|
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.
How is this? In the game there is no discription of sightless so how can you be so sure that they are 'different and distinct things'?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a description of sightless
Sightless (Ex) A sea anemone is blind and is not affected by any effect that relies on sight, such as gaze attacks or blindness.-- Bestiary 3 page 238
This is the only creature in the game that has the sightless quality.
If this is the case, then the argument for sightless referring to a defined condition would have two implications.
- The writers designed a spell to be immune to a specific ability and not the option of being unable to see. They wrote sightless but not naturally sightless, after all.
- They then proceeded to give this ability to only the sea anemone. The Riptide Horror is, according to its description, also sightless, but this creature does not have the special quality either, and was not given it in any errata. In fact, no creature, no matter how blind, was given the condition.
- The Giant anemone was written two years after the core rulebook was.
- If it refers to the creature condition of sightless, we have to assume the writers were referring to a condition that at the time did not exist, and then only really think it was useful for the sea anemone. Sightless creature can still refer to a creature without sight. No where does it say naturally sightless and it seems silly to suggest it does anywhere.
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.
If I'm reading this correctly, the spell is instantaneous, and the "see text" refers to "look, the effects of the spell have durations."
Here's the thing. If you look at the sightless descriptor attached to the sea anemone, it states:
A sea anemone is blind and is not affected by any effect that relies on sight, such as gaze attacks or blindness.
So according to the descriptor, the sea anemone is immune to blindness and is also blind. This seems like a paradox, but it isn't necessarily. The sea anemone is immune to blindness because you can't blind something that is blind.
To put it another way, if I eat a sandwhich, the sandwich is suddenly immune to being eaten because there's no longer a sandwich to eat; no matter how hard I try I cannot eat that sandwich again. This sandwich's newfound immunity to being eaten does not put it back on my plate.
A blind person could be immune to the blast of color spray because he was already blind. But becoming blind doesn't retroactively take away the things you have seen and the effects they had. If you drop your weapon because someone used "heat metal", you are suddenly not holding a metal object. This does not make you immune. You can't retroactively gain immunity to a previous effect.
I know this is a little different because the spell's effects have a duration other than instantaneous, but the color burst that caused it IS gone. No one's arguing that blindness makes you immune to the effects of the spell. People are arguing that blindness makes you immune to the actual trigger that causes these effects in the first place.
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.
Who is assuming again? Seems like you are.
I most certainly am not. I know what causes the effect of the spell, because it tells us what does.
"A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become..."
The bolded part causes the effects. Why? Because the spell literally says that. I don't have to assume anything.
But you can assume that it is made out of pigments all you want to. We cannot know that, but you can certainly assume that.
Ah hypocrisy. Such fun.
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.
Vivid: 1. (of a colour) very bright; having a very high saturation or purity; produced by a pure or almost pure colouring agent
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if anyone will care but here's what a Paizo staff members says.
Sightless means creatures that can't see. Either because they've lost their sight or never had it in the first place. Monsters that are sightless generally have that mentioned in their defenses, but it also works for characters who simply close their eyes (which, if they don't have something like blindsense or blindsight or tremorsense, could be bad). It also won't affect creatures in darkness who can't see.Mr. Jacobs, I've got a question about some illusion spells if you dont mind. Just wanted your opinion as a GM on this.
In several illusions spells the s line that says 'sightless creatures are not effected by this spell'.
Its not under conditions, so I was wondering, what does 'sightless' mean in Pathfinder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BAM
Case closed.
K.I.S.S. Method prevails again
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.Vivid: 1. (of a colour) very bright; having a very high saturation or purity; produced by a pure or almost pure colouring agent
Btw.
Saturation and purity aren't tone.
A saturated violet is darker than a saturated yellow.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
This is a case where the rules don't cover this directly, so it really is an Ask your GM issue.
In my game (PFS or otherwise) I'd rule this way:
1) Correct
2) You must be in the area and you must be able to see it (if blind or in darkness then you can't see and go to sightless clause.)
3) Sightless creatures like Ooze (who are blind but have blindsight) are sightless.