| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I’m trying to figure out if there has been any official clairification regarding calm emotions by a Dev, FAQ, errata, etc. and it’s interaction with rage.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/calmEmotions.html
Calm Emotions
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 2, cleric 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures in a 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration concentration, up to 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yesThis spell calms agitated creatures. You have no control over the affected creatures, but calm emotions can stop raging creatures from fighting or joyous ones from reveling. Creatures so affected cannot take violent actions (although they can defend themselves) or do anything destructive. Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures.
This spell automatically suppresses (but does not dispel) any morale bonuses granted by spells such as bless, good hope, and rage, and also negates a bard's ability to inspire courage or a barbarian's rage ability. It also suppresses any fear effects and removes the confused condition from all targets. While the spell lasts, a suppressed spell, condition, or effect has no effect. When the calm emotions spell ends, the original spell or effect takes hold of the creature again, provided that its duration has not expired in the meantime.
Emphasis mine.
I am aware of two ways to interpret the calm emotion spells effects:1) The “Will negates” applies to all the spells listed effects, which, if the creatures save is successful, are resisted, and the spell has no effect whatsoever.
2) The “Will negates” applies to the calming effect, prohibiting the creature from taking aggressive actions. The “automatically suppresses” text listed in second paragraph occurs regardless of the creatures Will save.
Based on the limited use, the spells concentration requirement, and the “automatically suppresses” text of the second paragraph, I’m inclined to go with interpretation #2.
I found these other two forum posts regarding this subject:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lm1m?Calm-Emotions-Rage-Killer
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2cm?Calm-Emotions-attacks
Has anyone else got anything more definitive about this subject?
YIDM
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they save, the whole thing is negated. Otherwise the save line would say Will negates (partial, see text). Or something to that effect.
Since it doesn't say partial or see text it indicates the whole thing is negated by a successful save.
Take a look at Shout as an example for how negate versus partial effects are described within spells.
If they save, the whole thing is negated. Otherwise the save line would say Will negates (partial, see text). Or something to that effect.
Since it doesn't say partial or see text it indicates the whole thing is negated by a successful save.
Take a look at Shout as an example for how negate versus partial effects are described within spells.
shout is a very very different effect as it can apply to a creature or an object (and reacts differently to each).
calm emotions has two seperate paragraphs, with different effects, including text that says "automatically suppresses..." more akin to a silence spell.*automatic* does not equal (or imply) with a Will save IMO.
I'm not the only one seeing it like that, as it's been debated for multiple forum threads and is definitely unclear...which is why I was hoping a Dev had spoke out about it.
YIDM
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they save, the whole thing is negated. Otherwise the save line would say Will negates (partial, see text). Or something to that effect.
Since it doesn't say partial or see text it indicates the whole thing is negated by a successful save.
Take a look at Shout as an example for how negate versus partial effects are described within spells.
shout is a very very different effect as it can apply to a creature or an object (and reacts differently to each).
calm emotions has two seperate paragraphs, with different effects, including text that says "automatically suppresses..." more akin to a silence spell.
*automatic* does not equal (or imply) with a Will save IMO.
I'm not the only one seeing it like that, as it's been debated for multiple forum threads and is definitely unclear...which is why I was hoping a Dev had spoke out about it.YIDM
It says Will Negates, therefor it has absolutely no effect on a successful will save. Full stop.
shout is a very very different effect as it can apply to a creature or an object (and reacts differently to each).
calm emotions has two seperate paragraphs, with different effects, including text that says "automatically suppresses..." more akin to a silence spell.
*automatic* does not equal (or imply) with a Will save IMO.
I'm not the only one seeing it like that, as it's been debated for multiple forum threads and is definitely unclear...which is why I was hoping a Dev had spoke out about it.YIDM
Shout is a different effect that is true, but what I wanted you to see is how the spell talks about saves and how they function.
When a saves says will negates and doesn't make anyy other caveats about it, the whole thing is negated.
And since you mention silence, you will notice that has a similar case to Shout. It says will negates. If a creature successfully saves it has no effect, even though it the spell description it says "all sound is stopped". It means that it does that if the save isn't sucessful.
Of course, the spell goes on further to outline that objects don't get saves. This is why silence is typically cast on your beefy fighter friend who then closes in on the enemy. Or cast on a rock and tossed at the wizard.
Also please look in the magic section of the core rule book:
Saving Throw
Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.
Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.
Partial: The spell has an effect on its subject. A successful saving throw means that some lesser effect occurs.
Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).
None: No saving throw is allowed.
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.
It doesn't get more clear than that. It has no effect if the subject makes a successful saving throw.
If it did it would say partial, or see text. But it doesn't. So that second paragraph doesn't happen.
Also please look in the magic section of the core rule book:
Saving Throw
Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.
Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.
Partial: The spell has an effect on its subject. A successful saving throw means that some lesser effect occurs.
Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).
None: No saving throw is allowed.
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.
It doesn't get more clear than that. It has no effect if the subject makes a successful saving throw.
If it did it would say partial, or see text. But it doesn't. So that second paragraph doesn't happen.
Unless they are still under the effects of the rage spell, but the rage spell effect itself is "automatically suppressed"...
The creature hasn't been affected at all, the spell effect has. The creature is fine, can take aggressive actions, just isn't benefiting from a spell effect.As I said, there has been several forum threads on this matter.
I agree that #1 can work, but I also see how #2 isn't out of the question either. Both seem valid.
YIDM
|
|
Also please look in the magic section of the core rule book:
Saving Throw
Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.
Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.
Partial: The spell has an effect on its subject. A successful saving throw means that some lesser effect occurs.
Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).
None: No saving throw is allowed.
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.
It doesn't get more clear than that. It has no effect if the subject makes a successful saving throw.
If it did it would say partial, or see text. But it doesn't. So that second paragraph doesn't happen.
Unless they are still under the effects of the rage spell, but the rage spell effect itself is "automatically suppressed"...
The creature hasn't been affected at all, the spell effect has. The creature is fine, can take aggressive actions, just isn't benefiting from a spell effect.
As I said, there has been several forum threads on this matter.I agree that #1 can work, but I also see how #2 isn't out of the question either. Both seem valid.
YIDM
I repeat: Will negates, therefore no effect. Full stop.
There is nothing to debate and no qualifiers to look over. A successful will save makes the spell's full rules text irrelevant. If they wanted it to be relevant they would have "see text" attached, but they don't, so there is no qualification, just negation. An effect on an active spell on a subject IS a spell affecting the subject, so no weaseling out there either.
The rules text you reference is because typically countering/dispelling either causes both effects to negate each-other, or requires a check of some kind. Neither is required here, it simply suppresses the other effect while continuing to function. But none of this matters on a successful will save, because the spell then has NO effect. There is no "duration" during which to suppress the other effects because the spell is not active.
Unless they are still under the effects of the rage spell, but the rage spell effect itself is "automatically suppressed"...
The creature hasn't been affected at all, the spell effect has. The creature is fine, can take aggressive actions, just isn't benefiting from a spell effect.
As I said, there has been several forum threads on this matter.I agree that #1 can work, but I also see how #2 isn't out of the question either. Both seem valid.
YIDM
You're weaseling with your run around about calm emoitions affecting the spell and not the creature, it wont fly.
Further, you keep mentioning how thre have been "several forum threads on this matter" but the ones I could find like this one are pretty well resolved with everyone saying no. The will save completely negates it.
A successful will save negates the whole spell.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
While I believe posters are right about the save negating the whole spell, if it's negative effects that you're trying to suppress, I can't find any indication that just because you're confused or afraid or whatever that you forfeit your ability to auto-fail saves.
So a target that wants to be affected can be.
Confusion is iffy because if the character is currently treating/thinking of the caster as hostile he probably should not be allowed to choose to fail the save as the player shouldn't be in control of the character at the point. This of course depends on how the character is currently being affected by confusion, as there is a chance to act normally it could work on such a turn.
But fear it seems totally within scope to fail the will save against the spell you know your friend is casting if you want.
I was going to jump in in defence of interpretation 2, primarily querying why they would print the whole second paragraph. especially as they are desperate for space. I re-read it (twice) and have come to the conclusion that it is a clarifying paragraph. It doesn't actually say anything very different. Para 1 gives broad outline of the effect, para 2 gives rules specific detail. so yeah! will save negates it all.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Confusion is iffy because if the character is currently treating/thinking of the caster as hostile he probably should not be allowed to choose to fail the save as the player shouldn't be in control of the character at the point. This of course depends on how the character is currently being affected by confusion, as there is a chance to act normally it could work on such a turn.
But fear it seems totally within scope to fail the will save against the spell you know your friend is casting if you want.
It's tricky. On the one hand I see how there could be an element of metagaming if you autofail saves while not in your right mind - but on the other hand, you can choose to autofail even while unconscious, such as when hit with magical healing. Or an unconscious character can choose to make saves if they like.
Given that one of the basic functions of calm emotions is to suppress confusion, and the effect is broken if you reenter combat, I think allowing the PC to autofail their save is okay since they will likely have to sit out the combat anyway.
It's tricky. On the one hand I see how there could be an element of metagaming if you autofail saves while not in your right mind - but on the other hand, you can choose to autofail even while unconscious, such as when hit with magical healing. Or an unconscious character can choose to make saves if they like.
Given that one of the basic functions of calm emotions is to suppress confusion, and the effect is broken if you reenter combat, I think allowing the PC to autofail their save is okay since they will likely have to sit out the combat anyway.
Was that ever actually hashed out? I remember being breifly apart of a thread about discussing automatically failing will saves while unconscious and about what exactly the harmless quality on a spell meant.
Maybe not, but I've never played with anyone that forced an unconscious character to save vs. magical healing.
Right, and I don't think any sane individual would.
I think that the harmless quality basically says you only make a saving if you (as a player) want to, which is different from a creature consciously deciding to forgo a saving throw they are allowed.
In one there is no saving throw unless you want it.
In the other there is a saving throw, but you can choose to fail it and accept the result.
They are similar concepts though. And as I said, I don't think it was ever fully hashed out how a unconscious creature is supposed to be affected by healing magic, unless it's all about the harmless quality.
magic healing while unconsious is covered in magic section:
"Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."
Right, but willing is different from can chose to forgo a save.
See astral projection as an example. There is no save for it, but a creature must be willing to be affected. There is a difference between them.
I'm in the "will negates so no effect" boat.
Seems to me that the first paragraph is just descriptive text and the second one is outlining the actual mechanics and how to handle it in game.
Also, it would be brokenly powerful for a level 2 spell to completely turn off several classes even if the save.
magic healing while unconsious is covered in magic section:
"Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."
Right, but willing is different from can chose to forgo a save.
See astral projection as an example. There is no save for it, but a creature must be willing to be affected. There is a difference between them.
Willing basically means:
Autofails saving throw vs harmless effects.That has been clarified by Sean or another paizo Dev, can't remember who.
And that's how I would interpret as well, but harmless is a specific tag for spells. One that healing spells possess, but Calm Emotions does not. So while an unconscious creature should be healed without being forced to save for half health, it does not seem one could forgo the save while unconscious against calm emotions. Which goes back to the argument Ryric made.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
oh for sure.
i'm not saying that it would work for calm emotions, i just put that up because the conversation was derailing on "how the characters accept healing magic when not in control of their characters (unconsious)"
so, p.e. a dominated person would try to avoid (roll a save) against a prot from evil cast from one of his allies and etc.
basically, as long as he is not in control of his character, he is unwilling, unless the reason he is not in control is unconsiousness, and in that case he is always willing.
Would he? If I'm dominated it makes me the robot slave of the caster/monster, but doesn't fundamentally change my attitudes in any other way. If the controller tells the dominated character "you don't trust your former friends and you will resist any of their attempts to cast spells at you," then sure, the guy has to make saves, not allow free touch attacks, and so forth. But in the absence of specific orders like that, my party members are still my friends and allies so why wouldn't I accept spells from them if my new dark master does not forbid it? For all I know my friends are also controlled and they're trying to help me advance the dark master's goals.
Basically a mind controlled character is still themselves except in the ways they've been specifically instructed not to be.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
a command to "slay your friends" would mean that you need to do anything to slay them though. since you are not stupid, this means that allowing your ex-firends to cast freely spells on you will hinder your "goal" of killing them, you should resist all.
in corner cases were dominate is used with subterfuge and such, even a simple order to "not be discovered" would mean that you should inherently try to avoid any and all spells that would hinder that goal, breaking off the enchantment itself would be a great hinder imo^^
i mean, a cr capable of dominating a character is 99% of the time extremely intelligent, and usually a TON more intelligent than the...
I can see that, although now we get into some possible timing issues - can you start following dominate orders as a free action out of turn? If I'm told "slay your friends" and my friend throws a ProtEvil at me before my turn, have I even processed the order enough to try and avoid it/make a save? I'm not sure I have an answer btw, just thinking out loud.
"Slay your friends" has a few issues too - I'd be stopping to finish off/cdg downed people because the order was to kill, not to win. If I just leave them unconscious I'm not obeying to the best of my ability. Also it would be hilarious to kill one of your allies yet leave another completely alone because you never liked him anyway(not a friend, no need to kill). (I was once playing a character that had very shady friends and I was dominated and told "you can't trust any of your friends, they are plotting against you." I was like, "yeah, what else is new.")
Another thought that just occurred to me - are impossible commands against a subject's nature? If I tell a dominated person to grow wings, or eat the moon, what happens? If they are told to avoid discovery at all costs, and they are discovered, how do they reconcile that? I mean, they could murder the person who discovered them but the discovery still happened - and it's not like killing guarantees silence in a world with speak with dead and raise dead.
I also think refusing a harmless spell from a trusted ally is pretty darn suspicious if you're ordered to avoid discovery.
Hmm, this is all diverting pretty far from the OP. Might be a fun discussion in another thread.
|
|
oh for sure.
i'm not saying that it would work for calm emotions, i just put that up because the conversation was derailing on "how the characters accept healing magic when not in control of their characters (unconsious)"
so, p.e. a dominated person would try to avoid (roll a save) against a prot from evil cast from one of his allies and etc.
basically, as long as he is not in control of his character, he is unwilling, unless the reason he is not in control is unconsiousness, and in that case he is always willing.Would he? If I'm dominated it makes me the robot slave of the caster/monster, but doesn't fundamentally change my attitudes in any other way. If the controller tells the dominated character "you don't trust your former friends and you will resist any of their attempts to cast spells at you," then sure, the guy has to make saves, not allow free touch attacks, and so forth. But in the absence of specific orders like that, my party members are still my friends and allies so why wouldn't I accept spells from them if my new dark master does not forbid it? For all I know my friends are also controlled and they're trying to help me advance the dark master's goals.
Basically a mind controlled character is still themselves except in the ways they've been specifically instructed not to be.
a command to "slay your friends" would mean that you need to do anything to slay them though. since you are not stupid, this means that allowing your ex-firends to cast freely spells on you will hinder your "goal" of killing them, you should resist all.
in corner cases were dominate is used with subterfuge and such, even a simple order to "not be discovered" would mean that you should inherently try to avoid any and all spells that would hinder that goal, breaking off the enchantment itself would be a great hinder imo^^
i mean, a cr capable of dominating a character is 99% of the time extremely intelligent, and usually a TON more intelligent than the...
Break Enchantment doesn't have a saving throw *or* SR. It's a caster level check, but otherwise just works. Same with Dispel Magic if that's your tool of choice. Prot from Evil does have a save, though, so they can try to resist that.
It's all of a DC15 sense motive check to notice that a character is dominated, or DC25 if otherwise enchanted. Dominate Person actually makes a very bad infiltration spell since even untrained folk can notice the enchantment, and a mere +5 means you notice when taking 10.
What you want is Geas-Quest, but even that can be noticed by the DC25 check and the target can subvert the instructions if you're not careful since your control isn't total.