Can someone explain how spell resistance resists fireball? The fire is actually there right? The spell isn't mimicking the effects of fire, it actually makes literal flames. How can spell resistance resist that if they aren't immune to fire. Or similar spells that conjure elemental thingamabobs that should be inherently damaging.
How? Because.
Or, for a meta answer, because for some reason Paizo thought blasting spells needed to suck even worse, and Conjuration spells be EVEN BETTER!
The fire is magical and SR is sort of like AC vs spells.
So the magic is checked first then if it gets to pass go the effect of the spell has a chance to do something.
The magic fails to succeed in creating flames in the resisted area. It'll bend and swerve around the protected individual.
I mean like. I blast a drow, no damage. But then the wooden floor catches fire and that hurts him?
I mean like. I blast a drow, no damage. But then the wooden floor catches fire and that hurts him?
exactly.
>wraithstrike
I was asking the in world justification for the fire not hurting them on account of being vaguely magically aligned.
>wraithstrike
I was asking the in world justification for the fire not hurting them on account of being vaguely magically aligned.
It's the same justification for why getting smacked by a Falchion crit from an Orc will kill you at 1st level, but not at 10th.
Okay then it evokes literal flames.
Ok
Okay then it evokes literal flames.Aaaand that's not how evocation works!
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end."Literal fire" is not "magical energy". Fireball does not create "literal flames", and the phrase "evokes literal flames" is an oxymoron in Pathfinder.
Let's contrast with Snowball, which is an SR: No blast. It's also not Evocation, it's Conjuration (creation)
a creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates."create an object" means that Snowball makes a literal ball of snow.
You might wanna actually quote the whole thing there, slim.
"In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing."
It CREATES fire out of nothing. It IS actually fire.
Hence why it doesn't make any sense.
>wraithstrike
I was asking the in world justification for the fire not hurting them on account of being vaguely magically aligned.
Creature X is resistant to magic and you just used magic is basically it.
|
Think of it as Fireball isn't actually on the material plane - the wizard is simply bringing forth the energy of the fire onto the material plane. However - if said extraplanor flames catch something material on fire - that isn't effected by SR as it's an entirely material flame.
It's also the fluff reason that damaging conjuration spells don't allow SR. They summon the ____ entirely to the material plane before flinging it about.
And frankly - the blasting conjuration spells have virtually nothing to do with how powerful that school of magic is.
|
|
Now, how a nonmagical Snowball does as much damage as touching someone with a magic lightning fist is mental gymnastics for another thread, but the rules are pretty straightforward on this one: because Conjuration is just better than Evocation, and Fireball got saddled with the Evocation tag.
The Snowball is magical - it's simply been summoned entirely to the material plane - while Shocking Grasp is just the caster bringing the energy of the electricity to the material plane.
The real problem is all the damaging spells under conjuration should have been placed under evocation, for consistency.
As to why evocation magic is subject to SR...magic?
|
Uhhhmm...
Evocation spells are suffused with the magical energy that evoked them. The flames of the fireball are within a network of magical energy created by the caster and flung onto the field of battle.
A conjured snowball, upon conjuration, exists independently of the casters network/web/weave of magical energy and is therefore unaffected by any inherent resistance against magic.
(Yeah, me neither.)
|
|
Creation: a creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. [...] If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existenceThe first line denies the "summoned entirely to the material plane" argument; it's formed by matter manipulation. And the second half makes it clear that the Snowball is not dependent on magic to last any more than a Wall of Stone is-- I could be wrong I suppose, but don't we normally consider the Wall of Stone to be a generic block of stone after it's been cast? That's how I've always seen it.
Now, this does make me wonder what happens if you pick up a Snowball and throw it...
That doesn't mean that the Snowball isn't magical. A +5 vorpal sword isn't dependant upon outside magic once created either - that doesn't make it any less magical. Nor does SR work against said vorpal sword.
Casting Fireball creates a huge ball of fire without fuel. My justification would be that magic is the fuel. If SR wins out, then that magic is shoved aside, and there's no fire there. Most conjuration damaging spells are creating acid, which doesn't need any magical aid to mess somebody up. Snowball is an an exception, probably because it's from a themed splat book.
Fireball is raw magic converted in "fire energy" directly. A conjuration spell like Acid Arrow creates an arrow made of acid and flings it at the target. Wouldn't be different that creating a rock and throwing it, but acid hurts more. The magic in this case is the creation of the arrow, but the arrow itself is material and "nonmagical". The explosion of the fireball is magical in itself as it stems from nothing. It's just an area that catches fire.
As someone stated, a Drow may resist the magical ignition itself, but can be burned by the wooden burning floor afterwards as that fire is nonmagical despite resulting from a spell.
Ignoring all previous posts...
SR applies to Fireball because the fire summoned is magical in nature... and SR applies to that.
So if the caster fails their check to overcome that spell resistance, the critter that has it ignores the spell.
Arguing about magic is like arguing about the value of virginity.
It only has meaning to those who have it, or want it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*grumpy grognard mode* The argument about why fireball is resisted by SR is the wrong way around...
Why aren't all spells resisted by SR? After all, that was the default assumption from 1st ed. /git off of my lawn, you kids.
*grumpy grognard mode* The argument about why fireball is resisted by SR is the wrong way around...
Why aren't all spells resisted by SR? After all, that was the default assumption from 1st ed. /git off of my lawn, you kids.
All spells allow for SR, unless they say otherwise. They can say that.
Previous statement made by me is correct.
What dosent make sense is why conjuration spells ignore SR. What kind of non magic acid is used in Acid Fog?
What dosent make sense is why conjuration spells ignore SR. What kind of non magic acid is used in Acid Fog?
As I said in a post above, conjuration spells create something and throw it at the enemy. The magic is the creation of the object, but the object itself is nonmagical. A fog made of acid may be nonmagical (I don't want to explain chemistry and physics, it's irrelevant as I can say that a fog of acid can naturally exist as unicorns do) and thus does not concern SR (or Drow are resistant to unicorn attacks?). Think about it as summoning a rock and then throwing it at the Drow. The magic is the conjuration of the rock and maybe the telekinetic propulsion if you're not using your hands to throw it, but the impact of the rock is very nonmagical. An evocation spell as fireball instead is attempt at damaging a foe directly with magical energy.
Also the name Fireball is misleading as it implicates summoning a huge ball of fire and flinging it to the enemy. Io send a mini ball as line and when it reaches the desired point an explosion of fire happens. This is direct magic.
Why aren't all spells resisted by SR? After all, that was the default assumption from 1st ed. /git off of my lawn, you kids.
Because with spells like 'Create Pit' this creates some very odd imagery.
Regarding conjuration spells (and playing devil's advocate here): your acid fog got pulled here from Venus. The clouds there are rather low in pH. Or another spot with a similarly ridiculously nasty atmosphere. The magic was in getting them to where you're at, not in creating them. Fire, however, needs a source. So that fireball is truly just magic telling the laws of physics to pike it.
I wish pathfinder made spells similar to PHB 2: dual school spells.
Kelgore's Fire Bolt was a SR: Yes/No (see text)
It dealt damage regardless of SR, but SR lowered the effect/damage.
It dealt 1d6/level fire (max 5d6), but SR can lower it to just 1d6.
It conjures an orb of rock (conjuration) then shealths it in arcane energy (evoc). Reflex 1/2.
It also had a cool Conj/Necro dual spell: Kelgore's gravemist.
SR only blocks the fatigue effect, but not the Cold damage. Save None.
I suppose I'll just say that it doesn't actually induce combustion but emulate fire energy type and leave it at that. That's also explain how the drow also isn't hurt by the convection of the situation.