To put things back on track.
Sightless creature... Please recognize the argument that it's something that is distinctly different that being under some blinded condition. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE, but for the sake of the thread and a coherent discussion, that is what is being debated.
If you don't choose to use the obvious dictionary definition, that is your choice when you GM.
As you've already stated you don't care who is GM'ing, this is an utterly pointless thread. It's not defined in the rules? It doesn't have an inferred definition in another rule? Use the Dictionary.
*sigh* A Pattern spell is not inside your mind, it is not a phantasm.
Re-read pattern, it also affects the minds of those caught in it.
If seeing the cone of colors is what triggers the effect and the spell creates a 15ft cone that all creatures can see then wouldn't all creatures that can see it be affected whether they are inside or outside of the 15ft cone? So anyone then who has line of sight to the 15 ft cone is affected?
This paradox is why I posit that the creatures in the 15ft cone are the only ones that actually see anything and what they see is actually in their minds. This is why darkness and blindness have no affect and sightless creatures are immune because they don't have the part of the brain that interprets visual info (there is a creature with the quality sightless it is a sea anemone so the term is not an abstract word but a game mechanic)
This is only my ruling and I recognize there is plenty of ambiguity in the rules for other rulings. This just makes the most sense to me and makes the spell function like I believe it is intended to, everyone in the cone is affected except those with the sightless quality or immune to mind affecting effects.
I just see sightless being a lack of the ability to see (absolutely no way to do it naturally), and not in this instance of a creature that can't see (blinded)
|
The issue is some creatures come with the sightless SQ. The fact is that creatures that close their eyes or become blind don't gain the sightless SQ. Thus they are never "sightless".
Now if you wanted to house rule that a human born blind was "sightless" and gained the sightless SQ then that's fine but normally a human born blind would just permanently have the Blinded condition.
Yes, I completely agree if you have the ability to see the spell then you can see it. The subject of the manner it exists isn't important.
The whole basis of all of this is exactly that with certain creatures fitting this sightless standard. I've made other convincing arguments too about area of affect, and how pattern spells all include this caveat within their rules.
This argument really isn't a new one and I've heard it go back and forth before. I think we can all assume that based on the continued debate, that there is no crystal clear answer. There is no clearly defined RAW that everyone can agree on.
Until a dev steps in or the FAQ is updated this debate will be left to the person behind the screen. As much as some may fight this, sometimes it's all we have. It's our duty as players to respect the call when it's made and play according to the rules as the GM interprets them. It's ok to have rules interpreted differently from table to table and GM to GM when there isn't a clear definition.
For what it's worth, in my opinion sightless is a trait of some creatures and a result of the blinded condition at the same time. A human with their eyes closed is blinded and thereby sightless as long as they have their eyes closed.
@N N, you're right that it isn't something else, because they're two different things, so yes, by simple logic it's correct, but is that useful here? We're talking about color spray which is a pattern, and yes you did include mentioning it.
So again, Pattern:
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.
And here is part of color spray:
A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become stunned, perhaps also blinded, and possibly knocking them unconscious. Each creature within the cone is affected according to its HD.
This isn't an issue of who can perceive it, but rather what is in the cone which is the area of effect. A creature as I've been describing to be a sightless creature can't be affected, whereas visual sight in general isn't an issue to negate this if you're in the area of effect.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that the Sightless trait was not introduced until after the CRB was printed. Ergo I don't think it has any relevance to the debate. This leads us to believe that the word as printed in the spell is not referring to a creature without the ability to see but a creature unable to see currently (darkness with no DV, blinded, closed eyes, or bag over the head)
The only argument I would entertain as a GM is whether or not it works in the dark against a creature with Darkvision. I lean towards yes.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that the Sightless trait was not introduced until after the CRB was printed. Ergo I don't think it has any relevance to the debate. This leads us to believe that the word as printed in the spell is not referring to a creature without the ability to see but a creature unable to see currently (darkness with no DV, blinded, closed eyes, or bag over the head)
The only argument I would entertain as a GM is whether or not it works in the dark against a creature with Darkvision. I lean towards yes.
Or they're using a preexisting term that described such a creature, and when they made this other creature with vermin type, they felt it necessary to include that Sightless quality to it. I find that to be more logical in the line of thinking, and not out of convenience either.
Before I ever started to convince of this idea, I read sightless to mean what I'm talking about right now, and this was completely without knowing they made an exception to include it with a specific creature for clarification. Yes, it's not 100% clear, but obviously my point is very clearly shown that I believe it's obvious it means what I argue it to mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are so set on your interpretation then why even ask?
Sounds like you have your answer.
You interpret 'Sightless' to mean 'Innate Lack of the Ability to See'
If you were GMing I wouldn't argue your call.
Where to now?
If you are so set on your interpretation then why even ask?
Sounds like you have your answer.You interpret 'Sightless' to mean 'Innate Lack of the Ability to See'
If you were GMing I wouldn't argue your call.
Where to now?
I am looking for a valid argument that considers mine. That is the purpose of this thread to reach the best possible conclusion we can, and not about what I personally would or wouldn't rule. If a point is raised, then I will argue with my logic on the matter if I am not convinced. This is how discussion works, and it is irrelevant about my personal choice to apply it to a game.
For the record, there are many things I personally would house rule with this system that I disagree with. I'm not disagreeing on interpretation, but I don't think they should work that way. Anyone that wants to run their game is entitled to however they want, but having the best information to go about things should be good too. Perhaps these issues being discussed could help shed light on another related matter in the future. I'm sure most people didn't even consider most of these things until reading this thread.
|
|
A pattern has to be seen in order for it to work. If you can't see a pattern it is useless.
Pattern: 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.
Please also note the following 1st level bard ability:
Distraction (Su): At 1st level, a bard can use his performance to counter magic effects that depend on sight. Each round of the distraction, he makes a Perform (act, comedy, dance, or oratory) skill check. Any creature within 30 feet of the bard (including the bard himself) that is affected by an illusion (pattern) or illusion (figment) magical attack may use the bard's Perform check result in place of its saving throw if, after the saving throw is rolled, the Perform skill check proves to be higher. If a creature within range of the distraction is already under the effect of a noninstantaneous illusion (pattern) or illusion (figment) magical attack, it gains another saving throw against the effect each round it sees the distraction, but it must use the bard's Perform skill check result for the save. Distraction does not work on effects that don't allow saves. Distraction relies on visual components.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people make their point while including pattern in their argument about it having to be seen, I really would appreciate not overlooking continuously the fact there is indeed an exception to this visual need, and that is being caught in it. Also, the fact of color spray having an cone area that is relevant for the spell to work.
Acknowledging these facts will greatly help you articulate whatever point you have, especially since you will consider if your point is indeed valid or not saving everyone a lot of time.
Finally, what does the Distraction from the Bard class have to do with this issue about patterns and color spray? I might be missing something, so please elaborate what's being pointed out, because I just see an ability to hook dewdz up with some additional saves from doing the big wiggle, or the the electric slide. "Ahhhh, everything is terrible! Oh, The Purple Dragon is showing me how to do the stanky leg, and it's wonderful... what was terrible again?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate magic, and I hate unusual mechanics of the game, and more recently than ever I have entered the highway to the danger zone, which is more accurately described as arguing about abstract crazy things.
So, we have color spray. It's been argued to me that it "flashes" light when cast...
1. Provide me with proof this spell causes any sort of light to exist at all.
Now, arguments that you need light to have color spray to be put to use in the least must exist. Upon reading the illusion school of spell, and the sub PATTERN, I see that we have a mind effecting spell that relies on sight, or being "caught in it"
2. Provide me with proof/raw argument that says you need light to have this spell have use
So, color spray doesn't work on sightless creatures. Because I can't see at the moment, that doesn't count me as a sightless creature, right? Because I'm now permanently blind, and am a creature that normally could see doesn't count me as one either, right?
3. What exactly is a sightless creature, and how is it different than someone under the blind condition.
RAW:
1. Spell descriptor does not include "light". Therefor no light is produced.2. You don't need light for this to work. It's not listed as a requirement.
3. A sightless creature is one that has the Sightless SQ.
Personal Interpretation: (Biggdawg posted a good reply (#51 I believe).
2&3: A creature that is blind doesn't equal sightless in Pathfinder because it has the mechanics to interpret visual stimulus regardless of an interruption in that function. A Mind Affecting ability can be seen to magically implant the effect in the brain of the affected creature. That's why only those in the cone can "see" the spray. Go close your eyes, then press on them for 10 seconds. You'll "see" stars. But you're blind right, from closing your eyes? Brain can still process the stars and you're seeing them. AKA in Pathfinder you're not "sightless". Webster definitions doesn't always work for PF because A. magic breaks reality and B. PF has it's own sometimes messy definitions that trump real world ones.
RE: Raw, previous thread etc.
1. In my game if I want to change how the spell works, I'll change it. RAW doesn't = right. It's the baseline for the game. A GM can decide RAW is no longer RAW for that home game and make a house rule. That house rule is not predicated on a consensus among the players regarding the RAW. If you've had a discussion with the GM, and it's been ruled that Color Spray functions differently than the RAW of the spell, there you go.
2. You've argued so much that I had to re-read the whole thread(s) to stop myself from spinning in a circle. Playing these games isn't meant to be about winning rules discussions with your friends, which is what I am interpreting your unending dead horse beating as. Say your piece, move on. Play the game. Have fun.
3. If you hate magic, Pathfinder isn't the game for you. There are plenty of non-magic RPG's available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to pop this in here then I'm really dropping out of this mess for sure.
Does Color Spray work on a sleeping target? Why? Why not?
No, because a sleeping person has had their eyes closed the whole time and cannot be affected by colored lights.
I think Color Spray is like a laser beam that affects your mind if you're caught directly in its cone. If you're outside the cone, you can see the reflected light emitted but it won't be strong enough to affect your mind.
I would interpret 'sightless' to mean creatures who wouldn't be able to see light using normal sight. For example, a Gelatinous Cube isn't blind by the game definition of 'Blinded' because it has blindsight (ie radar sense). However, it is sightless, because it has no eyes.
it's mind effecting, so the illusion is happening in the mind since it's not actually there. If it was there then it wouldn't be an illusion. Read illusion school, and it states about the effects not being there, or it's preventing you from processing things that actually do exist.No, that's not what pattern spell states. It affects the mind, it is not happning "in" the mind. let's read the quote:
Pattern: 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.Figment: A figment spell creates a false sensation. 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.Note the phrase, "those who preceive it..." This is critical in understanding that one must perceive the figment. It's not cast in someone's mind, it's cast out in the open. When you perceive the figment, THEN it affects your mind. If you cannot perceive the figment...because there's no light to see it....then it won't affect you.
I re-bolded pattern for you.
Pattern spells affect an area. All creatures in this area get affected by the spell. They don't necessarily have to 'see' it. Pattern spells affect the mind, they are psuedo enchantment in the way they operate.
Getting hit by a Color Spray in pitch black darkness still sucks. You still suffer the effects. Whether you can see anything real or not, your mind can still see... and that is what color spray does, affects the mind.
It doesn't make light of any kind. It screws with people's heads.
The OP makes a number of good points on how this spell functions.
What is interesting about Patterns is that they are simultaneously visible to the senses, and mind affecting. They do both of these. Easy to see why people can get a bit mixed up here.
It makes light that screws with people's heads.
It's possible I'm using too much physics here for something made of magic, but there are three types of things you can see: emitted light, reflected light, and imaginary things. It's not imaginary because it's not a phantasm. If you can see a table, that's reflected light. A Color Spray is not a physical object so reflected light is not relevant here. Emitted light is what comes from a monitor screen, light bulb, or the sun. Since you can see a Color Spray and it's not a solid object or imaginary, it is emitted light.
It makes light that screws with people's heads.
It's possible I'm using too much physics here for something made of magic, but there are three types of things you can see: emitted light, reflected light, and imaginary things. It's not imaginary because it's not a phantasm. If you can see a table, that's reflected light. A Color Spray is not a physical object so reflected light is not relevant here. Emitted light is what comes from a monitor screen, light bulb, or the sun. Since you can see a Color Spray and it's not a solid object or imaginary, it is emitted light.
Uh... it is an illusion. Totally imaginary.
The person brought up the bard abilitythat clearly states that patterns are a sight meaning u have to see.
Now for the part of caught in it, do u think they put that there so players coukdnt say they turned around to where they couldnt see it? Meaning paizo took away a players option to easily avoid the spell? Im gonna interpret that it was added because its based on sight and if u can see u cant turn around to avoid the spell.
So its based on sight and it effects everyone in the cone who can see even of they have a spellcaster do a spellcheck and warn everyone to turn around so they couldnt see the pattern it woukd still effect them and wouldnt be negated by a simple solution.
Hows that?
Matthew, I'm still interested in how this spell creates any sort of light.
Illusions aren't real, and unless there is a valid argument to mention that they are, don't let us go into crazy town for nothing.
Yes, I don't like magic, and that's why I play fighter. I still love this game, and I think these things are interesting. I'm not asking people to come here to discuss how they would run the spell in their game for personal preference, but rather to discuss what IS OR IS NOT. I've left my personal preference out of this in terms of how I would run it to avoid being biased.
A lot of spells from what I know even components aren't to be taken to seriously. Following the simple steps disregarding the flavor to me seems the best way to just interpret how to use a spell, then you look at flavor for mainly role play.
Redneck, point out in the ability it says that. Then we'll continue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The person brought up the bard abilitythat clearly states that patterns are a sight meaning u have to see.
Now for the part of caught in it, do u think they put that there so players coukdnt say they turned around to where they couldnt see it? Meaning paizo took away a players option to easily avoid the spell? Im gonna interpret that it was added because its based on sight and if u can see u cant turn around to avoid the spell.
So its based on sight and it effects everyone in the cone who can see even of they have a spellcaster do a spellcheck and warn everyone to turn around so they couldnt see the pattern it woukd still effect them and wouldnt be negated by a simple solution.
Hows that?
Patterns are both visual and mind-affecting. This seems to be hard to understand, though I'm not sure why.
There is no facing.
The spell has a visual effect, people even outside of the area of the spell can see the visual effect. However, people in the area are subject to a mind-affecting effect. This is how patterns work.
Color Spray specifically creates vivid colors. This is not necessarily light, or even illusionary light, and absent the light descriptor or any description of illumination effect we should probably assume the spell doesn't do things it doesn't say it does. Jus cuz, sanity.
We are left with something resembling the figment of a cascade of colors, and those in the area are subject to the listed condition due to the effect the spell has on their mind(similar to the effect of a phantasm).
Remember how I mentioned that patterns are both visual and mind affecting? That is important.
Nothing this Illusion spell creates is a real thing. It doesn't create real objects, or real images, or real anything. Tis but an illusion.
While people can see this illusion, visually, it is actually mind-affecting, meaning their mind sees it. Ie it isn't actually there.
Since it isn't actually there, ambient lighting conditions should be irrelevant completely. So long as a creature in its area of effect is capable of sight at all, or rather their mind is equipped with the capacity to process visual imagery... they can be affected by this spell.
Phantasms and figments aren't real; they're entirely in your mind.
Glamers and patterns are more like holograms; tricks of the light (though patterns have a mind-affecting component too) that can be seen by entities immune to mind-affecting effects. More advanced glamers can also produce smells, etc.
This is my understanding from reading the Illusion rules.
|
|
Does it even really matter? Seriously.
(I feel like this has been beaten to death....)
If a creature is within the cone of the Color Spray and doesn't have the Sightless Trait/SQ then just count them as being subject to the spell. Unless the Wizard is a well known Illusionist or he's seen the Wizard cast Color Spray already then the player is just meta-gaming and trying to avoid a SoS spell. If the player lost his eyesight permanently then just make the spell not affect him, he's not trying to screw with mechanics if that's part of his character's concept. (Blind Samurai Zatoichi style)
At the end of the day it's just a game and it really doesn't matter that much to debate something as frivolous as this. Unless you're THAT GM that just goes around colorspraying every player in your game with a thousand wizards.....there are like 50+ other spells to choose from at level 1.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Phantasms and figments aren't real; they're entirely in your mind.
Glamers and patterns are more like holograms; tricks of the light (though patterns have a mind-affecting component too) that can be seen by entities immune to mind-affecting effects. More advanced glamers can also produce smells, etc.
This is my understanding from reading the Illusion rules.
you got it a bit wrong, so here's the summary:
figments are like holograms
patterns are like holograms that mess with your mind (like bad anime cartoon induced seizures)
glamers make something that EXISTS look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else
phantasms are only perceived in someone's mind (everyone else is like, "what's up with this guy? why is he screaming?")
You're probably right. Though it's a bit confusing because it says "A figment spell creates a false sensation" which makes it sound like a hallucination.
So unless the creature has the Sightless quality this spell effects it? I'm not buying it.
What about the Yrthak?
A creature that has the innately Blind trait.
A creature that has Blindsight due to echolocation.
Having Blindsense means a creature is not Sightless, yet the creature will NEVER be able to see.
Those who think you need the Sightless trait to be immune are also arguing that the Yrthak is subject to this spell.
Remy, i agree its a visual and a mind effect but its a visual that effects the mind. Meaning u have to perceive the illusion for it to effect ur mind. Its not either or but u perceive it then it effects you. All illusion spells do mind effects, but there are different triggers for it to effect the mind.
if we wanna know about what exactly the part that says effects all thats in the cone then lets faq that. Ive of the belief or opionion its says that so players cant say they turn around or use an ally for cover so they cant see the spell to not be effected by it (aka players using "cheap" tricks or "smart" tactics whichever u like to call it to negate the spell).
I will agree it could go either way though. Someone should do a faq on if color spray effects the targets in the cone who suffer blindness or sightless to get an official answer.
Blindsight doesn't imply you have visual sight. Read blindsight rules and please inform me if you think you're point is valid.
Also, refer to illusions and how they work. Please refer to it being a mind effecting spell as well. You're in the area of effect, thus you get subjected to the effects of the spell if you're not a sightless creature.
RTFM, that's all that can be said at this point.
It says it creates colors. Colors are lights.
Blindsight doesn't imply you have visual sight. Read blindsight rules and please inform me if you think you're point is valid.
I never said it did. All I said is that it voids the Sightless trait which is your way of determining whether or not a creature is immune to colorspray. By your logic a creature with blindsight who doesn't have the ability to see, like the Moonbeast or Yrthak, is still affected by a spell that requires visual contact.
You have displayed so many logical fallacies in order to prove your position that it makes me wonder how you honestly got to your position.
Snip, snap, snout.
This tale's told out.
Moon beast and Yrthak are both immune to illusions and are invalid arguments.
What is worth noting is that the burden of proof is on you. Yet you continually demand people bring you facts to prove you false
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is my interpretation.
Spells can have a visual component (to inform viewers a spell has been cast and for flavor) and the actual effects on the targets. For example, lightning bolt can bee seen by all but only targets in the effect take the electrical damage.
Now Color Spray. It is a illusion (pattern) [mind-effecting] spell.
First salient point - you have to have a mind to be affected. Therefore vermin are not affected. Proof - "Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms). A vermin-like creature with an Intelligence score is usually either an animal or a magical beast, depending on its other abilities." Therefore , to have an intelligence score is to have a mind.
Second salient point - creatures with the plant trait are immune. Proof: "Plants are immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms), paralysis, poison, polymorph, sleep, and stun."
Third salient point - creatures that have the ooze trait are immune. Proof: "Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). An ooze with an Intelligence score loses this trait.
Blind (but have the blindsight special quality), with immunity to gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, and other attack forms that rely on sight." So oozes are not affected because they are both mindless and it specifically calls out that the blind trait they have means they are immune to illusions.
Fourth salient point - the spell says sightless but sightless isn't defined. Looking through the SRD, the commonality on the search of SIGHTLESS appears to include creatures with the:
1.sightless trait ie. Sea Anemone
2. creatures with blindsight AND the artwork for the creature show it has no eyes or eye analogs or the creature description specifically states it lacks eyes. - ie. Riptide Horror
Therefore, all other creatures can be affected, because they have eyes and therefore a VISUAL CORTEX. Sightless creatures either have no eyes and therefore have NO visual cortex or specifically are called out by the sightless trait.
Now, this is how I interpret how color spray works. Color Spray is cast at three targets in the AoE and a fourth target outside the effect for my illustration. Target 'A' is a normal sighted creature. Target 'B' is his vermin companion. Target 'C' is a blind creature. Target 'D' is outside the AoE.
Now, a spell as a visual effect (to denote a spell is cast) and an actual effect on the target.
Target 'A' sees a vivid cone of clashing colors (the visual effect) and because Target 'A' fits the targeting parameters of the spell and Target 'A' has a visual cortex, the power of the color spray overwhelms the visual cortex, causing blindness and stun. Unconscious can be the result of other brain systems being overwhelmed due to bleed through from the overwhelming of the visual cortex. The effect on 'A' depends on 'A's level and saving throw.
Target 'B' sees the vivid cone of clashing colors but isn't affected because as a vermin, it has no mind to affect.
Target 'C' doesn't see the vivid cone of clashing colors, but because target 'C' has a visual cortex, 'C' is affected since patterns can be perceived within the mind and the visual cortex can be overstimulated. It doesn't matter if 'C' was blind from birth. It has a visual cortex and as real life experiments have show, blind from birth people can 'see' colors when their visual cortexes are stimulated.
Target 'D' sees a vivid cone of clashing color not directed at him and is not affected because he is not in the area of effect of the spell.
Note, lighting levels only change if the visual display of the spell is seen or not, since color spray does not have the Light descriptor. It has absolutely no impact on the actual effect of the spell.
So, back to the original thread and the original circumstance, which if I recall, is a phantom fungus on a ceiling and some shriekers nearby.
Color spray does not affect the phantom fungus because it has the plant trait. Because it has a intelligence score, it saw the pretty colors (the visual display of the spell) and that was it.
The shriekers likewise have the plant trait and are not effected if they were in the AoE but they would not shriek since color spray does not have the light descriptor and therefore, is not a source of light per se.
|
Fourth salient point - the spell says sightless but sightless isn't defined. Looking through the SRD, the commonality on the search of SIGHTLESS appears to include creatures with the:
This is where I keep getting hung up. If something isn't defined the common English meaning should be used. The common English definition of "sightless" is "unable to see". This doesn't say a permanently sightless or naturally sightless creature so the way I interpret this is that a creature that, for whatever reason, is currently unable to see is immune. That is where I am leaning right now based upon the discussion to this point but I'm not entirely sure about it yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it because that seems to be extremely relevant.
Honestly, I think the key word to be bolded here should be "or."
There are two types of pattern spells. There are spells like "color spray" which are a 15 ft. cone. Note that people who can see this but are not IN it are NOT effected. Then you have Loathsome veil. This spell effects all who can see it, specified in its rules, and they don't have to be in it. That "or are caught in it" is not saying "Oh all illusion spells work off visual illusions but some don't actually require that", it's saying "Some spells you just have to see, others work when you're in the area of effect."
Note my previous post. There are other spells that specify you need to be able to SEE the effect. In fact, any illusion spell with an effect of more than instantaneous requires a constant line of sight, and fails if an object blocks the view of the illusion. It's interpreted by the mind but it does so through sight.
But, not to be rude, but I don't think there is a way to justify this to you. There's not really an argument on either side here. The spell's contemporaries ALL suggest it works a certain way that is counter to how you're saying it works. It's the very definition of pattern and figment illusions that they have to actually be observed.