Sorcerer Bloodline Power Question: Starsoul

[Wacky-D]

For the Bloodline Arcana for the Starsoul Sorcerer, they can cast an evocation spells where if a target fails their save then they suffer from dazzling stars in the target's eyes.

My GM said that if an evocation spell doesn't have a save (Magic Missile) then this effect doesn't count.

I didn't see anything in the errata about this, but is it correct? I went with his ruling so as not to hold up the game but want to know for sure.

Sign--
Wacky

[PrinceDogWaterIII]

How can you fail a save that doesn't exist?

[Zhayne]

What he said. If the spell doesn't allow a save, he can't fail it, so no dazzling.

[Zwordsman]

huh.I always thought it added a save at the usual class ability save (10+1/2 class+casting ability). but it doesn't say that..

Makes magic missle and such less useful. though makes fireball amusing.

[Wacky-D]

PrinceDogWaterIII wrote:

How can you fail a save that doesn't exist?

Zhayne wrote:

What he said. If the spell doesn't allow a save, he can't fail it, so no dazzling.

Well if there was no save for the spell, wouldn't that mean he automatically failed?

Zwordsman wrote:

huh.I always thought it added a save at the usual class ability save (10+1/2 class+casting ability). but it doesn't say that..

Makes magic missle and such less useful. though makes fireball amusing.

That's what I proposed to my GM too, but he said no. It makes a more powerful spell, weaker for my character, and a weaker spell more powerful...but only if the target fails its check. Hoping I can get a developer to take a look at this.

Sign--
Wacky

[Xethik]

I don't think it would mean the save was automatically failed. Effects that trigger when a save is passed or a save is failed would not occur.

The save was neither passed nor failed as it does not exist.

[Zhayne]

Wacky-D wrote:

Well if there was no save for the spell, wouldn't that mean he automatically failed?

Not to any logical thought process, no.

[James Risner]

Zhayne wrote:

Wacky-D wrote:

Well if there was no save for the spell, wouldn't that mean he automatically failed?

Not to any logical thought process, no.

No way to fail a "no save" spell's save, because it doesn't have one.

You need a Dazing Spell rod on the Magic Missile to then get the failed save deal.

[Wacky-D]

Zhayne wrote:

Not to any logical thought process, no.

Actually it's quite logical; if you take the full effect from failing a save and you have a spell that automatically causes the full effect then it's the same as automatically failing. There's no difference.

Sign--
Wacky

[The Morphling]

You seem awfully preoccupied about trying to wildly bend the rules to obtain one of the most useless debuffs ever to exist in Pathfinder.

Your enemies will almost never notice they're dazzled, and you won't either. It is such an insignificant condition, I can't imagine why you're concerned with it.

[Xethik]

The Morphling wrote:

You seem awfully preoccupied about trying to wildly bend the rules to obtain one of the most useless debuffs ever to exist in Pathfinder.

Your enemies will almost never notice they're dazzled, and you won't either. It is such an insignificant condition, I can't imagine why you're concerned with it.

Agreed. If you were Void, at least silence is a little bit more useful.

No matter how you think it works, RAW and RAI, there needs to be a save. Sorry, it's how it works. There is a big difference between failing a save and having no save allowed. See abilities like Improved Evasion.

[James Risner]

Wacky-D wrote:

Actually it's quite logical; if you take the full effect from failing a save and you have a spell that automatically causes the full effect then it's the same as automatically failing. There's no difference.

Walk me through the logic, because honestly I don't get it. I don't understand your sentence and how it relates to our current discussion. Unless you are now arguing our side now?

[Zhayne]

Wacky-D wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Not to any logical thought process, no.

Actually it's quite logical; if you take the full effect from failing a save and you have a spell that automatically causes the full effect then it's the same as automatically failing. There's no difference.

Sign--
Wacky

There's a huge difference. You can't fail to do something unless you tried to do it. You can't fail at climbing a ladder if there's no ladder around to climb. You can't fail a class unless you're actually enrolled in that class.

[Wacky-D]

James Risner wrote:

Walk me through the logic, because honestly I don't get it. I don't understand your sentence and how it relates to our current discussion. Unless you are now arguing our side now?

Nah, it's the "Transitive Property" from Mathematical Reasoning. Basically, if A=B and B=C then A=C.

If a failed save means the target takes the full effect of the spell, and no saving throw takes the full effect of the spell, then no saving throw is tantamount to automatically failing.

Zhayne wrote:

There's a huge difference. You can't fail to do something unless you tried to do it. You can't fail at climbing a ladder if there's no ladder around to climb. You can't fail a class unless you're actually enrolled in that class.

This seems only to support my statement.

You can't climb a ladder if there is no ladder? Then that individual automatically failed at it, because they can't possibly succeed...you're right about the class though.

[Beopere]

I'm writing a test. If you pass the test, you get a hug. If you fail the test, I do not hug you.

I didn't hug you.

You must have failed the test that you never took.

This is how I'm seeing your logic Wacky-D, which I have difficulty agreeing with.

[DrDeth]

The Morphling wrote:

You seem awfully preoccupied about trying to wildly bend the rules to obtain one of the most useless debuffs ever to exist in Pathfinder.

Your enemies will almost never notice they're dazzled, and you won't either. It is such an insignificant condition, I can't imagine why you're concerned with it.

Yeah, I have a 13th level Starsoul, and honestly we often forget this, it hardly makes a difference. Now it it was dazing, sure.

No, OP, evocations without saves do not automatically get dazzled.

[Jiggy]

Wacky-D wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Walk me through the logic, because honestly I don't get it. I don't understand your sentence and how it relates to our current discussion. Unless you are now arguing our side now?

Nah, it's the "Transitive Property" from Mathematical Reasoning. Basically, if A=B and B=C then A=C.

If a failed save means the target takes the full effect of the spell, and no saving throw takes the full effect of the spell, then no saving throw is tantamount to automatically failing.

Ah, I see your problem. You're looking at a case of "A causes B" and mislabeling it as "A=B".

That is, you are correct about the transitive property (that if A=B and B=C then A=C), you're just mistaken in applying it to the current situation.

Failing your save causes you to take the full effect of a spell, it isn't the same as taking the full effect of the spell. A cause and its effect are not "equal", especially not in the sense they would need to be in order for the transitive property to apply.