Couple tidbits, if what you are saying is true, where does the save for the object come in for shout? It specifies reflex negates (object) but in the spell text it says a creature makes the saving throw if they are holding the object? Are you suggesting the crystalline object gets its own saving throw to negate followed by the creatures to negate? I would disagree..
Your confusion in this is caused by the assumption that the (object) refers to the Reflex Save, rather than referring to the save entry in general. Parenthetical notation always comes at the end, regardless of how many saves are listed before it. In this case, it's the Fortitude save that objects make.
Ok, so let's say there are four things in the area of Shout's Cone: a fancy porcelein vase, a magical crystal music box, a Crystalline Golem of some sort, and a Human holding a fancy bottle of wine.
The Human makes a Fortitude save. If it fails, he takes 5d6 damage and is deafened. If it succeeds, he takes half damage.
The Crystalline Golem takes 1d6/caster level damage, or half that if it succeeds on its Fortitude save.
The (object) notation in the save entry means that objects get a save if they are magical or attended.
The porcelein vase is non-magical, so it gets no save, it just takes 1d6/CL and is likely destroyed.
The music box is magical, and makes a Fortitude save with its own bonus to half the damage.
The bottle of wine is not magical, but it is attended. It gets a Fortitude save for half damage using the Human's bonus. However, there is another save--the Human can make a Reflex save to protect the wine bottle completely and negate all the damage, so the bottle only needs to make its Fortitude save if the Human fails the Reflex save.
I hope that clears it up.
For clashing rocks, the crunch is the only save made... see text does not call for another save as suggested, but tells you what partial means. Or, are you suggesting a reflex save allows half damage or none with evasion, AND if made, then you ALSO take half damage from the half you already took (1/4) + other listed effects? If so, I would again disagree with you.
No, the see text part of Clashing Rocks save is not in parentheses, so it adds nothing, only explains. Just like the see text in Shout.
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.
You are partially correct. I'm not interested in opinion. I am not "set," though. I'm very open to a rules-backed argument, if anyone has one, and in fact, looking for one was the reason I started this thread.
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.
Well, that's just the thing--it's not weak. If the object gets no save (despite having object in the save entry), it's extremely powerful.
It's a spell that actually gets better as enemy saves get better because the successful save (dropping the weapon), is often more beneficial for the caster than the damage.
See, there's no actual choice--the target can't choose to hold the weapon and they can't choose to fail their save. They are forced to make a save, and if they suceed, they drop their weapon. What's more, it's not even a true Disarm, it's just them voluntarily dropping it, so it'll even take a weapon away from a Level 20 Warrior with Weapon Mastery. Hell, the damage is irrelevant, so even a Fire Resistant enemy, or amazingly, a Fire Immune enemy has to drop the weapon if they succeed on the save (and again, you can't choose to fail saves unless the effect is harmless).
This spell is amazingly powerful if the object gets no save. In fact, it's unbelievable awesomeness is exactly why I started scrutinizing it, because it seemed too good to be true.
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.
See, you also were assuming the (object) notation applied to the Reflex save specifically, rather than the entire save entry, which is how it is customarily written.
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."
That is a great find.
but if you're disarmed you're in really bad shape.
This is exactly the issue. Dropping the weapon (which happens on a success) is actually better than taking the weak damage.
Side thought:
This thread misuses the phrase "Catch-22".
"A Catch-22, coined by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch-22, is a logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired with an action that will lead him to that very situation he is already in; therefore, the acquisition of this thing becomes logically impossible."
So, you are correct. In common usage, it has come to mean, basically, damned if you do, or damned if you don't, but common usage is wrong. The title should be, "Burning Disarm does not create the ultimate No Win Situation" or something to that effect.
See, there's no actual choice--the target can't choose to hold the weapon and they can't choose to fail their save. They are forced to make a save, and if they suceed, they drop their weapon. What's more, it's not even a true Disarm, it's just them voluntarily dropping it, so it'll even take a weapon away from a Level 20 Warrior with Weapon Mastery. Hell, the damage is irrelevant, so even a Fire Resistant enemy, or amazingly, a Fire Immune enemy has to drop the weapon if they succeed on the save (and again, you can't choose to fail saves unless the effect is harmless).
Well, it does say "may make a save", which generally implies that you can choose not to. I'm also not sure if being able to voluntarily fail a save is a default part of the rules or just a house rule I've used so long I don't realize it's a house rule, but if it is part of the rules, then things can just choose to fail it and keep their weapon...
Well, it does say "may make a save", which generally implies that you can choose not to.
Blah, you're right--so they can choose to hold it. That does make it not quite so super powered if I'm wrong, and it makes it even worse if I'm right.
I'm also not sure if being able to voluntarily fail a save is a default part of the rules or just a house rule I've used so long I don't realize it's a house rule, but if it is part of the rules, then things can just choose to fail it and keep their weapon...
No, I'm quite sure that it must be a houserule. You can't voluntarily fail or forego a save unless the effect is Harmless.
See, there's no actual choice--the target can't choose to hold the weapon and they can't choose to fail their save. They are forced to make a save, and if they suceed, they drop their weapon. What's more, it's not even a true Disarm, it's just them voluntarily dropping it, so it'll even take a weapon away from a Level 20 Warrior with Weapon Mastery. Hell, the damage is irrelevant, so even a Fire Resistant enemy, or amazingly, a Fire Immune enemy has to drop the weapon if they succeed on the save (and again, you can't choose to fail saves unless the effect is harmless).Well, it does say "may make a save", which generally implies that you can choose not to. I'm also not sure if being able to voluntarily fail a save is a default part of the rules or just a house rule I've used so long I don't realize it's a house rule, but if it is part of the rules, then things can just choose to fail it and keep their weapon...
Okay, my two cp.
Since the target of the spell is a held metal object of one creature OR up to 15 lbs of unattended metal, I say that the object makes the save.
If the object passes the reflex save, it doesn't heat up; if it fails, it does heat up.
At that point, the creature holding it MAY make a reflex save; if successful, they can drop it to avoid damage, otherwise they take damage (because they fail their save or because they forgo their save, or because they can't drop the item and don't get a save).
I think the "see text" line is pointing at this because it is a mild exception the rule that you can normally voluntarily fail or forgo a save only if the effect is harmless.
Does that make sense? It's not a great spell, but it could fun if cast on a gauntlet (anyone wearing plate mail, for example), or a pair of brass knuckles. At that point it's still fairly dreadful, mind; save vs 1d4/level damage, save negates? give me magic missile.
Not sure why you would cast it on an unattended object ... there is absolutely no point. Seems like it could use some errata?
Definitely feels like it's more for flavor than power.
Quick question,
Why do people think this spell is overpowered? Magic missle is compairable to this. While this gets 1d4 per level (max 5d4), Magic Missle gets 1d4+1 per two levels (max 5d4+5); This while little bit stronger early game gives the target the option to drop the weapon to negate all damage. Magic missle doesn't give you any kind of save. Damage is just done. If magic missle had a disclaimer that you could drop your weapon to avoid the damage would yall still be arguing? Also while everyone is quoting rules about unattended objects, the rules states that specific rules supersede general rules. I think the developers intent is as written or as Abraham spalding is debating for. But in Truth if you dont like the spell, just house rule that it works the way you want it to.
I think the developers intent is as written or as Abraham spalding is debating for. But in Truth if you dont like the spell, just house rule that it works the way you want it to.
"The developers' intent is as written" means absolutely nothing. I read the spell as "The developer's intent was to allow a save to negate anything from happening," and Abraham reads it as "The developers' intent was to only make a single save, with consequences either way." Unless there's flavor text or an example of usage, there's no way to tell what the intent actually was, and therefor, no way to tell who needs to house rule it and who is using it as written (which is generally only important in Society play).
Why would the item want or need a saving throw in this instance. The spell does not Damage the object in anyway. You must target the object, can't weigh more then 15 pounds. If you just want change the spell to take out the argument, make it a ray ranged touch attack targeting the object. Its harmless so no save for the object and allow the reflex save for the person as the spell reads.
Why do people think this spell is overpowered? Magic missle is compairable to this. While this gets 1d4 per level (max 5d4), Magic Missle gets 1d4+1 per two levels (max 5d4+5);
It's not the damage that's strong, it's the disarm. Like I said, it's usually worse for them if they succeed and drop the item.
Also while everyone is quoting rules about unattended objects, the rules states that specific rules supersede general rules.
The specific rule needs to actually change, alter, or otherwise address the general rule it's superseding in order for specific to beat general. I think you'll find that a great deal of the time, specific adds to general, rather than actually needing to supersede it.
I think the developers intent is as written or as Abraham spalding is debating for.
If you want to discuss what the intent of the spell is, well, that's very different than what the spell actually does officially. What is clear to me, though, is that if they had intended what you are suggesting, they failed to accomplish it.
If the intent was to have a spell that allowed only a single save to drop the weapon or take damage, then the save entry should be:
Save: See text
Why would the item want or need a saving throw in this instance. The spell does not Damage the object in anyway. You must target the object, can't weigh more then 15 pounds. If you just want change the spell to take out the argument, make it a ray ranged touch attack targeting the object. Its harmless so no save for the object and allow the reflex save for the person as the spell reads.
It's not harmless or it would say "harmless" in the save entry next to object.
It may not actually do anything to the item, but unless the entry says "harmless," you can't forego or choose to fail a save, so the item is required to make the save.
@ bobson
I referenced Magic Missile to show that not all spells get a save. I think its spells out in the text that the reflex save is for dropping the weapon, Otherwise you take the damage. If, this was not intended then I'm sure "eventually" the developers would errata it. I just don't see this being a game breaking spell, with either interpretation.
It's not the damage that's strong, it's the disarm. Like I said, it's usually worse for them if they succeed and drop the item.
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), otherwise the hot metal deals 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4). Circumstances that prevent the creature from dropping the item (such as a locked gauntlet) mean the creature gets no saving throw. The heat does not harm the item, and it does not get hot enough or last long enough to ignite flammable objects. The item cools to its previous temperature almost instantly. If cast underwater, burning disarm deals half damage and boils the surrounding water.
Just hold on to it?
I cant see your text for what it should say. I thought i was clear, but never hurts to FAQ things so you can get a different wording. Hope you can get a satisfactory answer.
Well, it does say "may make a save", which generally implies that you can choose not to.Blah, you're right--so they can choose to hold it. That does make it not quite so super powered if I'm wrong, and it makes it even worse if I'm right.
I'm also not sure if being able to voluntarily fail a save is a default part of the rules or just a house rule I've used so long I don't realize it's a house rule, but if it is part of the rules, then things can just choose to fail it and keep their weapon...No, I'm quite sure that it must be a houserule. You can't voluntarily fail or forego a save unless the effect is Harmless.
You can always choose to intentional fail a save. It's in the same section of the magic rules you've pulled the object saving throw language earlier in the thread.
PRD Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
You can always choose to intentional fail a save. It's in the same section of the magic rules you've pulled the object saving throw language earlier in the thread.
PRD Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
I am going to go crazy with Pathfinder. They changed such little stuff--stuff I've never thought to bother looking at. People in 3rd edition always tried to claim you could forego or auto-fail rolls, and I was correct then when I said you couldn't.
Yes, I am wrong about this.
So, the funny thing is, I looked into this spell because it appeared super powerful. It turns out that not only is it crappy by RAW (because the item gets a save), but it is also still kind of weak by what several people are insisting is the RAI, because the target can just choose to take the damage.
Of course, now that it's clear saves can be foregone, I don't know how to argue whether or not objects would give up saves. The entry does not say harmless, but then, nothing bad actually happens to the item.
So, would the antendee decide whether it takes the save or not? Does a mindless item always forego saves for spells that effectively do nothing to them, so only an intelligent magic item would try and stop this? Now we're in a weird territory.
Not really...a creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw. An object can not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really...a creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw. An object can not.
Well, then, it's settled. Burning Disarm causes the item to make a Reflex save to negate the effect, which it cannot forego. If the save fails, then the creature holding the item can make a Reflex save to drop the weapon (if they want to) or take crappy damage.
Cool, settled. Thank you.
Not really...a creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw. An object can not.Well, then, it's settled. Burning Disarm causes the item to make a Reflex save to negate the effect, which it cannot forego. If the save fails, then the creature holding the item can make a Reflex save to drop the weapon (if they want to) or take crappy damage.
Cool, settled. Thank you.
If that does it for you, goodie good.
I know a bunch of people on the other hand that won't slap an additional save on a so-so spell just cause they think they can.
Not really...a creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw. An object can not.Well, then, it's settled. Burning Disarm causes the item to make a Reflex save to negate the effect, which it cannot forego. If the save fails, then the creature holding the item can make a Reflex save to drop the weapon (if they want to) or take crappy damage.
Cool, settled. Thank you.
If that does it for you, goodie good.
I know a bunch of people on the other hand that won't slap an additional save on a so-so spell just cause they think they can.
I'm not slapping another save on the spell because I think I can. The developers slapped another save on the spell when they wrote it. I'm just recognizing and accepting that the second save exists and that the spell is actually terrible. It's not like it's the first terrible spell ever written.
I think what Tyki11 is trying to say is that its still unclear if there are two saves. I know in our group its run as you take damage or you make the reflex save to drop the weapon.
I think what Tyki11 is trying to say is that its still unclear if there are two saves. I know in our group its run as you take damage or you make the reflex save to drop the weapon.
I know that's what he's saying, but it's not actually unclear in the rules. The intent may be unclear, but the rules are not. And I'd rather follow clear rules than muddy intent. I'd also rather not rely on GM ignorance/goodwill, so I won't ever be taking this spell.
If your GM will run it that way, he is well within his rights--but doing so is a houserule.
Time for a comparative analysis: Burning Disarm vs Thunder Fire.
- Target Held metal item of one creature or 15 lbs. of unattended metal 1 loaded firearm
- Both spells target an object. BD's object must be held by one creature or unattended, and TF's object must be a loaded firearm.
- Duration instantaneous instantaneous
- Both spells happen immediately, then end.
- Saving Throw Reflex negates (object, see text); Will negates (object), see text;
- Both spells require the target object to make a save (They both target an object and they both have the "object" descriptor in their save). Both spells allow the save to negate the spell (the "negates" descriptor). Both spells have additional rules relating to saves in the descriptions (the "see text" descriptor). BD requires a reflex save, TD requires a Will save.
- Spell Resistance Yes (object) yes (object), see text
- Both spells allow the object (or their holder) to resist with spell resistance. TF has more rules for it in the text, while BD does not. (Except that there aren't actually any)
- Description (spell effect): This spell causes a metal object to instantly become red hot. The firearm targeted creates a thunderous report, even if the firearm is not loaded.
- Both descriptive sentences refer to the object being affected. I have no idea why TD specifies "even if the firearm is not loaded" because it can only target loaded firearms. Neither of these sentences has any game-play mechanics.
- Description (saves): 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). 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.
- Both spells now refer to a save. For TD, this is clearly a required save ("must"), it affects multiple creatures ("every creature within 15 feet"), and is a Fortitude save, which is not mentioned in the save block above. For BD, this is an optional save ("may"), it only affects a single creature ("a creature holding the item"), and is a Reflex save, which by comparison is separate from the reflex save mentioned in the stat block above.
- Description (modifiers): Circumstances that prevent the creature from dropping the item (such as a locked gauntlet) mean the creature gets no saving throw. The creature wielding or carrying the firearm takes a –4 penalty on this saving throw, ...
- Both spells modify the save they just mentioned in some way. BD says that if the creature can't drop the item, the creature doesn't get their (optional) saving throw. Since we already established that the original save is for the object, this is clearly a second save. TD applies a -4 modifier to the creature wielding the firearm. Again, this is clearly applying the -4 modifier to the second save (against deafening), not the first (against the explosion).
- Description (other consequences): The heat does not harm the item, and it does not get hot enough or last long enough to ignite flammable objects. The item cools to its previous temperature almost instantly. If cast underwater, burning disarm deals half damage and boils the surrounding water. ... and his misfire range increases by 1 for 1d4 rounds. If the firearm was loaded when it was targeted by this spell, that ammunition is wasted.
- Nothing to mention here, just citing them for completeness.
------
I think this is pretty conclusive that two saves is what is written, and probably what was intended, because we have another parallel spell in which it's very explicit that there are two saves. I do think that it makes the spell rather sub-par, but the alternative is way too powerful.
If you're going to disagree with any part of my analysis, please cite the specific block that you disagree with and explain why my comparison doesn't hold up. Also, please consider the fact that it is just as possible for a spell (any spell, not just this one) to require two separate reflex saves, with different results being applied to each, as it is for it to require a will save and a fort save, with different results being applied to each.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The key difference between the two spells is:
One is Save Negates (Object, See Text.) <- being in a single parentheses fuses the text with the save so to say.
2nd is Save Negates (Object), see text. <- allows object save, then outside parentheses it says how to deal with a failed check.
So you see, there is a difference in Save Negates (object).
Burning Disarms;
Reflex Negates (object, see text)
* Roll Reflex, but see text on who does what and what are the consequences.
The Thunder Fire on the other hand;
Will Negates (object)
* this puts (object) before see text, object uses your will to save as normal.
,See Text
Followed by 'See Text' outside of parentheses. IF it fails, roll Fortitude on suffer the consequences.
One spell says Reflex save -> wielder saves.
2nd spell says Will Negates -> creatures around the wielder roll a specific save.
Two different save text, two different descriptions, one target says reflex, then who uses reflex. The other says Will negates (object) then it's see text for handling Fortitude.
Edit:
Forgot to mention, spells that most often target held objects call for a Will save, like Thunder Fire, such as peacebond, airbubble, mending, penumbra, so on.
The fact that Burning Hands uses Reflex instead of normal Will Save like Thunder Fire, and then states that user makes the Reflex Save, should count for something.
I am going to go crazy with Pathfinder. They changed such little stuff--stuff I've never thought to bother looking at. People in 3rd edition always tried to claim you could forego or auto-fail rolls, and I was correct then when I said you couldn't.
PH 3.5, page 177:
I am going to go crazy with Pathfinder. They changed such little stuff--stuff I've never thought to bother looking at. People in 3rd edition always tried to claim you could forego or auto-fail rolls, and I was correct then when I said you couldn't.PH 3.5, page 177:
Thanks for making me feel dumb ;)
Have any insight on whether Burning Disarm involves the object saving before the character holding it does? Tyki11's argument about where the parenthesis are is compelling, though, I'm not totally convinced.
I am going to go crazy with Pathfinder. They changed such little stuff--stuff I've never thought to bother looking at. People in 3rd edition always tried to claim you could forego or auto-fail rolls, and I was correct then when I said you couldn't.PH 3.5, page 177:
Thanks for making me feel dumb ;)
Have any insight on whether Burning Disarm involves the object saving before the character holding it does? Tyki11's argument about where the parenthesis are is compelling, though, I'm not totally convinced.
Not trying to state how you should use it, use it any way you prefer.
Just saying how I read it.And I didn't really notice the difference until Thunder Fire was mentioned. But there's a clear distiction in how they used (object, see text) & (object), see text. One called specifically for two saves, other for one, the followed up with a text.
I can't complain though, I learned something new today :D
Will saves for objects is most common. And a spell can both have object save and character save.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I can't stop giggling about how I've been watching this thread all week in anticipation of SKR coming in and bringing light and wisdom to this conundrum, then finally seeing his name here and then discovering that he didn't answer the question.
It amuses me to no end. :)
I can't stop giggling about how I've been watching this thread all week in anticipation of SKR coming in and bringing light and wisdom to this conundrum, then finally seeing his name here and then discovering that he didn't answer the question.
It amuses me to no end. :)
I didn't notice that.
That IS funny.
I can't stop giggling about how I've been watching this thread all week in anticipation of SKR coming in and bringing light and wisdom to this conundrum, then finally seeing his name here and then discovering that he didn't answer the question.
It amuses me to no end. :)
Yeah, I actually didn't think any developer would care about this issue, but seeing his name, I was also very disappointed when he just kind of subtley called me an ass and didn't really tell me if I was otherwise wrong or not.
I really don't mind being proven wrong (and his word would be proof for me). It is always educational when it happens.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did I call you anything? No.
You said "Pathfinder changed this rule, I can't believe all the little stuff they changed, it's going to drive me crazy!" I quoted the same rule in 3.5, which means Pathfinder didn't change the rule. How does me pointing out that you're remembering a rule wrong equate to calling you an ass?
Regarding the spell, it's uncommon for a spell to give two saving throws to negate it--one, it gets annoyingly complex, two, it slows down the game, three, it makes that effect much weaker than a standard one-save effect.
I remember working on this spell, and the mechanics of it were really weird; I had to fiddle with it a lot during development. If you compare it to burning hands, it's a single-target fire effect with a Reflex-negates save instead of a multiple-target fire effect with a Reflex-half save. Thus, it's weaker than burning hands (though the range is better, so that mitigates it a little bit, and the target making his save means he is disarmed, so that helps make up for it). But you can only cast it on someone holding a metal item, compared to burning hands which you can cast on anyone. Target is unarmed? Can't use burning disarm. Target is holding a wooden wand or a crystal orb? Can't use burning disarm.
So, given that the spell is already weaker than burning hands, giving the target two save-negates (one for the item to be affected at all, one to drop the item and take no damage) would weaken it even further, so it should have just one save, and use the save described in the spell's description, as "see text" in a spell stat block is a shortcut for "we can't really sum up this spell's saving throw situation in just two words, so make sure you read the actual spell description for how it works."
You cast, item heats up, target saves (or voluntarily fails save), target takes damage or drops item as consequence of save.
If you really wanted to be weird, you could give the target a choice: save at the start to resist the spell, and if they fail, they automatically take the damage with no save to drop the item, OR no save to avoid the heat, but get a save after the heat happens in an attempt to drop the item and avoid damage. If you were to do that, I'd make the first save a Fort save and the second save a Ref save. If you wanted to be weird.
*drumroll* *badum-tish*
Did I call you anything? No.
You said "Pathfinder changed this rule, I can't believe all the little stuff they changed, it's going to drive me crazy!" I quoted the same rule in 3.5, which means Pathfinder didn't change the rule. How does me pointing out that you're remembering a rule wrong equate to calling you an ass?
I wasn't upset or anything. Though, I certainly felt like an ass after getting the rule wrong so thoroughly. I actually thought it was kind of funny the way you did it.
I remember working on this spell, and the mechanics of it were really weird...
I agree. I accept your ruling and appreciate it.
I think if I wanted it to target a person, though, since that seems like the goal, I would have made the target one creature holding a metal object, rather than one object being held by a target. That's the part that confused the situation for me, but apparently nobody else. ;)
I was also going to come in with the argument that (object) saves are described under the header of "Damaging Objects," and that since the spell specifies that the object doesn't take damage, that therefore the object is not entitled to a save.
After reading through a bunch of the other (object) save spells, it seems that the RAI is that if an object is "affected," and/or would present an adverse effect upon it's wielder, then it is entitled to a save, and that the header "damaging objects" should not be taken literally. (Especially considering that the entire section encompasses far more than attended or unattended weapons.)
I notice, however, that Thunder Fire has some problems, the way it's written. The stat block says "target: 1 loaded firearm," yet the first line of the spell's description implies that the spell can be cast on a firearm that is unloaded. The last line of the description adds a conditional effect, depending upon whether the firearm is or is not loaded. It's clear to me that the RAI is that the "target: 1 loaded firearm" is incorrect, and should simply read "1 firearm."
2 years, 3 months, 14 days, 2 hours, 33 minutes
|
I am *really* glad that this did not turn out to be as bad as the op suggested. I recently made a pure caster whose focus was on fire and blasting (tried to keep it super simple) and one of the main reasons was because I got rather sick of playing martial characters and then having them either errata'd to be rather lame or for abilities possessed to be ruled to work in the most lackluster way possible as to ultimately deter me from bothering with anything BUT magic. So imagine how irritated I was to see one of the few spells I chose being put up to be made into a waste of a spell known (oracle with limited spells known).
So thank you Sean. I was watching this thread like a hawk and debating just playing a no class, no ability, no spells, no feat character so it could actually work without being made worse. OK, sorry, I literally was going to only play occasionally and when I did play a pregen. I was getting despondent!
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.
You have reached the point where you will not agree with anyone who does not agree with you. Thread useless now.
The text is plain and simple. You're thinking is absurd.