| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey all,
I have a small handful of concerns regarding the spell mentioned in the title. I did search the message board and the PRD, but utimately none of them really addressed what I was curious about (or maybe they did but I somehow blanked out while reading a bunch of posts - if so, sorry about that).
I have read in great depth the descriptions of the illusion school, and its associated subschools. I understand that spell descriptions usually takes priority over the general rules of what spells of the relevant schools and subschools are supposed to do, mechanically-wise. However, Haunting Mists is a bit confusing (as I can interpret it, RAW, in more than one way, with neither interpretation being more correct than the other). With that being said, here are my concerns/queries:
(1) What aspect of the spell effect is actually just the figment (which can also be responsible for the fear descriptor here) and what aspect is responsible for the shadow descriptor?
(2) If the illusionary mists are infused with shadow (hence making them partially real), does effects like true seeing fail to penetrate through the mists (since true seeing cannot penetrate through effects that grant concealment)? Normally, true seeing defeats all illusion, but that would not be the case if the mists were somewhat physically real (and therefore as solid as a normal fog, which defeats true seeing). Hence, my confusion here.
(3) I am assuming, based on the description within the text of haunting mists, that the point of origin of the spell is centred on the caster, and not at any point within the listed range of 20 feet (based on the fact that the spell itself is a spread with a radius of 20 feet). Am I correct or wrong on this assumption?
(4) If the mists are partially real, that would imply that it is subject to wind effects. If they are not, then no wind effects would disperse it. Obviously the answer to (2) would provide the correct answer here. This is important to know since my players love to use wind-based spells (and other similar spells) to control encounters to their advantage, especially when outnumbered.
(5) While I am pretty certain the Will save is only required when exposed to the mists for the first time or each time anyone re-enters the mists, it would be nice to get a confirmation on this.
(6) If someone with the ability to see through fog and similar effects (such as the storm druid archetype) encounters the effect (whether from the outside or from the inside of the spell effect), can they see through the spell effect? I can ask this because figments create false sensations. If there was a Will save (disbelief), then a success would allow any character to see through the illusionary mists (albeit they remain as translucent mists), while a failed save on a disbelief is no help. This leads me to conclude that because the spell does not have a Will save disbelief, the storm druid cannot pierce the illusionary mists, since her senses are giving her false sensory input that overrides what her senses would normally tell her. Again, a bit of clarity would help here in understanding exactly what haunting mists is supposed to function/work.
Much appreciated to anyone (especially anyone from the Paizo Design Team) who offers any insight to the concerns/queries above.
CB out.
EDIT: I corrected some spelling mistakes above.
|
Honestly, the spell looks like a bit of a mess to me.
(1) Based on the fact that the Will save prevents only the fear/Wis damage, and that you can't disbelieve the mists, I'm inclined to say that the mists are semi-real and the shapes within are the figment portion.
(2) I'm really not sure. True Seeing works on illusions, but not on fog. I'm inclined to say that the semi-real nature of the mist and the fact that "fog" is more specific than "illusions" means that True Seeing works, but I could see the other argument.
(3) Yep, it's centered on the caster. Who, since there's no Will(disbelief), is subject to the full effects of the spell.
(4) It doesn't say wind disperses it, so it doesn't.
(5) Definitely not a per-round. Not sure if you need to re-save on re-entry. Probably not - seems like the spell would specify if you had / were allowed to make another save.
(6) I'd reason the opposite. If there were a Will (disbelief), the sensation of mist would be "all in your head" and might bypass the druid's ability if it resided in the eyes. Since you can't disbelieve it, it must act on the senses similarly to Obscuring Mist and mist immunity should apply. Also, the druid's ability doesn't say the druid can see through conjured mist - they can see through magic mist. It's magic mist, even if it's from a different school than the usual mist spells.
@ Weirdo, thanks for your reply. Below are my thoughts on your reply.
(1) Possibly, but as per the spell's description, "An illusion of misty vapor inhabited by shadowdy shapes...", I am more inclined to think that the shadowdy shapes are the aspects of the spell that are what gives the spell the [fear] and [shadow] descriptors (thus being the semi-real portion) and the mists are the figment portion. However, it is possible to argue/view it from either perspective.
(2) If the "fog" is more specific than "illusions," would that not imply that the fog is at least semi-real, therefore cannot be seen through with a true seeing spell since the spell does not ignore fogs (and similar effects that grant concealment)? Again, like you said, it can be interpreted either way.
(3) I do not disagree that it is centred on the caster (based on the spell description). And yes, because there is no Will (disbelief) listed, the caster should be subjected to the effects of the spell. Of course, this is quite counter-productive for the caster. Perhaps the spell was supposed to have a line in it similar to vision of Hell that states "While you are prepared for these images and are not affected by them...," it would clear up the confusion. I highly suspect this is the intent of the designer(s).
(4) I would concur with you on this one, in spite of the possibility of the mists could be semi-real. All of the spells that create a fog-like effect (at least the ones I can think off the top of my head) do indicate that they are affected by winds (of a certain strength, that is).
(5) Again, you appear to be correct on this issue but as a defensive spell, if it only affects the creatures inside the area when it first materializes, it is a weak option. Presumably the caster would want to hamper/debuff any individual who comes after the caster who is hiding in the mists. I am leaning towards only 1 save is required per creature per 1 casting of the spell but they are subjected to the effects the first time they are inside the area of effects, even if they were not originally in the area of effect when the spell was cast.
(6) I started to first argue against your train of thought on this one but then I remembered that true seeing trumps illusion spells, except in the cases I think where the illusion spell is mind-affecting (hence the Will save for disbelief). A better way to describe this spell, I think, is that it creates a visual image that mimics a mist-filled area (so it functions as such), which should mean that the stormlord's ability "Eyes of the Storm" should work normally. I gotten figments confused as "mind-affecting," which they are not.
In all honesty, based on how this spell is supposed to work (on what I think is the designer[s]' intent), it would have been better if the spell either dropped the figment subschool, and maybe added the phantasm subschool, with the mists being real (made of shadow-stuff) and the shadows being only in the minds of those who enter the area of effect (hence the Will save the first time they are in the mists). That is what I am leaning towards. That seems to be not too powerful for a second level stationary fog-based bard spell. What do you think?
CB out.
Carefully reading all of the various descriptions of subschools and descriptors, it appears to me that RAW is that this is a figment spell centered on the caster so the mist itself is a figment illusion and subject to all the limitations as such. The fear effect is its own descriptor and that is also what is causing the wisdom damage and thus cannot be disbelieved or seen through as an illusion. Instead, it is a fear affect and thus the caster is definitely susceptible to it, unless they are immune to fear. Reason would suggest that if you recognized the mist and the shadows to be illusions, you would not be afraid of them, but the way this spell is written, as a figment with fear and shadow descriptors, but not specifying the saving throw is to disbelieve makes this spell broken. Not in a power sense, but as in, your DM is going to have to make up their own rulings for how this spell works and provides saves, because the rules as written, are contradictory. This spell really needs to be rewritten ERRATA style (which sucks for Paizo), or have the mystery of the saving throw clarified in by FAQ.