| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If I cast Color Spray (Illusion: Pattern/Mind-Affecting) inside a sphere of Darkness and the foe does not have Darkvision or any way to see in the darkness, does it affect them?
Initially, I thought that it was an illusion so that you would need to be able to see the visual pattern.Then I read under Pattern where it says "Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells." So I thought maybe since it affects the mind they do not need to be able to see it to suffer the effects.
I have Darkvision and can see but my foe is in complete darkness.
Any thoughts? Is there a larger reference to this in the FAQ or messageboards somewhere?
Like you said, it affects their mind, too. There's no requirement for them to see the effect.
Heh. When I googled 'color spray prd', a Paizo link about color spray in total darkness was one of the first search results. But yes, this has been discussed. In the future, you can search the Rules Questions forum to see if threads like these have come up before: I'm currently finding at least three. On the other hand, a brief search isn't coming up with a clinching answer or recent posts.
It is a fact that Patterns do not directly state that they must be seen to be experienced. A blind character could run into prismatic wall, another Pattern, and still be affected. Unless color spray says that creatures must see it, then they don't have to.
Problem #1: The first sentence states that the spray of colors causes creatures to become [effect], [effect], etc. There are two problems here. One, many people are likely to interpret this as flavor text and discard it on those grounds. Two, it doesn't explicitly say the colors cause the conditions by being seen, only that they cause the conditions.
Problem #2: 'Sightless creatures' is a vague term. Does it mean creature who are not currently seeing, such as characters who have their eyes closed? Does it mean creatures who cannot see even if they want to, such as permanently-blinded creatures or creatures effectively blinded by darkness? Or does this only apply to creatures without eyes, which are pretty much the only creatures everybody agrees this applies to?
Problem #3: If color spray has to be seen to take effect, does it produce illumination in total darkness? You can paint a wall red, blue, and green; but it's still black in the dark if there's no illumination.
Problem #3b: If color spray has to be seen, but does not produce its own illumination, then are characters viewing it only with darkvision affected? Recall that darkvision is only black-and-white.
I'll note that "it affects creatures in the cone" is a pretty clear way to run the spell, and it avoids situations like characters shutting their eyes as free actions or trying to tap the 'averting your gaze' rules.
It seems like you should need to see a [pattern] to be affected by it. The pattern tag says "those who see it or are caught in it".
*This could mean that anyone in the AoE of a pattern spell is affected.
*It could also, however, allude to the fact that some patterns only affect targets in the AoE, while others affect anyone who sees the pattern.
The first interpretation makes sense semantically, but the second interpretation is better supported by context. And favoring semantics over context leads to a lot of stupid, stupid conclusions.
Heh. When I googled 'color spray prd', a Paizo link about color spray in total darkness was one of the first search results. But yes, this has been discussed. In the future, you can search the Rules Questions forum to see if threads like these have come up before: I'm currently finding at least three. On the other hand, a brief search isn't coming up with a clinching answer or recent posts.
Yep, I saw some of those but they went back to 2009 and I did not want perform any thread necromancy and I was just hoping there had been some more recent developments on the subject or a missed FAQ.
It is a fact that Patterns do not directly state that they must be seen to be experienced. A blind character could run into prismatic wall, another Pattern, and still be affected.
Except that Prismatic Wall, although made of colors, isn't a [pattern]
Unless color spray says that creatures must see it, then they don't have to.
Begging the question.
PHB P 256 = Color Spray
Last line = "Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray"
This tell me as a DM, that if they can not see the color spray, then it does not effect the creature. So who gets to decide, who see what... your DM.
PHB P 256 = Color Spray
Last line = "Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray"
This tell me as a DM, that if they can not see the color spray, then it does not effect the creature. So who gets to decide, who see what... your DM.
I guess I would have been okay if they said creatures have to see the Color Spray to be affected by it. Sightless creatures seem to be creatures who NEVER see such as an ooze.
I could see how that could also be a creature who just cannot see right now. Thus the reason for this thread.
Kazaan has it there.
The targets must merely be in the area of effect (it specifically references 'each creature within the cone'), and whether or not darkness/deeper darkness/fog/eyes closed are in effect makes no difference to that.
Patterns are based off of Figments which state: "A figment spell creates a false sensation."
If they were real light sources, that were subject to actual perception conditions, then they would not be "false sensations".
Likewise, color spray and all patterns and figments, are mind-affecting, meaning many creatures are immune to them (the entirety of the spell) even though they can freely perceive actual events and light around them, indicating it is not real light subject to real limitations on light.
I stand corrected. Prismatic wall is not a Pattern. I can't even claim that it was a Pattern in 3.5.
The list of Patterns in the CRB include color spray, hypnotic pattern, rainbow pattern, and scintillating pattern. Each of them end with a sentence indicating that they do not affect sightless creatures.
Ultimate Magic includes loathsome veil, which is placed similar to wall of fire, yet affecting creatures within 60 feet of a designated side. Not only are sightless creatures not affected by this spell, but other creatures can close or avert their eyes similar to avoiding a gaze attack.
Begging the question.
Then I went on to list the reasons that color spray can be interpreted to have, or not have, text that implies creatures must see it to be affected. I was more outlining a method of interpretation and outlining evidence for interpretations which may or may not be internally-consistent (after all, between a consistent and inconsistent theory, the consistent theory is stronger). I suppose you could take issue with that process, but that's a broader subject than this thread is aimed at.
I don't really have a dog in this fight. At the moment of this post, I think that it's an awful lot easier just to check if a creature is in the area of effect and be done with it; but I recognize that new evidence or reasoning could hypothetically prove a side right. If I get any answer, I'm satisfied.
Patterns are based off of Figments which state: "A figment spell creates a false sensation."
If they were real light sources, that were subject to actual perception conditions, then they would not be "false sensations".
Likewise, color spray and all patterns and figments, are mind-affecting, meaning many creatures are immune to them (the entirety of the spell) even though they can freely perceive actual events and light around them, indicating it is not real light subject to real limitations on light.
Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see. Sure -- that's explicitly stated. My one nitpick is that there's no other text stating that patterns are based on figments, only that they share the similarity of creating images others can see. It could very well be that patterns can have real effects, like creating illumination. Future patterns might not even be mind-affecting -- it's not a rule that Patterns are mind-affecting, it's just that all of them in the CRB also have that descriptor.
There are also several spells (ghost sound, mislead, several image spells) that are not Mind-affecting, although that doesn't affect your point on this issue.
An actual "sightless" creature has no optic nerve or optic center of their brain to be stimulated.
A blind creature has both of those things. Are blind creatures not "sightless"?
An actual "sightless" creature has no optic nerve or optic center of their brain to be stimulated.A blind creature has both of those things. Are blind creatures not "sightless"?
Not only do they have both of those things, but they also actually do see everything, and their brains are stimulated by what they see. They just can't translate that into vision as we know it.
Blind people are actually affected by colors, for example, feeling appropriately excited or sad or whatever effect they're going for during psychological color studies.
And ultimately, no, I would not consider a blind man sightless. I would consider something with no eyes at all--something like an ooze maybe--to be sightless.
Color Spray is a mind-affecting effect--it can create the sensation of flashing color whether your eyes are open or not--otherwise, you could avert your gaze against it. I would think only something that totally lacks the capability to see would count as sightless, rather than someone who's capability to see was damaged.
That said, I also wouldn't object to someone that ruled a blind creature was sightless, but I would object to the idea that colorspray didn't work in the dark.
Thanks Troubleshooter, great post... Just to nitpick a bit, though...
Ultimate Magic includes loathsome veil, which is placed similar to wall of fire, yet affecting creatures within 60 feet of a designated side. Not only are sightless creatures not affected by this spell, but other creatures can close or avert their eyes similar to avoiding a gaze attack.
Exactly, and the difference is that besides explicitly mentioning the 'if you don't see it you aren't affected' bit at the end, the initial spell description also explicitly says it affects creatures within range who "view the veil", which is never stated in these other pattern spells. Notably, this indicates different modes of action for pattern spells, but that isn't overly problematic if one spell requires actual viewing of the effect to trigger it's effect (synergistically with effecting sensory pathways), while others directly affect the targets' sensory pathways/ without dependence on viewing/perception.
Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see. Sure -- that's explicitly stated. My one nitpick is that there's no other text stating that patterns are based on figments, only that they share the similarity of creating images others can see. It could very well be that patterns can have real effects, like creating illumination. Future patterns might not even be mind-affecting -- it's not a rule that Patterns are mind-affecting, it's just that all of them in the CRB also have that descriptor.This is what it actually says:
Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
So all pattern spells ARE mind-affecting by definition.
How it describes patterns is: like a figment, creating an image that is seen, but also affecting the mind. Perhaps that's not as 'rigorous' as saying it 'derives' from figments, but effectively if you say something is like X but does Y differently, that implies that it is otherwise "like" X... Particularly in this context of defining game terms which otherwise lack meaning. In this context, I would take it that all of the following about figments applies to patterns, otherwise there is no real purpose in establishing a link in the first place:Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it). Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.
It would be easy enough to point out the way in which glamers are introduced into the figment description while any relationship is not mentioned in the glamer description itself, yet patterns are not mentioned in the figment description even though they are directly related per patterns' own description, is proof of the poor editing standards in play... but that would be mean.