| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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.
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:
I agree with you. Sightless should be defined. It isn't, so I used a exercise in searching the SRD for 'sightless' and from the examples, extrapolated its occurances, namely, having the sightless trait or specifically being depicted or described in the description with having NO eyes.
Does it need a definition? Absolutely.
Also, a creature with no visual senses is immune to the blind condition, right? So people argue you're blinded when you can't see... so why are things who are not seeing immune to not seeing when they're not seeing? Seems like the condition is different than being sightless, and these are perhaps sightless creatures.
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.
But it can make sense if one considers that spells have two components - a display component (what people experience with their senses - namely, what they see, feel, smell, hear) and an actual effect component - namely, what the spell does to targets.
They are mutually exclusive. Using your example of Loathsome Veil show what I mean.
Everyone who can see the veil (the visual component of the spell) and is unaffected by the visual display component of the spell. Evidence is that one side of the veil can be set to have no effect on viewers (they still physically see it if their eyes are open and looking at it). Likewise, anyone outside of 60 ft on the active side can see the veil but are not affected.
Those within 60 ft of the active side potentially are affected by the second component, the effects of the spell. In this case, I fully agree with your admonishment about the 'OR' in the description of patterns. Clearly, based on the spell description, one has to view or see the veil and be within 60 ft of the active side to be affected. The conditions that one can avert or close one's eyes clearly make the case that for this particular pattern, the 'see it' appears to be the principal condition and not the other 'caught in it' which color spray would represent.
If white light from the sun hits a solid red object and bounces off, you see the color as the photons of red light hit your eye. If a red laser is fired directly at your face, you will also see a red light. (Others will see it too but will not be blinded by it.) The Color Spray sounds more like the latter than the former. If you're not emitting light, what are you emitting?
Incidentally I don't think the lack of a 'light' descriptor says anything about whether it emits light or works in the dark. I'm pretty sure a fireball emits light; it just doesn't do it for very long.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Also, a creature with no visual senses is immune to the blind condition, right? So people argue you're blinded when you can't see... so why are things who are not seeing immune to not seeing when they're not seeing? Seems like the condition is different than being sightless, and these are perhaps sightless creatures.
Correct.
Sightless and blind are two completely separate conditions.
Sightless means there is no eyes or eye analogs and hence no visual cortex, since the visual cortex on creatures is what processes information coming for visual receptors ie. eyes. Sightless creatures do NOT see the world visually.
Oozes are sightless but it doesn't state it because it is already covered by the ooze trait.
Creatures with a the plant trait are sightless but again, not specifically stated since is is covered by the plant trait.
Note that vermin are NOT sightless - they have eyes or eye analogs but they are immune to illusions because their brains are mindless and can't process illusions, hence the vermin trait.
Blind is different. Blind means the visual organs like eyes have stopped working and don't pass data to the visual cortex or the visual cortex can't process the visual signals being received. Blind creatures normally process the world visually but no longer can do so.
Completely different from sightless.
Note that there a numerous outliers. The Yrthak for example. Yrthak can visually see the world since the description says specifically that they have weak eyesight. They just have a secondary (or primary) means of perceiving the world - their blindsight. Those cases concerning illusion means the creature as a specific trait to that creature or a special rule about how illusions interact with the creature.
Sightless and blind are two completely separate conditions.
I don't mean to be rude but can you link the thread to the Sightless condition. I am having a hell of a time finding it. I'll read it myself no problem, but I just can't seem to find it.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't mean to be rude but can you link the thread to the Sightless condition. I am having a hell of a time finding it. I'll read it myself no problem, but I just can't seem to find it.Sightless and blind are two completely separate conditions.
Poor choice of words on my part. My apologies. There is no 'sightless' CONDITION per se as it isn't quantified or defined. Therefore nothing to point to specifically.
That said, after considerable time in the SRD looking at cases of sightless as a creature trait or in the creature description, the conclusion I can draw is the intent of sightless is a creature that can't perceive the world visually as a normal condition (that last part is key so it doesn't get confused with blindness).
In short, creatures that don't have eyes or eye analogs are sightless. Creatures that have eyes or eye analogs to normally 'see' the world but now can't are blind.
Paizo really needs to define this as the word 'sightless' is used but nowhere is it defined, unlike nearly everything else. It is left to the reader to infer what sightless means, hence why these threads come up. Based on my research, sightless appears, by examples, to mean what I have said above, but I am not a designer or developer so even if people agree with what I said, it is still RAI, not RAW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a very old spell. I looked it up in my 2nd edition player's handbook. Here is what it says there (on page 132):
Blind or unseeing creatures are not affected by the spell.
Just because the wording for the spell has since been changed to read "sightless" does not change the intent of the spell. I would say that you guys are over-thinking this.
Plants aren't sightless, in fact they have low-light vision. They're specifically immune to illusions though.
Also, a non-mindless vermin (e.g. a familiar not a companion like "B" in your example) would be affected since it isn't mindless anymore, right? (Vermin's usual immunity to illusions is an effect of their mindlessness not their verminness.)
To your first point. I spoke in generalities (never a good thing to do on these forums) as I was talking your garden variety plant - they don't have eyes and are sightless. Plant creatures can have eye or eye analogs and therefore are not sightless but they still have the immunity to illusion included in plant traits. The outcome is the same in that plant creatures are immune to illusions but not because they are sightless or not - it the the plant trait.
To the second point. Any creature that is a familiar loses it normal creature type and become a magical beast. So a 'vermin' familiar will lose its vermin trait as it now has the magical beast trait and will be subject to illusions.
This is a very old spell. I looked it up in my 2nd edition player's handbook. Here is what it says there (on page 132):
Blind or unseeing creatures are not affected by the spell.Just because the wording for the spell has since been changed to read "sightless" does not change the intent of the spell. I would say that you guys are over-thinking this.
I disagree. Changes from 2E to 3E was a huge change in the paradigm. The intent of many spells changed. A great number of things got quantified. Conditions like stun, blind, etc. are spelled out. Things have traits now. There was a very large shift from the DM defining all these things to the 'system' defining things.
Spell changes from 3.xE to Pathfinder further meant changes in intent.
So, sorry, the intent of Color Spray did change from 2E because Blind and Sightless are two very different and distinct things. So if blind isn't mentioned in Color Spray that means blind creatures ARE affected by the spell now.
This is a very old spell. I looked it up in my 2nd edition player's handbook. Here is what it says there (on page 132):
Blind or unseeing creatures are not affected by the spell.Just because the wording for the spell has since been changed to read "sightless" does not change the intent of the spell. I would say that you guys are over-thinking this.I disagree. Changes from 2E to 3E was a huge change in the paradigm. The intent of many spells changed. A great number of things got quantified. Conditions like stun, blind, etc. are spelled out. Things have traits now. There was a very large shift from the DM defining all these things to the 'system' defining things.
Spell changes from 3.xE to Pathfinder further meant changes in intent.
So, sorry, the intent of Color Spray did change from 2E because Blind and Sightless are two very different and distinct things. So if blind isn't mentioned in Color Spray that means blind creatures ARE affected by the spell now.
So let's just toss Common Sense out the window.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poor choice of words on my part. My apologies. There is no 'sightless' CONDITION per se as it isn't quantified or defined. Therefore nothing to point to specifically.That said, after considerable time in the SRD looking at cases of sightless as a creature trait or in the creature description, the conclusion I can draw is the intent of sightless is a creature that can't perceive the world visually as a normal condition (that last part is key so it doesn't get confused with blindness).
This is the flaw in your argument. You shouldn't define a word and give it an in game mechanic if there isn't one. English is laden with homonyms. The definition of Sightless is NOT "an innate inability to see". It is simply "unable to see". A creature that has been blinded is now unable to see. A blinded creature is now sightless. Keep in mind, except for and prior to one creature: the sea anemone in Bestiary 3, there is no in game definition for sightless. There is no link on the PRD. Thus, we must go to Webster and define it and refrain from applying an In Game condition to it.
Keeping it as simple as possible is the key to this debate.
Sightless creatures: creatures who are unable to see.
All of the rods and cones talk is unnecessarily complicating the entire thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can keep going round and round on this.
Blind and Sightless are two different things. You imply they are the same thing but I imagine that Paizo choose their words on these matters for a reason. So it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
There is no RAW right now to clarify or refute either of our points.
That leaves RAI, which the forums are filled with long and lengthy discussions of, with vary amounts of angst.
Since there is no RAW about what blind and sightless are, where does this leave us...
1. Each with a personal opinion about RAI.
2. Everyone considering their RAI is correct.
3. No real means to illuminate solutions to questions raised by the OP since it all opinion.
4. Conclusion - the OP should hammer this out with his DM using whatever pearls he can glean from this thread. If his DM disagrees, he should suck it up because the DM is using his own RAI as rational and is unlikely to be dissuaded otherwise.
I offered my two cents for what it worth. I also realize that this thread is a merry-go-round going nowhere since there is no clear RAW to assist or clarify for us and therefore, I am getting off. Much like a real merry-go-round, one can stay with it too long and not like the end result.
Brilliantly put.
As far as I could find, there is no pattern spell that doesn't include the caveat about not affected sightless creatures. Why does the pattern work with an "OR" which includes being "CAUGHT UP" if not seeing it due having your eyes closed or whatever matter? You are seeing these pattern spells OR caught up in them. Where can one support that it isn't an or? I made this argument before, and it was never addressed.
So far the only argument I've seen against what I've stated is that the dictionary exists, and we're to use that definition. I'm sure blinded in the dictionary will list the Pathfinder conditions too, right?
So far with this thread I've come to these conclusions
1. Color spray doesn't make light
2. Color spray doesn't require you to see it, but rather be inside the cone.
3. It's supported by strong evidence that sightless creatures are different than someone with the blind condition, but there is no absolute proof to define "sightless creatures" in the game.
Rapanuii & N N 959:
Concur. I think that is about where we are without splitting hairs further.
I suggest the issue of Sightless be FAQed and see if Paizo can give us a definition. There is a FAQ beside each Reply on each response. Just hit it for sending that posted comment to Paizo staff.
I have already FAQ certain discussion points within this thread. If this is a burning issue for some, I suggest they do the same.
|
I actually agree with all of those after initially believing something different. The crux of the matter is the "sightless" label. I do not see how that can be resolved without a Paizo response.
So far with this thread I've come to these conclusions1. Color spray doesn't make light
2. Color spray doesn't require you to see it, but rather be inside the cone.
3. It's supported by strong evidence that sightless creatures are different than someone with the blind condition, but there is no absolute proof to define "sightless creatures" in the game.
Yep the 3rd one is where the difficulty is. I fall on the side that blind and sightless are not different but I acknowledge that others can reasonably interpret it otherwise. So we do definitely need a FAQ to clarify.
Rapanuii & N N 959:Concur. I think that is about where we are without splitting hairs further.
I suggest the issue of Sightless be FAQed and see if Paizo can give us a definition. There is a FAQ beside each Reply on each response. Just hit it for sending that posted comment to Paizo staff.
I have already FAQ certain discussion points within this thread. If this is a burning issue for some, I suggest they do the same.
I'm always welcoming further ideas on the matter, but it really looks absolutely exhausted. I'm not entirely sure how the FAQ works exactly with it ever being updated and what-not. But I feel this one definition could help A LOT of issues besides just color spray. I will look for what you deemed worthy and add to it.
Poor choice of words on my part. My apologies. There is no 'sightless' CONDITION per se as it isn't quantified or defined. Therefore nothing to point to specifically.That said, after considerable time in the SRD looking at cases of sightless as a creature trait or in the creature description, the conclusion I can draw is the intent of sightless is a creature that can't perceive the world visually as a normal condition (that last part is key so it doesn't get confused with blindness).
This is the flaw in your argument. You shouldn't define a word and give it an in game mechanic if there isn't one. English is laden with homonyms. The definition of Sightless is NOT "an innate inability to see". It is simply "unable to see". A creature that has been blinded is now unable to see. A blinded creature is now sightless. Keep in mind, except for and prior to one creature: the sea anemone in Bestiary 3, there is no in game definition for sightless. There is no link on the PRD. Thus, we must go to Webster and define it and refrain from applying an In Game condition to it.
Keeping it as simple as possible is the key to this debate.
Sightless creatures: creatures who are unable to see.
All of the rods and cones talk is unnecessarily complicating the entire thing.
And here's what gets it for me. At the time of publication of the CRB, there are no creatures with the sightless trait. Additionally, it does not show up in the Universal Monster Rules of the original Bestiary. I have not personally perused the entire Bestiary line up looking for creatures with the sightless trait, but I'm going to use BornofHate's research. If sea anemone is in fact the first time this trait shows up, well, it's still not in the Universal Monster Rules for Bestiary 3 or 4.
Hence...At the time of publication there was no sightless trait/special quality for monsters, and therefore that is not what they meant for color spray and they meant the everyday use of sightless.
Can color spray effect someone who has the blind condition (ex. In a pitch black cave with no light sourse) or cannot discern colors (aka darkvision)?
That worded good enough?
Can color spray effect someone who has the blind condition (ex. In a pitch black cave with no light sourse) or cannot discern colors (aka darkvision)?
That worded good enough?
The FAQ needs to directly address and define the "Sightless Creature" to put things to rest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can color spray effect someone who has the blind condition (ex. In a pitch black cave with no light sourse) or cannot discern colors (aka darkvision)?
That worded good enough?
Discern colors is irrelevant. If they can see and are in the cone, they can be affected. Fail one or the other of those conditions and it cannot affect them (with the additional nod towards immunity to mind-affecting effects). If darkvision is working, then that creature can see.
1. Color spray doesn't make light
2. Color spray doesn't require you to see it, but rather be inside the cone.
3. It's supported by strong evidence that sightless creatures are different than someone with the blind condition, but there is no absolute proof to define "sightless creatures" in the game.
You can't be sure of #2 without knowing #3
No one is arguing that someone outside the cone is affected. If that is what you mean by this point then I agree. However, if #3 is that there is no difference then you need to see it AND be inside the cone.
Discern colors is irrelevant. If they can see and are in the cone, they can be affected. Fail one or the other of those conditions and it cannot affect them (with the additional nod towards immunity to mind-affecting effects). If darkvision is working, then that creature can see.Can color spray effect someone who has the blind condition (ex. In a pitch black cave with no light sourse) or cannot discern colors (aka darkvision)?
That worded good enough?
Reason why i stated darkvision was because digging thru older posts, there was quite a few that said darkvision might negate it since u cant discern colors. Was basically explained the spell basically did so many colors that it would stun ya or make u go unconsious like the warnings on video games and thought might as well put that there incase the faq stated that if ur in a pitch black area it didnt effect ya.
It says it creates colors. Colors are lights.
Or they are pigments. We use the word 'color' to describe both.
When considering the matter, you must keep in mind the principal of Argumentum ad Absurdum. If the blindness caused by the spell causes you to no longer be subject to the spell, it breaks the spell. Given that there are alternate explanations that adequately cover the topic, this cannot be the correct interpretation because it fundamentally causes the spell to not work. Thus the idea that "blinded = sightless, therefore if color spray blinds you you are no longer blinded" is wrong by default. This is a simple deductive process.
Creatures outside the cone of effect can see the effect, but in order to be affected, you must be in the cone of effect because it's a combination of a visual illusion and a direct effect on your mind; one or the other isn't enough. If you can see it and are in the area of effect, but have no mind to affect, you're no different than someone outside the cone of effect who sees the illusion but isn't subject to the mind-affecting quality. If you can't see it, but you are in the cone of effect and are subject to mind-affecting effects, the mind-effect creates the experience for you. If you are sightless (either by having the sightless Ex or Su or equivalent), meaning that "vision" has no meaning to you, there's nothing for the spell to act upon, even if you aren't mindless and not immune to illusions. If you're immune to illusions, you wouldn't even see the colors because the colors are illusions themselves. Even if you aren't mindless, but are immune to illusions, the mind-affecting effect will try to affect you, but you can't perceive the illusion so it doesn't work.
Yes, this. ^.^
So let's just toss Common Sense out the window.This is a very old spell. I looked it up in my 2nd edition player's handbook. Here is what it says there (on page 132):
Blind or unseeing creatures are not affected by the spell.Just because the wording for the spell has since been changed to read "sightless" does not change the intent of the spell. I would say that you guys are over-thinking this.I disagree. Changes from 2E to 3E was a huge change in the paradigm. The intent of many spells changed. A great number of things got quantified. Conditions like stun, blind, etc. are spelled out. Things have traits now. There was a very large shift from the DM defining all these things to the 'system' defining things.
Spell changes from 3.xE to Pathfinder further meant changes in intent.
So, sorry, the intent of Color Spray did change from 2E because Blind and Sightless are two very different and distinct things. So if blind isn't mentioned in Color Spray that means blind creatures ARE affected by the spell now.
I looked up the sorcerer from 2E to see what the meaning of my bloodline powers is.
For some reason that wasn't very helpful.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that D&D isn't even the same game as we are talking about... or that 2E is an outdated edition of that other game... and that it has no bearing whatsoever on this conversation in any way?
1. Color spray doesn't make light
2. Color spray doesn't require you to see it, but rather be inside the cone.
3. It's supported by strong evidence that sightless creatures are different than someone with the blind condition, but there is no absolute proof to define "sightless creatures" in the game.You can't be sure of #2 without knowing #3
No one is arguing that someone outside the cone is affected. If that is what you mean by this point then I agree. However, if #3 is that there is no difference then you need to see it AND be inside the cone.
Dark cave, target has darkvision. While he isn't blind, he cannot see color. Color spray is color. He cannot see color spray.
But, he can see... and is in the area. So, he is affected.
Ie. Color spray can affect creatures who do not see it.
1. Color spray doesn't make light
2. Color spray doesn't require you to see it, but rather be inside the cone.
3. It's supported by strong evidence that sightless creatures are different than someone with the blind condition, but there is no absolute proof to define "sightless creatures" in the game.You can't be sure of #2 without knowing #3
No one is arguing that someone outside the cone is affected. If that is what you mean by this point then I agree. However, if #3 is that there is no difference then you need to see it AND be inside the cone.
Dark cave, target has darkvision. While he isn't blind, he cannot see color. Color spray is color. He cannot see color spray.
But, he can see... and is in the area. So, he is affected.
Ie. Color spray can affect creatures who do not see it.
You are assuming that the color is the cause and not the effect.
You have nothing to support the premise that it is the actual color blinding the target and not the cone of effect or the variance of tone created by the spell. Even in black and white you can distinguish a variance in tone.Sorry but the target with DV will see it, just not in color.
When considering the matter, you must keep in mind the principal of Argumentum ad Absurdum. If the blindness caused by the spell causes you to no longer be subject to the spell, it breaks the spell. Given that there are alternate explanations that adequately cover the topic, this cannot be the correct interpretation because it fundamentally causes the spell to not work. Thus the idea that "blinded = sightless, therefore if color spray blinds you you are no longer blinded" is wrong by default. This is a simple deductive process.
Color Spray is instantaneous. Once the spell is cast and blindness is caused there is no spell left to break. Your premise is flawed.
Dark cave, target has darkvision. While he isn't blind, he cannot see color. Color spray is color. He cannot see color spray.But, he can see... and is in the area. So, he is affected.
Ie. Color spray can affect creatures who do not see it.
You are assuming that the color is the cause and not the effect.
You have nothing to support the premise that it is the actual color blinding the target and not the cone of effect or the variance of tone created by the spell.
Assuming????
A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become stunned, perhaps also blinded, and possibly knocking them unconscious.
Tell me again what I am assuming?
Even in black and white you can distinguish a variance in tone.
Sorry but the target with DV will see it, just not in color.
There is only one tone. Vivid.
If* colorspray is light, and* darkvision cannot see color then* someone with darkvision cannot see colorspray.
If* colorspray's effect reflects light, and* it reflects only what it says it reflect, then* it only reflects vivid color, since* darkvision cannot see color, then* someone with darkvision cannot see color spray.
Unless you argue that color spray creates gradients of illusionary shading as well as the listed effect?
Color spray is color... darkvision cannot see color. Pretty simple to follow there.
The only option available to us that will allow the target with darkvision to see the color spray is if the colors are simply 'in their mind', but also 'in the area'... sort of like a shared hallucination.
I'm of the opinion that that is precisely what a pattern spell is...
When considering the matter, you must keep in mind the principal of Argumentum ad Absurdum. If the blindness caused by the spell causes you to no longer be subject to the spell, it breaks the spell. Given that there are alternate explanations that adequately cover the topic, this cannot be the correct interpretation because it fundamentally causes the spell to not work. Thus the idea that "blinded = sightless, therefore if color spray blinds you you are no longer blinded" is wrong by default. This is a simple deductive process.Color Spray is instantaneous. Once the spell is cast and blindness is caused there is no spell left to break. Your premise is flawed.
No. It isn't.
It is;
instantaneous; see text
Your rebuttal is flawed.
When considering the matter, you must keep in mind the principal of Argumentum ad Absurdum. If the blindness caused by the spell causes you to no longer be subject to the spell, it breaks the spell. Given that there are alternate explanations that adequately cover the topic, this cannot be the correct interpretation because it fundamentally causes the spell to not work. Thus the idea that "blinded = sightless, therefore if color spray blinds you you are no longer blinded" is wrong by default. This is a simple deductive process.Color Spray is instantaneous. Once the spell is cast and blindness is caused there is no spell left to break. Your premise is flawed.No. It isn't.
It is;
instantaneous; see textYour rebuttal is flawed.
Color Spray is unarguably instantaneous. See the part where it says "instantaneous" yeah, that part you just quoted, that means the spell is instantaneous. If you then "see text" you'll note there is a duration on the after effects of the spell, but the spell itself is instantaneous. It can't be dispelled either, because it's instantaneous.
You can tell the spell is instantaneous because it says instantaneous.
When considering the matter, you must keep in mind the principal of Argumentum ad Absurdum. If the blindness caused by the spell causes you to no longer be subject to the spell, it breaks the spell. Given that there are alternate explanations that adequately cover the topic, this cannot be the correct interpretation because it fundamentally causes the spell to not work. Thus the idea that "blinded = sightless, therefore if color spray blinds you you are no longer blinded" is wrong by default. This is a simple deductive process.Color Spray is instantaneous. Once the spell is cast and blindness is caused there is no spell left to break. Your premise is flawed.No. It isn't.
It is;
instantaneous; see textYour rebuttal is flawed.
Color Spray is unarguably instantaneous. See the part where it says "instantaneous" yeah, that part you just quoted, that means the spell is instantaneous. If you then "see text" you'll note there is a duration on the after effects of the spell, but the spell itself is instantaneous. It can't be dispelled either, because it's instantaneous.
You can tell the spell is instantaneous because it says instantaneous.
You can clearly see that the duration says "See text". The text lists durations of effects of the spell. Clearly the spell is not instantaneous. Only part of it is. Ie The cone burst. The remaining effects of the spell continue for their listed duration, because the spell isn't instantaneous.
When a burst spell says "Instantaneous, see text" that is exactly what it means. The spell is both instantaneous in part, and has longer lasting ramifications.
The burst is instant, but the effect persists.
So the entirety of the spell is not, in fact, instantaneous.
Color Spray is, in fact, dispelable, however my rebuttal remains sound.
The burst portion of Color Spray, the portion which affects the targets, is instantaneous. Once a target has been affected, losing their sight (i.e. becoming unable to be affected) is irrelevant, the target has already been affected.
Sightless creatures are not normally affected by Color Spray, but they are not otherwise immune to the effects if somehow affected.
Dark cave, target has darkvision. While he isn't blind, he cannot see color. Color spray is color. He cannot see color spray.But, he can see... and is in the area. So, he is affected.
Ie. Color spray can affect creatures who do not see it.
You are assuming that the color is the cause and not the effect.
You have nothing to support the premise that it is the actual color blinding the target and not the cone of effect or the variance of tone created by the spell.Assuming????
A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become stunned, perhaps also blinded, and possibly knocking them unconscious.Tell me again what I am assuming?
Even in black and white you can distinguish a variance in tone.
Sorry but the target with DV will see it, just not in color.
There is only one tone. Vivid.
If* colorspray is light, and* darkvision cannot see color then* someone with darkvision cannot see colorspray.
If* colorspray's effect reflects light, and* it reflects only what it says it reflect, then* it only reflects vivid color, since* darkvision cannot see color, then* someone with darkvision cannot see color spray.
Unless you argue that color spray creates gradients of illusionary shading as well as the listed effect?
Color spray is color... darkvision cannot see color. Pretty simple to follow there.
The only option available to us that will allow the target with darkvision to see the color spray is if the colors are simply 'in their mind', but also 'in the area'... sort of like a shared hallucination.
I'm of the opinion that that is precisely what a pattern spell is...
Yes. You are assuming. Let me give you an example:
"A dog with mangy fur jumps a fence, causing the boy to become frightened"Was it the dog or the mangy fur that frightened the boy? We don't know. And we can't assume one over the other and instead, we must take them as a whole.
Vivid is NOT a tone. It's simple a description.
Colors may have a different value.
Values of colors will show up in black and white.
As stated, "Darkvision can't see color."
You don't see the flaw in this statement?
Let me show you:
Darkvision can't see color, therefore:
I am painted green and therefore, can't be seen by Darkvision.
A proper statement would be that Darkvision can see colors, but removes any chroma and interprets them as tonal imagery (Black and White). Since color spray doesn't have the Light descriptor we must assume that the effect produced is some sort of illusory pigment. This multitude of pigments will produce varying values of color. These variances in value will show up in black and white.
Does that help?
Should we assume that magic users are ignorant of the two different vision types and that magic is not magical enough to affect both types of vision? The spell says that sightless creatures are not affected, not that creatures with darkvision are not affected.
Colour and vision are based off of what spectrums of light radiation a creature is physically capable of seeing. Just because humans can't see in the infrared or ultraviolet spectrum doesn't mean that magic with visible effects doesn't affect those spectrums. Wizards who create spells are aware of creatures who see differently than humans so it makes perfect sense to me that they would create their spells to affect them as well as humans and the creatures who share vision type with humans. It is magic after all.
|
1. Color spray doesn't make light
2. Color spray doesn't require you to see it, but rather be inside the cone.
3. It's supported by strong evidence that sightless creatures are different than someone with the blind condition, but there is no absolute proof to define "sightless creatures" in the game.You can't be sure of #2 without knowing #3
No one is arguing that someone outside the cone is affected. If that is what you mean by this point then I agree. However, if #3 is that there is no difference then you need to see it AND be inside the cone.
Dark cave, target has darkvision. While he isn't blind, he cannot see color. Color spray is color. He cannot see color spray.
But, he can see... and is in the area. So, he is affected.
Ie. Color spray can affect creatures who do not see it.
you are assuming that spells without the light descriptor cannot emit their own light; fireballs, lightning bolts, flame spheres all emit light; it would be debatable if a silent image (figment) cast in natural darkness emit light or not (matter of fact, I'd be inclined to say it does, as per the hologram analogy; to say that it creates some kind of tangible construct upon which ambient light can bounce off of is more a stretch than the assumption that illusions emit their own light)
Therefore, in a naturally dark area, a color spray shines very briefly with all the wonderful colors of the rainbow, and in an immense cave it would act like a brief beacon. It would be very detrimental for creatures attempting to stealth around in the dark to cast color spray.
Also, as far as I know, the darkvision ability does not mean you no longer have normal vision. In 2E, there was an adaptation time required when switching from normal vision to infravision. In 3.5/Pathfinder, both darkvision and normal vision overlap at all times. Thus, a creature using darkvision in a naturally dark cave would see the colors of a color spray just fine, but see the walls of the cave in shades of grey (no pun intended).
|
|
Darkvision
Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black-and-white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision.
Darkvision covers illusions in its discription.
|
|
3.5 Spell
Illusion (Pattern) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 15 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped burst
Duration: Instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
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 Hit Dice.
2 HD or less: The creature is unconscious, blinded, and stunned for 2d4 rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round. (Only living creatures are knocked unconscious.)
3 or 4 HD: The creature is blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, then stunned for 1 round.
5 or more HD: The creature is stunned for 1 round.
Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray.
Material Component: A pinch each of powder or sand that is colored red, yellow, and blue.
Pathfinder Spell
School illusion (pattern) [mind-affecting]
Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (red, yellow, and blue powder or colored sand)
Range 15 ft.
Area cone-shaped burst
Duration instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw Will negates
Spell Resistance yes
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.
2 HD or less: The creature is unconscious, blinded, and stunned for 2d4 rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round. (Only living creatures are knocked unconscious.)
3 or 4 HD: The creature is blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, then stunned for 1 round.
5 or more HD: The creature is stunned for 1 round.
Sightless creatures are not affected by color spray.
Just to show that the sightless discriptor came from 3.5 which also didnt have a discription for 'sightless'.
If you look through all the spells like color spray, hypnotic pattern, Rainbow pattern, etc. All of these spells in their discriptor talk about it being a visual display.
Also of note is that the Rainbow Pattern discriptor says its "A glowing, rainbow-hued pattern of interweaving colors fascinates those within it" so this spell emits a light effect while others like Color Spray do not.
Personally I'd say that Color Spray is strictly non-light emitting visual effect and those who cant see it are not effected by it.
Illusion (pattern) discription is the general rule while each spell discription is the specific rule that mods the general.
But this s just my opinion.
At this point in the thread, I think it may be time to put down the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.
I think a high school Physics textbook, followed by a high school Biology textbook, may be much more enlightening.