a Reflex save to drop it and take no damage (even if it is not their turn)
i could be reading it wrong, but it seems pretty conclusive to me.
I think the object (if magical or attended) gets a Reflex save. If it fails, the attendee has to Reflex or take damage.
that works, but it makes the spell pretty lame.
Well it is a 1st level spell. It's a bit much to expect it to screw over the target regardless of its save. Then again, the first Reflex save is all you really need to overcome anyway - in many situations, failing or forgoing the second one could be more beneficial.
Though frankly, object saves come up so infrequently in my games that they're all but ignored; that being said, I've used the apparent misinterpreted version of this spell just recently.
I shudder to apply logic to a game that involves scaly, winged monstrosities that can breathe gouts of electricity, but here goes.
Save is cited as 'Reflex Negates (Object, See text). In that text it cites blah about dropping the object with a successful reflex save and that if you cannot drop it, you don't get to make the reflex save. Your suggesting that the 'Reflex Negates' is in addition to the save cited in the text? And that the object gets a reflex save as well as the wielder (only if the object fails it does the wielder need to attempt)
And the reason for this is that (essentially) 5D4 elemental damage for a first level spell is a lot? (avg 12.5 at 5th, which is maxed).
Burning hands is 12.5 short AoE. On a successful save you take half. Ignites anything flammable it hits.
Shocking Grasp is 17.5 single target (touch attack). If you miss, you can try again til you hit as the charge is in play. To hit bonuses on anything that likes metal.
Scaling more slowly is...
Magic Missile is 10.5 (caps at 17.5 at 9th). No damage reduction. Full damage to ethereal targets. Longer range. Potential multi-target hits.
Ear piercing scream 10.5 (caps at 17.5 at 9th). Inflicts Dazed if you fail a save. On a successful save you take half.
Your saying that a spell that on average inflicts 2 points more damage than MM does when cast at 5th (which is the max for BD, not MM) AND requires the target to be holding a metal item AND is subject to ER (which I would imagine is more common than Brooches of Shielding and rings of forcefangs) AND requires you to be in charge range of your target.... needs a reflex negates as well as the reflex to drop the item (which also negates the damage).
seems to me you get one save(object) to ignore the heating of the object, if it fails you get a save to drop it if you choose, the spell could use d6 for damage though.
You'd think that "A creature holding the item may attempt a Reflex save to drop it and take no damage (even if it is not their turn)" specifies and overrides common spell vs held objects?
The saving throw line of description is baddly written. It should be Reflex partial (object) because successful saving throw does not end with no effect but in disarm.
The spell itself is not overpowered at 1st level. Compare it to magic missile that deals 1d4+1 damage without possibility of defending onself except SR or shield spell.
The saving throw line of description is baddly written. It should be Reflex partial (object) because successful saving throw does not end with no effect but in disarm.
The spell itself is not overpowered at 1st level. Compare it to magic missile that deals 1d4+1 damage without possibility of defending onself except SR or shield spell.
It's still a weird spell if meant that way :
the GM should roll the damage and ask the player to make a save to drop the weapon, otherwise you get disgruntled players, but it feels weird to take the damage just because you can.. the spell invites to metagame really, the result/saving throw doesnt really translate in a benefit to the player necesarily, which makes the spell feel awkward in it's execution.
It doesn't damage the item therefore the item has no reason to save, thus why the person using the item (the one that might be burned or inconvenienced by dropping the item) makes the save.
In addition it's an attended object.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How hard is to tell: "your sword is growing searing hot, roll Reflex save (succeed) you may drop it before it burned your hand, (fail) it burned your hand for x damage)."
Everyone's focusing on the (object) in the save, and ignoring the target part of the spell: "Target: Held metal item of one creature or 15 lbs. of unattended metal"
The spell targets an object. Therefore the object makes a save against it. If the object fails the save, then the effect of the spell applies, which includes "a creature holding the item may attempt a Reflex save to drop it."
So yes, one save to negate, and then you can either just take damage (which is the same amount of damage as burning hands, also a first level spell) or choose to attempt to drop your weapon in order to avoid the damage.
I'd consider it slightly worse than burning hands at low levels, and it doesn't scale as well. It only affects one target instead of an area, but it's at close range (so you don't have to get nearly as close as with BH). It's save negates instead of save half, but until magic weapons start showing up, the save itself is the same. And it provides a mechanism whereby the target can choose to disarm themselves to avoid the damage, which is a potentially worse scenario for them.
I think the object (if magical or attended) gets a Reflex save. If it fails, the attendee has to Reflex or take damage.that works, but it makes the spell pretty lame.
That's pretty much my point. Many consider it a fantastic spell, but it's actually crappy.
And in regards to the "see text" part, I believe the object saves to negate, and then the see text part refers to the Reflex save to drop the object. As someone pointed out earlier, there is no "negation" going on with the save to drop the item, as dropping the item is a desirable effect as well.
So, yeah, Burning Disarm is lame, not awesome.
It does seem to make Heat Metal better by comparison. As it should be.
Everyone's focusing on the (object) in the save, and ignoring the target part of the spell: "Target: Held metal item or 15 lbs. of unattended metal"
Fixed that for you.
Everyone's focusing on the (object) in the save, and ignoring the target part of the spell: "Target: Held metal item or 15 lbs. of unattended metal"Fixed that for you.
That does nothing to change to his point. The item is still the thing targetted. The one creature specification is so you can't use it as a mutli-damage spell on stuff multiple people are holding at once.
Everyone's focusing on the (object) in the save, and ignoring the target part of the spell: "Target: Held metal item or 15 lbs. of unattended metal"Fixed that for you.
The "of one creature" part is entirely irrelevant to my point. It limits "held metal item" to one being held by a single creature, but doesn't change that it is targeting a held metal item.
If it said "One creature holding a metal item", then it would target the creature. It doesn't. It says (effectively) "One metal item being held by a creature". By flipping the order of the nouns, it creates an entirely different meaning.
It's the difference between saying "Attached fruit of an apple tree" (which would be an apple, but only while it was on the tree) and "An apple tree with fruit attached" (which would be the tree, but only while it had apples on it).
As an attended object it doesn't make the save the character does.
As an attended object it doesn't make the save the character does.
Yes, it does. The item makes the save with the character's bonus.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As an attended object it doesn't make the save the character does.
As was already cited in the OP of this thread, the rules specifically say that an attended object makes a save when targeted by a spell:
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
As an attended object it doesn't make the save the character does.As was already cited in the OP of this thread, the rules specifically say that an attended object makes a save when targeted by a spell:
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater.EDIT: Ninja'd.
Very good -- we are all on the same page -- so what about that save throw?
Lets look:
Saving Throw Reflex negates (object, see text); Spell Resistance Yes (object)
What does the text tell us?
A creature holding the item may attempt a Reflex save to drop it and take no damage (even if it is not their turn), otherwise the hot metal deals 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4).
As such the text tells us what happens with the save throw, its made by the character, and then he either drops it or takes damage.
The "See Text" part is critical. It's not "Saving Throw Reflex negates (object)" which would make it exactly what you say, but the see text tells us that the spell isn't quite as simple as that.
Very good -- we are all on the same page -- so what about that save throw?
Lets look:
Saving Throw Reflex negates (object, see text); Spell Resistance Yes (object)What does the text tell us?
A creature holding the item may attempt a Reflex save to drop it and take no damage (even if it is not their turn), otherwise the hot metal deals 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4).As such the text tells us what happens with the save throw, its made by the character, and then he either drops it or takes damage.
The "See Text" part is critical. It's not "Saving Throw Reflex negates (object)" which would make it exactly what you say, but the see text tells us that the spell isn't quite as simple as that.
No, I am including the "see text" in my interpretation and you are ignoring the Object part of it.
In the text, the object makes no save whatsoever, which means that either the "object" entry doesn't belong there, or there is an additional save somewhere, i.e. before the save in the text.
Very good -- we are all on the same page -- so what about that save throw?
Lets look:
Saving Throw Reflex negates (object, see text); Spell Resistance Yes (object)What does the text tell us?
A creature holding the item may attempt a Reflex save to drop it and take no damage (even if it is not their turn), otherwise the hot metal deals 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4).As such the text tells us what happens with the save throw, its made by the character, and then he either drops it or takes damage.
The "See Text" part is critical. It's not "Saving Throw Reflex negates (object)" which would make it exactly what you say, but the see text tells us that the spell isn't quite as simple as that.
No, I am including the "see text" in my interpretation and you are ignoring the Object part of it.
In the text, the object makes no save whatsoever, which means that either the "object" entry doesn't belong there, or there is an additional save somewhere, i.e. before the save in the text.
This.
The only interpretation of "(Object; see text)" which makes sense since there's no object save in the text is that there are two saves. One for the object, the other as defined in the text. Anything else, and you have to assume that part of the spell block is wrong and needs errata.
Or you're over thinking things -- it's not like this (and other things like it) aren't already in the spell blocks too.
Glitterdust comes to mind with its duration line.
Please note the spell can also affect an unattended object of 15 lbs or less which would of course get its own save throw without anything else going on.
Or you're over thinking things -- it's not like this (and other things like it) aren't already in the spell blocks too.
Glitterdust comes to mind with its duration line.
Please note the spell can also affect an unattended object of 15 lbs or less which would of course get its own save throw without anything else going on.
So you think an unattended object (which gets no save by the rules) gets to make a save, but that an attended object (which specifically gets a save at its attendee's bonus) does not get one? And this makes more sense to you than this spell just being kind of sucky?
And the duration line is 1 round/level. I don't understand what's weird about that. That's how long the targets remain covered in glitter.
Yeah the cloud lasts for 1 round per level. After all that's the duration right?
(object)
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level.
Pretty telling in my opinion.
Just opinion here, but my guess is the intent was for a single save, and the target vs. save lines slipped through the editing.
Interpret it as you will, but having a single save makes the most sense to me.
Yeah the cloud lasts for 1 round per level. After all that's the duration right?
Pretty telling in my opinion.(object)
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level.
It's telling that the object save entry says you don't necessarily have to target an object?
Why does that matter at all to a spell whose target entry specifies it must target an object? Because, uh, Burning Disarm must target an object.
It's telling that you don't want to admit what everything says -- that the save throw is signular, and that it's a reflex save, and if failed the creature holding the weapon takes damage and if successful the drop the object. The text tells you its a reflex save and to see the text -- the text tells you all damage can be avoided by making the save -- which causes the item to drop, fail that save and the holder takes the damage.
It's telling that you don't want to admit what everything says -- that the save throw is signular, and that it's a reflex save, and if failed the creature holding the weapon takes damage and if successful the drop the object. The text tells you its a reflex save and to see the text -- the text tells you all damage can be avoided by making the save -- which causes the item to drop, fail that save and the holder takes the damage.
"Target: Held metal item of one creature or 15 lbs. of unattended metal"
I have a +5 reflex save. I have a magic sword which has a +9 save. What bonus do I use?
The +5 -- it tells you right in the spell (where you see the text) that you make the save throw.
What about if it's sitting on the ground unattended?
It's telling that you don't want to admit what everything says -- that the save throw is signular, and that it's a reflex save, and if failed the creature holding the weapon takes damage and if successful the drop the object. The text tells you its a reflex save and to see the text -- the text tells you all damage can be avoided by making the save -- which causes the item to drop, fail that save and the holder takes the damage.
Do you have this spell in a game and your GM read my thread or something? I'm sorry, you are incorrect and trying to warp the rules to fit what you want it to do.
Burning Disarm targets an object. There is no way to deny that. It is in the target line.
Can we agree on that point?
Now, the save entry specifies "Reflex negates (object; see text)."
We look at the text and it talks about the creature holding the item making a save. The save the creature makes does not negate anything, plus, well, he wasn't the target of the spell, so that's clearly the "see text."
Now we have to deal with the fact that the "object" notation in the save entry has not been addressed. We look at the rules on what the object notation means and we see that the object gets a save, either using it's own bonus or it's owner's bonus, and that is the "negates" part of the entry.
The item gets to save to negate the effect. If it fails, then the holder saves as per the text. That's how the spell works. I don't understand how you can still refuse to accept that. Burning Disarm, unfortunately, sucks.
The +5 -- it tells you right in the spell (where you see the text) that you make the save throw.
No, absolutely not. You're failing to address the (object) part of the save entry. The save is at +9. If it fails, then and only then do you save at +5 with the effect listed in the text.
This is getting silly.
Just because the spell targets an object doesn't mean that thing makes the save -- point in case burning gaze.
Just because the spell targets an object doesn't mean that thing makes the save -- point in case burning gaze.
Burning Gaze doesn't target an object, it targets you, and the ability you acquire can target objects. But it would be irrelevant even if it did target an object, because there's no "object" listed in it's save entry.
Are you unwilling or unable to accept that Burning Disarm has the following save entry:
Reflex Negates (Object, see text)?
Are you unwilling or unable to accept that the meaning of having "Object" in the save entry means:
"The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater."
This is very clear. Burning Disarm targets an object. The object gets a save.
You can argue that there is a typo or that it shouldn't work this way, but I don't understand how you can deny that it does work this way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"See text" means, "Hey we got this here, but it doesn't really work this way, go read and see what it actually does."
It shows up regularly and if we were to simply throw away that very important line and blithely go with what is listed in the spell block so many spells would be screwed over as to cause most of them to not work at all.
The long and short of it is that "see text" trumps the rest of what is written there.
The spell block is short hand if something in the text specifically overturns it then the text reigns.
"See text" does not trump anything. It adds to it. In this case, it means "there is more to this save than the one check". If it meant to only refer to the text, then the entirety of the save would be "See text". There are several spells like that out there. Alternatively, it could say "Save: Reflex (see text)". But it doesn't. It says "Save: Reflex (object, see text)". Therefore the "object" has meaning.
That is certainly an interesting theory, do you have anything to assert it is somehow true?
That is certainly an interesting theory, do you have anything to assert it is somehow true?
Certainly!
Save see text
A grease spell covers a solid surface with a layer of slippery grease. Any creature in the area when the spell is cast must make a successful Reflex save or fall. A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Acrobatics check. Failure means it can't move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Acrobatics skill for details). Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed.
Saving Throw Reflex partial, see text
...
A creature struck by the clashing rocks takes 20d6 points of bludgeoning damage and is knocked prone. If the target fails a Reflex saving throw, it is also buried under the resulting rubble as if by a cave-in (see Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 415).If the clashing rocks miss the target, the target still takes 10d6 points of bludgeoning damage from falling rocks and is knocked prone. A successful Reflex save reduces this damage to half and the target remains standing.
Saving Throw: Reflex partial; see text;
This spell causes tall grass, weeds, and other plants to wrap around creatures in the area of effect or those that enter the area. Creatures that fail their save gain the entangled condition.
Saving Throw Reflex partial (see text)
A spray of acid erupts from your outstretched hand, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d6) to each creature within its area (Reflex half). This acid continues to burn for 1 round, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage per two caster levels (maximum 7d6) to any creature that failed its saving throw against the spell (a second Reflex save on the creature's turn negates this additional damage).
Saving Throw Fortitude partial or Reflex negates (object); see text;
A successful save negates the deafness and reduces the damage by half. Any exposed brittle or crystalline object or crystalline creature takes 1d6 points of sonic damage per caster level (maximum 15d6). An affected creature is allowed a Fortitude save to reduce the damage by half, and a creature holding fragile objects can negate damage to them with a successful Reflex save.
I can come up with more examples if you'd like. But I think this is enough to show that "See text" always means that there's more involved with the save than just a single roll. Usually it means a second roll, or a conditional roll. You can argue here that the "see text" means to refer to the fact that there's two different effects on a success or a failure, but that would be "Reflex Partial (see text)". The ONLY reason for it to be "Reflex Partial (object, see text)" is if the object makes the save.
------
Your turn now: Do you have any examples or rules text to assert that your stance of "the word object means nothing" is true?
Not sure why you're arguing. Clearly the op got his/her mind set on it and doesn't seem much interested in another opinion.
If it matters, my two cents.
The spell targets an object. Normally object held can save, magical or not.
In this case, the intent is to heat up the weapon, and force the character to drop it to escape damage. That makes sense for Reflex (object, see text) as it then specifies what you do once the weapon is heated, meaning roll reflex to see if you can drop it before it burns you, common sense and reflex is to do just that.
Now, if it said "Reflex Negates (object)." I'd agree with you that a magical sword could make a save to resist the heating. Not so much for a mundane sword, as it'd be the equal to grabbing red-hot rods with bare hands by making reflex save, and we can agree that only Jackie Chan can do that.
Whatever the result, we'll play it as intended. It heats up, you roll a reflex to see if you can drop it before you get stung, or keep holding it if you feel especially heroic (holding hot metal is NOT fun), focusing on a single word before ,see text feels too much like finding a loophole to get an extra save vs an already weak spell.
As for the shout example, it specifies Reflex Negates (object) that YOU make the reflex save (creature holding), not the item. When text specifies what to do with a save, you usually go for that solution, and not slap on another save.
It's a rule question, not a balance discussion. It's a bad spell. The item gets a save if magical or attended and if it's wielded, the wielder can either try to drop it or take the damage.<some stuff not really worthy of note...>
Apologies, I forgot what forum I was in there... I should have taken a different approach than my original. I will do so now. Someone please find me a spell that requires multiple saves.... Ahh... Here we are.... Phatasmal killer
"Saving Throw Will disbelief, then Fortitude partial; see text; "
(From the SRD). The entire Phantasmal line follows that suite (Revenge, Web). Similarly Baleful Polymorph cites 2 different saves that you must take separately and they are cited in the Saves summary of the text.
I would assume that the above sets a precedent that if a spell requires multiple saves, that they will be dictated out like that. BD would cite "Reflex Negates (object) THEN Reflex partial (See Text)"? It would seem to set the precedent to me.
THEN I came across Thunder Fire.
"Saving Throw Will negates (object), see text;...
...Every creature within 15 feet of the creature wielding or carrying the firearm must succeed at a Fortitude save or be deafened for 1 minute..."
(Again, from the SRD).
Which would imply the complete blasted opposite thing! OBJECT gets the Will Negates. If it fails, everyone in 15 feet must make a fort save. Burning Gaze falls into the same boat. Save is cited as just "Fort Negates [see text]", in the text it then goes on to talk about a reflex save to not catch fire if you took damage!
So much for the alternate approach.
After reading Thunder Fire (which seems to mirror it the most closely... Target item A, which causes effect B to people near it), I'm going to reverse my stance and go with "Object gets a reflex save to negate. If object is affected, wielder may choose to make a reflex save to drop it and avoid damage."
THEN I came across Thunder Fire."Saving Throw Will negates (object), see text;...
...Every creature within 15 feet of the creature wielding or carrying the firearm must succeed at a Fortitude save or be deafened for 1 minute..."
(Again, from the SRD).Which would imply the complete blasted opposite thing! OBJECT gets the Will Negates. If it fails, everyone in 15 feet must make a fort save. Burning Gaze falls into the same boat. Save is cited as just "Fort Negates [see text]", in the text it then goes on to talk about a reflex save to not catch fire if you took damage!
So much for the alternate approach.
After reading Thunder Fire (which seems to mirror it the most closely... Target item A, which causes effect B to people near it), I'm going to reverse my stance and go with "Object gets a reflex save to negate. If object is affected, wielder may choose to make a reflex save to drop it and avoid damage."
Good find. That's a much more relevant example than my list (although I was mostly going for the "See text modifies, not replaces angle").
So Thunder Fire is a Will save for the object, and then people have to make a Fort save, and Burning Disarm is a Reflex save for the object, and then a person has to make a Reflex save. Easy to see where the confusion would come from.
Whatever the result, we'll play it as intended. It heats up, you roll a reflex to see if you can drop it before you get stung, or keep holding it if you feel especially heroic (holding hot metal is NOT fun), focusing on a single word before ,see text feels too much like finding a loophole to get an extra save vs an already weak spell.
I disagree that that was what was intended, but I won't tell you that you're wrong to play that way (in a home game - in PFS, I would). I do think that as a single-save spell, it's a good first level version of heat metal. It only affects one target, but it is a level lower. It may do less damage, but it does it all upfront instead of over 7 turns, and it may allow you to drop your weapon to negate it... but if you're disarmed you're in really bad shape.
-----
Side thought:
This thread misuses the phrase "Catch-22". A Catch-22 is when you want/need to do something, but you have to do something else first, and you can't do that something else because of the first thing. The original example is: You can only leave the army if you're crazy, but trying to leave the army proves you're sane and staying shows you're crazy. So the act of attempting to leave shows that you must stay.
Instead, this is an example of a "No win scenario": There are two (or more) options, any of which can happen, but none of which are good.