|
-_-
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Fluff. It does 1d6 per caster level. All the rest is fluff.
same arguement as saying that "You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you. " is fluff.
Now you are outright lying by intentional omission, which offers zero support to your viewpoint, the exact opposite of support actually.
It outright says "1d6 points of FIRE DAMAGE". That is not fluff. Fire damage is very much a thing in-game and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and makes you look rather ridiculous.
True Strike has its place and is well defined. As does Shield. This spell is also well defined and you are giving it way more power than it actually has by attributing mechanics were there are none. And for that matter, saying the APG classes are overpowered is not at all an appropriate argument. This spell is what we are focusing on.
Point is a spell that allows you to ignore 10 points of non-magical melee damage on one attack, and consumes 1 spell slot is no more powerful than many other 1st level spells.
And again I don't see how you can dismiss the first sentance of a spell description as "fluff text". It says what the spell does, anything else is game mechanics.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but you are in fact talking about game mechanics. And this is a game mechanics subforum for rules questions. And for that matter, the mechanics are what the spell does. Everything else is descriptive text.
What i'm saying is the spell description of how windy escape works reads:
"You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you. You gain DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack.You cannot use windy escape against an attack of opportunity you provoked by casting a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using any other magical ability that provokes an attack of opportunity when used."
Many people in this thread are choosing to ignore the first sentence of the spell description. It's like picking and choosing what parts of the fireball description count and which don't.
There are 3 parts of the spell description:
#1. What the spell does.
#2. The game mechanics (how you use the mechanical rules of the game)that are used to adjudicate the effects of the spell.
#3. Restrictions. (Things the spell does not work against)
What the spell does - "You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you."
The mechanics used to have this represented in the game - "You gain DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack."
Restrictions - "You cannot use windy escape against an attack of opportunity you provoked by casting a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using any other magical ability that provokes an attack of opportunity when used."
Game mechanics are the way we crunch numbers in the game to represent how something works. Hit Points are an example of game mechanics. The fighter does not really have "12 hit points". the fighter's strength, hardiness, health, luck, etc are all rolled up in a game mechanic called "hit points". When he is hit by a sword he bleeds. He does not "lose 6 hit points". No where in the game is a guy with armor suddenly losing 6 of something. What's happening is that he is hurt. It's represented by the game mechanic where we tell the player "lose 6 hit points".
Similarly what is happening with Windy Escape is that the player is "briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you."
We represent this in game mechanics by saying the player has "DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack."
Using this game mechanic does not make the spell description "fluff".
Using this game mechanic does not mean that the spell does not work against attacks that cause 0 HP of damage, like grapples and slaps.
The game mechanic is supposed to be used to help adjudicate the fact that the player becomes vaporous and insubstantial, allowing an attack to pass harmlessly through him.
Any interpretation of the game mechanics where the player does not become vaporous and insubstantial is a misinterpretation.
By the logic of "fluff text" -
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.
Well it's just fluff that it's fire and explosion! What it really does it 1d6 per caster level, so ignore all the rest...Rysky (thank you dear), very clearly pointed out for you where the rules also emulate the fluff. It is, in the barebones mechanic, indeed 1d6 per level of fire damage. It is defined as an explosion, it simulates an explosion in the numbers, it explains in clear text how to apply this explosion to the rules system. There is a very valuable reason for maintaining the distinction of what is description and what is mechanical, because the mechanical is usually the most important bit for simulating what the description is telling you is happening. Outside of those mechanics, that is either homebrew or DM fiat,...
If a fireball is defined as an explosion Windy Escape is defined as becoming vaporous and insubstantial. There is no difference.
Now you are outright lying by intentional omission, which offers zero support to your viewpoint, the exact opposite of support actually.
It outright says "1d6 points of FIRE DAMAGE". That is not fluff. Fire damage is very much a thing in-game and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and makes you look rather ridiculous.
yes I am lying by intentional omission.
As is anyone who interprets Windy Escape as not making the player vaporous and insubstantial.
You don't pick and choose what parts of the spell description count and which don't.
|
|
Now you are outright lying by intentional omission, which offers zero support to your viewpoint, the exact opposite of support actually.
It outright says "1d6 points of FIRE DAMAGE". That is not fluff. Fire damage is very much a thing in-game and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and makes you look rather ridiculous.
yes I am lying by intentional omission.
As is anyone who interprets Windy Escape as not making the player vaporous and insubstantial.
You don't pick and choose what parts of the spell description count and which don't.
The Spell does make the user vaporous and insubstantial.
Now define that in game terms.
Now you are outright lying by intentional omission, which offers zero support to your viewpoint, the exact opposite of support actually.
It outright says "1d6 points of FIRE DAMAGE". That is not fluff. Fire damage is very much a thing in-game and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and makes you look rather ridiculous.
yes I am lying by intentional omission.
As is anyone who interprets Windy Escape as not making the player vaporous and insubstantial.
You don't pick and choose what parts of the spell description count and which don't.
The Spell does make the user vaporous and insubstantial.
Now define that in game terms.
Vaporous - Having the form or characteristics of vapor.
Insubstantial - a : lacking substance or material natureb : lacking firmness or solidity : flimsy
So by definition during the execution of the spell the Sylph is not solid. You can touch the gas, but like touching any gas you as the toucher would feel nothing. you cannot slap gas. You cannot grab gas. You cannot wrestle gas. You cannot hold gas. You cannot tickle gas. you cannot spank gas. You cannot hold gas's hand.
The player can also ignore up to 10 points of damage from a non-magical attack. (assuming it's not an attack of opportunity).
By the logic of "fluff text" -
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.Well it's just fluff that it's fire and explosion! What it really does it 1d6 per caster level, so ignore all the rest...
That actually is useless fluff from the point of view of someone arguing that a fireball sets things on fire (something only a few relatively weak spells do) or knocks things over because it's an "explosion." All it does is inflict fire damage.
|
|
Now you are outright lying by intentional omission, which offers zero support to your viewpoint, the exact opposite of support actually.
It outright says "1d6 points of FIRE DAMAGE". That is not fluff. Fire damage is very much a thing in-game and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and makes you look rather ridiculous.
yes I am lying by intentional omission.
As is anyone who interprets Windy Escape as not making the player vaporous and insubstantial.
You don't pick and choose what parts of the spell description count and which don't.
The Spell does make the user vaporous and insubstantial.
Now define that in game terms.
Vaporous - Having the form or characteristics of vapor.
Insubstantial - a : lacking substance or material nature
b : lacking firmness or solidity : flimsySo by definition during the execution of the spell the Sylph is not solid. You can touch the gas, but like touching any gas you as the toucher would feel nothing. you cannot slap gas. You cannot grab gas. You cannot wrestle gas. You cannot hold gas. You cannot tickle gas. you cannot spank gas. You cannot hold gas's hand.
The player can also ignore up to 10 points of damage from a non-magical attack. (assuming it's not an attack of opportunity).
If you can't touch or otherwise interact with them why is the DR needed?
The effect you're wanting to ascribe to the spell makes the actual effects of the spell superfluous.
|
|
Again thank you all for your thoughts.
I can see that it would be a GM call as to weather you can avoid a tentacle from the Evard's black tentacle spell wrapping around your character and giving it a squeeze.
As a player of course I would want for the windy escape to provide my wizard character a chance to either protect or remove himself from that grabby situation. An Evard's black tentacle spell could easily shut down my character almost completely.
As a GM I can understand that the black tentacles since they are conjured magical grabby things could possibly grab the temporarily misty and insubstantial spell caster. From what I understand the spell give you protection from physical non magical attacks but you are still vulnerable to magical attacks.
So to me it seems to be a GM call.
As Kaliel Windstorm points out, you can’t really separate the descriptive text from the text on the game mechanics. I think his interpretation is reasoned out and well thought out
“I remember early in this character's carrier he was grabbed by a reef claw. Apparently the claw was poisoned. I informed the GM that my character would like to use windy escape in response to the reef claw's attack. I passed the GM the Advanced Race guide. After reading the spell, he said, ok you turn insubstantial and the claw closes and passes harmlessly through you....and you don't need to worry about the poison because you are temporarily immune.”
I was playing a PFS game at a convention. The GM had a firm grasp on the rules.
So it seems to me, that with the windy escape spell a non-magical physical attack can pass through you harmlessly (provided it does less then 10 points of damage) and this would include the grab attack from a reef claw, and in my opinion somebody’s grapple attempt.
Evard’s black tentacles seems like a corner case that could be argued either way and would be the GM’s call. However if I were the player in question who’s wizard was being grabbed and grappled, I would hope the spell would provide the wizard with an escape.
Again thank you all for your thoughts and comments.
Now you are outright lying by intentional omission, which offers zero support to your viewpoint, the exact opposite of support actually.
It outright says "1d6 points of FIRE DAMAGE". That is not fluff. Fire damage is very much a thing in-game and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and makes you look rather ridiculous.
yes I am lying by intentional omission.
As is anyone who interprets Windy Escape as not making the player vaporous and insubstantial.
You don't pick and choose what parts of the spell description count and which don't.
The Spell does make the user vaporous and insubstantial.
Now define that in game terms.
Vaporous - Having the form or characteristics of vapor.
Insubstantial - a : lacking substance or material nature
b : lacking firmness or solidity : flimsySo by definition during the execution of the spell the Sylph is not solid. You can touch the gas, but like touching any gas you as the toucher would feel nothing. you cannot slap gas. You cannot grab gas. You cannot wrestle gas. You cannot hold gas. You cannot tickle gas. you cannot spank gas. You cannot hold gas's hand.
The player can also ignore up to 10 points of damage from a non-magical attack. (assuming it's not an attack of opportunity).
If you can't touch or otherwise interact with them why is the DR needed?
The effect you're wanting to ascribe to the spell makes the actual effects of the spell superfluous.
The DR clarifies 2 things:
1. Magic items and spells can still affect the Sylph.2. Only 10 points of damage can be ignored. If the sylph suffers a hit greater than 10 points, she takes the remainder of the damage. (This is only a first level spell after all).
|
|
Now you are outright lying by intentional omission, which offers zero support to your viewpoint, the exact opposite of support actually.
It outright says "1d6 points of FIRE DAMAGE". That is not fluff. Fire damage is very much a thing in-game and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and makes you look rather ridiculous.
yes I am lying by intentional omission.
As is anyone who interprets Windy Escape as not making the player vaporous and insubstantial.
You don't pick and choose what parts of the spell description count and which don't.
The Spell does make the user vaporous and insubstantial.
Now define that in game terms.
Vaporous - Having the form or characteristics of vapor.
Insubstantial - a : lacking substance or material nature
b : lacking firmness or solidity : flimsySo by definition during the execution of the spell the Sylph is not solid. You can touch the gas, but like touching any gas you as the toucher would feel nothing. you cannot slap gas. You cannot grab gas. You cannot wrestle gas. You cannot hold gas. You cannot tickle gas. you cannot spank gas. You cannot hold gas's hand.
The player can also ignore up to 10 points of damage from a non-magical attack. (assuming it's not an attack of opportunity).
If you can't touch or otherwise interact with them why is the DR needed?
The effect you're wanting to ascribe to the spell makes the actual effects of the spell superfluous.
The DR clarifies 2 things:
1. Magic items and spells can still affect the Sylph.
2. Only 10 points of damage can be ignored. If the sylph suffers a hit greater than 10 points, she takes the remainder of the damage. (This is only a first level spell after all).
So you can still interact with the person, they are not untouchable.
So you can still interact with the person, they are not untouchable.
Now you are outright lying by intentional omission, which offers zero support to your viewpoint, the exact opposite of support actually.
It outright says "1d6 points of FIRE DAMAGE". That is not fluff. Fire damage is very much a thing in-game and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and makes you look rather ridiculous.
yes I am lying by intentional omission.
As is anyone who interprets Windy Escape as not making the player vaporous and insubstantial.
You don't pick and choose what parts of the spell description count and which don't.
The Spell does make the user vaporous and insubstantial.
Now define that in game terms.
Vaporous - Having the form or characteristics of vapor.
Insubstantial - a : lacking substance or material nature
b : lacking firmness or solidity : flimsySo by definition during the execution of the spell the Sylph is not solid. You can touch the gas, but like touching any gas you as the toucher would feel nothing. you cannot slap gas. You cannot grab gas. You cannot wrestle gas. You cannot hold gas. You cannot tickle gas. you cannot spank gas. You cannot hold gas's hand.
The player can also ignore up to 10 points of damage from a non-magical attack. (assuming it's not an attack of opportunity).
If you can't touch or otherwise interact with them why is the DR needed?
The effect you're wanting to ascribe to the spell makes the actual effects of the spell superfluous.
The DR clarifies 2 things:
1. Magic items and spells can still affect the Sylph.
2. Only 10 points of damage can be ignored. If the sylph suffers a hit greater than 10 points, she takes the remainder of the damage. (This is only a first level spell after all).
As I mentioned above, you can touch a gas, you just can't grab it.
You can interact with it in the following ways following the rules of DR:#1. Magic allows you to interact. (A magical sword or spell).
#2. A hit which would cause more than 10 HP of damage.
#3. Spell like abilities.
#4. energy attacks.
Grapple meets none of those conditions. So it does not by itself overcome the DR, nor the spell's effect of making the sylph vaporous and insubstantial.
As a side note- I believe the primary motive in using DR 10/magic is to make this spell more comparable with other 1st level spells. If there was no DR 10/magic this spell would be seriously cool, allowing you to completely avoid any melee attack, and many spell effects. The "magic" part limits the sylph so they aren't using this against spells or magic weapons, and the DR 10 part prohibits a 1st level Slyph from taking a hit with a battle-ax from a 20th level barbarian and being able to ignore it.
In game play I would throw out a couple possible reasons why they take damage over 10 points (though these are all just conjecture as the spell description really doesn't say why):
#1. A hit over 10 HP worth of damage is considered to be so disruptive it disrupts the insubstantial form of the Sylph. (Like swinging a bat through a smoke could, it leaves a trail).
Or
#2. A hit over 10 HP of damage is considered to be so solid and centered that the sylph is insubstatial for part of the swing, but not the rest.
|
Well many of the ARG races are overpowered, this spell isn't particularly overpowered. It's one DR 10, for 1 attack, 1 spell slot. It's no more unbalancing than True Strike or Sheild. If anything Shield is more powerful as it lasts longer.
And again I don't see how you can dismiss the first sentance of a spell description as "fluff text". It says what the spell does, anything else is game mechanics.By the logic of "fluff text" -
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.Well it's just fluff that it's fire and explosion! What it really does it 1d6 per caster level, so ignore all the rest...
Show me the game mechanic part in:
You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you.
The game mechanic is:
You gain DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack.
Well many of the ARG races are overpowered, this spell isn't particularly overpowered. It's one DR 10, for 1 attack, 1 spell slot. It's no more unbalancing than True Strike or Sheild. If anything Shield is more powerful as it lasts longer.
And again I don't see how you can dismiss the first sentance of a spell description as "fluff text". It says what the spell does, anything else is game mechanics.By the logic of "fluff text" -
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.Well it's just fluff that it's fire and explosion! What it really does it 1d6 per caster level, so ignore all the rest...
Show me the game mechanic part in:
You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you.The game mechanic is:
You gain DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack.
Right. I said that. DR 10/magic is the game mechanic used. It doesn't remove the part about vaporous and insubstantial. Which by definition can't be grabbed by normal means.
|
|
Again thank you all for your thoughts.
I can see that it would be a GM call as to weather you can avoid a tentacle from the Evard's black tentacle spell wrapping around your character and giving it a squeeze.
As a player of course I would want for the windy escape to provide my wizard character a chance to either protect or remove himself from that grabby situation. An Evard's black tentacle spell could easily shut down my character almost completely.
As a GM I can understand that the black tentacles since they are conjured magical grabby things could possibly grab the temporarily misty and insubstantial spell caster. From what I understand the spell give you protection from physical non magical attacks but you are still vulnerable to magical attacks.
So to me it seems to be a GM call.
As Kaliel Windstorm points out, you can’t really separate the descriptive text from the text on the game mechanics. I think his interpretation is reasoned out and well thought out
“I remember early in this character's carrier he was grabbed by a reef claw. Apparently the claw was poisoned. I informed the GM that my character would like to use windy escape in response to the reef claw's attack. I passed the GM the Advanced Race guide. After reading the spell, he said, ok you turn insubstantial and the claw closes and passes harmlessly through you....and you don't need to worry about the poison because you are temporarily immune.”
I was playing a PFS game at a convention. The GM had a firm grasp on the rules.
So it seems to me, that with the windy escape spell a non-magical physical attack can pass through you harmlessly (provided it does less then 10 points of damage) and this would include the grab attack from a reef claw, and in my opinion somebody’s grapple attempt.
Evard’s black tentacles seems like a corner case that could be argued either way and would be the GM’s call. However if I were the player in question who’s wizard was being grabbed and grappled, I would hope the...
One of the first posts in this thread already pointed out that the spell, in Pathfinder, is called Black Tentacles.
We are not speaking of the 1st/2nd/3 or 3.5 version, we are speaking of the Pathfinder version.Evard is a copyright character and don't exist in Pathfinder.
You continuous use of the old name show a dubious grasp of the difference between the editions.
|
|
Right. I said that. DR 10/magic is the game mechanic used. It doesn't remove the part about vaporous and insubstantial. Which by definition can't be grabbed by normal means.Well many of the ARG races are overpowered, this spell isn't particularly overpowered. It's one DR 10, for 1 attack, 1 spell slot. It's no more unbalancing than True Strike or Sheild. If anything Shield is more powerful as it lasts longer.
And again I don't see how you can dismiss the first sentance of a spell description as "fluff text". It says what the spell does, anything else is game mechanics.By the logic of "fluff text" -
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.Well it's just fluff that it's fire and explosion! What it really does it 1d6 per caster level, so ignore all the rest...
Show me the game mechanic part in:
You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you.The game mechanic is:
You gain DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack.
But that part has no in game effect. Otherwise I could ready a gust of wind spell for the moment in which you become vaporous and insubstantial and disperse you body over a large area, effectively disintegrating you when you try to reform.
As you see, everyone can invent new powers to existing spells and try to justify them with "logic".
Right. I said that. DR 10/magic is the game mechanic used. It doesn't remove the part about vaporous and insubstantial. Which by definition can't be grabbed by normal means.Well many of the ARG races are overpowered, this spell isn't particularly overpowered. It's one DR 10, for 1 attack, 1 spell slot. It's no more unbalancing than True Strike or Sheild. If anything Shield is more powerful as it lasts longer.
And again I don't see how you can dismiss the first sentance of a spell description as "fluff text". It says what the spell does, anything else is game mechanics.By the logic of "fluff text" -
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.Well it's just fluff that it's fire and explosion! What it really does it 1d6 per caster level, so ignore all the rest...
Show me the game mechanic part in:
You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you.The game mechanic is:
You gain DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack.But that part has no in game effect. Otherwise I could ready a gust of wind spell for the moment in which you become vaporous and insubstantial and disperse you body over a large area, effectively disintegrating you when you try to reform.
As you see, everyone can invent new powers to existing spells and try to justify them with "logic".
You seem to be picking and choosing what aspects of the spell have in-game effect.
Are you are asking if you could have a ready-action to cast Gust of Wind at a player on the chance that they might cast Windy Escape?
Honestly I don't see why you couldn't. You would have to win initiative over the Sylph, ready your action of gust of wind, make a spellcraft check to identify the spell being cast, and then hope that the Sylph does cast that and you don't lose your action, but sure.
As there's no clear rule clarifying the consequences of this damage would be up to the DM, but sure.
And I'm not inventing anything, I'm explaining how the spell works.
But that part has no in game effect. Otherwise I could ready a gust of wind spell for the moment in which you become vaporous and insubstantial and disperse you body over a large area, effectively disintegrating you when you try to reform.
As you see, everyone can invent new powers to existing spells and try to justify them with "logic".
Why couldn't you ready a Gust of Wind? It's a standard action to cast, it should work as normal.
I don't know where you're getting the notion that Gust of Wind disintegrates gases, though. The spell plainly states that gases and vapors are pushed to the edge of it's range.
I guess I don't see how even if you assume that the only benefit is DR 10/magic that the use of windy escape wouldn't allow you to escape the grasp of the black tentacles. Grapple normally doesn't do damage and in the case of the black tentacles, it does 1d6+4 which isn't enough, so I would let windy escape work as described both in the fluff part if that's what you want to call it, and in the game mechanics part. Both have you free and clear. Obviously you're not moving as this isn't gaseous form, you're just turning wispy for to a brief moment to let the attack pass you by. Sure if the damage were more than 10, or a magic attack you're not immune. But for this case it seems pretty clear.
I guess I don't see how even if you assume that the only benefit is DR 10/magic that the use of windy escape wouldn't allow you to escape the grasp of the black tentacles. Grapple normally doesn't do damage and in the case of the black tentacles, it does 1d6+4 which isn't enough, so I would let windy escape work as described both in the fluff part if that's what you want to call it, and in the game mechanics part. Both have you free and clear. Obviously you're not moving as this isn't gaseous form, you're just turning wispy for to a brief moment to let the attack pass you by. Sure if the damage were more than 10, or a magic attack you're not immune. But for this case it seems pretty clear.
It's the DR 10 / Magic part that would allow the tentacles to work.
The numerical part of a creature's damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction (see Overcoming DR). This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even non-magical fire) ignore damage reduction.
Thus since Windy Escape is DR/10 Magic, magic (such as the spell) overcomes the DR.
And at most the tentacles can do 10, so completely negated by the DR and as such I'm not sure that I would say that you'd take on the grappled condition from it.
The issue isn't the amount of damage, the issue is that it's a spell.
'Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even non-magical fire) ignore damage reduction.'
So windy escape does not work against a spell.
And at most the tentacles can do 10, so completely negated by the DR and as such I'm not sure that I would say that you'd take on the grappled condition from it.
In the case of Black Tentacles the damage is dealt after being grappled.
You can grapple a creature with DR 10/Magic. What you can't do is cause physical damage to that creature with a non-magical source unless you exceed 10 points of damage. So I don't think the DR 10/Magic really has anything to do with this.
What I'm saying is you're subject to getting grappled, regardless. So just be thankful the spell cast was Black Tentacles and not Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion.
|
As an example here's Gaseous form:
The subject and all its gear become insubstantial, misty, and translucent. Its material armor (including natural armor) becomes worthless, though its size, Dexterity, deflection bonuses, and armor bonuses from force effects still apply. The subject gains DR 10/magic and becomes immune to poison, sneak attacks, and critical hits.
I don't think anyone would claim that gaseous form only grants DR 10/magic and immune to poison, sneak attacks, and critical hits.
Based on this description, would you argue that you can grapple someone in gaseous form?
Windy escape is like a 1 attack long version of gaseous form.
I'm inclined to agree with Windstorm. We never got a FAQ on Gaseous Form vs. Grapple, but we did get SKR saying <use your dang heads idjits!> (scroll down to Ravingdork's post, which has a linky)
<>= heavily paraphrased quotations marks which may or may not represent SKR intent. :P
|
|
But that part has no in game effect. Otherwise I could ready a gust of wind spell for the moment in which you become vaporous and insubstantial and disperse you body over a large area, effectively disintegrating you when you try to reform.
As you see, everyone can invent new powers to existing spells and try to justify them with "logic".
Why couldn't you ready a Gust of Wind? It's a standard action to cast, it should work as normal.
I don't know where you're getting the notion that Gust of Wind disintegrates gases, though. The spell plainly states that gases and vapors are pushed to the edge of it's range.
In the same location where Kaliel Windstorm "find" the notion that Windy escape or being an air elemental make you immune to a grapple attempt.
I.e. it is made completely of dream stuff.I was simply showing what is the result of attempting to apply RL logic to the game.
Kaliel Windstorm feel that,in game, a gaseous creature can't be grappled (and that being gaseous is sufficient, you don't need extra text like in gaseous form). By the same kind of logic if you are subject to a Gust of wind wile in gaseous form your molecules are dispersed on a wide area. When you reform your body is a myriad of small pieces dispersed in a volume of several cubic meters. Something that would dismember you.
|
|
As an example here's Gaseous form:
The subject and all its gear become insubstantial, misty, and translucent. Its material armor (including natural armor) becomes worthless, though its size, Dexterity, deflection bonuses, and armor bonuses from force effects still apply. The subject gains DR 10/magic and becomes immune to poison, sneak attacks, and critical hits.
I don't think anyone would claim that gaseous form only grants DR 10/magic and immune to poison, sneak attacks, and critical hits.
Based on this description, would you argue that you can grapple someone in gaseous form?
Windy escape is like a 1 attack long version of gaseous form.
I'm inclined to agree with Windstorm. We never got a FAQ on Gaseous Form vs. Grapple, but we did get SKR saying <use your dang heads idjits!> (scroll down to Ravingdork's post, which has a linky)
<>= heavily paraphrased quotations marks which may or may not represent SKR intent. :P
A centipede or similarly shaped creature can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, but can also be grappled. I fear it is much the same with gaseous form.A centipede is not a gas. You can't grapple a gaseous creature, that's obvious and we shouldn't need to state that in the rules. If a gaseous creature can slip through any crack because it's gaseous, it can easily slip through the gaps between your fingers or arms.
As already said:
A gaseous creature can't run, but it can fly at a speed of 10 feet and automatically succeeds on all Fly skill checks. It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists.
Exactly what SKR cited.
Try to find the same text in Windy escape. It don't exist. Ergo you don't benefit from the ability to escape a grapple.
Okay you guys win. Grapples magically overcome Windy Escape in your worlds.
Yaaaaaay.
For the rest of us I stick by my original opinion, you can't grapple something vaporous, to ignore that is to pick and tweak and choose what you want out of the rule while ignoring the intent of the spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Windy Escape does not make you gaseous long enough to avoid the grapple. The grapple attempt is not a brief enough attack.
Gaseous Form does not say it prevents grapples either, so I would say you can still be grappled. My reasoning would be that while a creature in such form can fit through small holes and cracks and should have an easier time avoiding grapples, the form still has to remain contiguous. Since it cannot separate to avoid a grab, it is solid enough to grab.
Okay you guys win. Grapples magically overcome Windy Escape in your worlds.
Yaaaaaay.For the rest of us I stick by my original opinion, you can't grapple something vaporous, to ignore that is to pick and tweak and choose what you want out of the rule while ignoring the intent of the spell.
Let's take a better counterexample.
A Life Oracle has the Energy Body ability.
The first sentence reads:
As a standard action, you can transform your body into pure life energy, resembling a golden-white fire elemental.
I am now a being of pure energy, with no substance. So it is obvious I can pass through other creatures, cannot be grappled, and so forth.
And yet a few sentences later on,
If you grapple or attack an undead creature using unarmed strikes or natural weapons, you may deal this damage in place of the normal damage for the attack.
Wait a minute! I'm a being of pure energy! I have no substance! I therefore cannot grapple nor be grappled! It is inconceivable to me that the rules have such an obvious contradiction!
Unless... the part about being a creature of "pure energy" is just fluff...
And in case you want to argue that a creature of pure energy can still engulf a physical being, the rules on grappling another creature are VERY clear:
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe... If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition...
And
A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity.
So in my mind I'm made of pure energy, and therefore insubstantial and able to pass through other creatures, but the rules say I am now grappled and cannot move away from this undead abomination. What gives?
Therein lies the problem with interpreting lines of flavor text from the book that have no well-defined terms (neither "vaporous" nor "insubstantial" are defined in Pathfinder rules): That flavor text is open to interpretation, and can easily lead to out-and-out contradictions.
As I mentioned far, far upstream, I think it is indeed a GM call, and I'd go with a reefclaw failing (hit did no damage = grab fails), but black tentacles working (magic).
|
|
I am not GMing a game with a sylph in it and I have not played a Sylph.
I think that at the time the spell was written, Windy Escape was meant to escape from a grapple. It has near identical wording to the spell that SKR said OBVIOUSLY (so obviously he refused to write a FAQ) let you escape from a grapple. He basically said, "You can't decide what is flavor text and what isn't. Just read what the spell says." Windy escape says, "You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial," and then proceeds to say basically exactly what gaseous form says. So since you are insubstantial, you escape the grapple.
That said:
(1) SKR is no longer a dev. Maybe times have changed. Maybe the current devs want to have obvious flavor text with no rules impact. Maybe this will get erratad, especially considering my second point:
(2) (The main reason people object to this, even if they don't say so.) This makes windy escape pretty damn powerful. It is a 1st level immediate action spell that is pretty much more powerful than some 4th level spells. It's like a lvl 1 emergency force sphere, and people think EFS is overpowered even though it is 4th level.
(3) This is obviously coming to a head now that Sylphs are PFS legal (and not a once-in-a-blue-moon-boon.) So people have more at stake in their arguments.
Windy Escape does not make you gaseous long enough to avoid the grapple. The grapple attempt is not a brief enough attack.
I was about to say this. Windy Escape is a quick effect that lets one attack through, the length of time it takes a blade to slice through you or an arrow to shoot through you. It doesn't help against a second such attack in teh same round.
A grapple isn't a quick punch that if it lands initiates a grapple. It's an extended attempt to, well, grapple (violently hug) someone. A brief instant of gaseousness isn't going to make you slip through and blow your chance for the entire round.
|
|
Windy Escape does not make you gaseous long enough to avoid the grapple. The grapple attempt is not a brief enough attack.
Gaseous Form does not say it prevents grapples either, so I would say you can still be grappled. My reasoning would be that while a creature in such form can fit through small holes and cracks and should have an easier time avoiding grapples, the form still has to remain contiguous. Since it cannot separate to avoid a grab, it is solid enough to grab.
In our games we've ruled that the only way to grapple a gas is by way of the Smother (Ex) ability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently the paizo game designers should note in their spells things like
NOTE - YOU CANNOT GRAPPLE AIR.
NOTE - YOU CANNNOT SEE INVISIBLE THINGS
NOTE - FIRE IS HOT
NOTE - WATER IS WET
NOTE - Just because this spell doesn't explicitly say that the caster is not immune to fireballs when casting this spell doesn't mean he is immune when casting this spell.
This weird mentality that grapple somehow ignores all the rules for attacks and that the first sentance in a spell description should be ignored is just mind numbing.
I'm out people.
Ah, well. I guess I shouldn't mention Circle of Death's first sentence then, should I?
Circle of death snuffs out the life force of living creatures, killing them instantly.
Since there are no conditions on the first sentence, I guess that makes it the most powerful 6th-level spell in the game...
Facetiousness aside, I think that's the point that many are trying to make: Both Circle of Death and Windy Escape describe very powerful effects in their first sentences. Both have additional verbiage that describe how those effects work in game terms.
If you want to say, "Well, the first sentence of Circle of Death is obviously fluff and has no game effect, whereas the first sentence of Windy Escape is obviously intended to provide in-game benefits," then I have to ask, "Obvious to whom?"
|
Apparently the paizo game designers should note in their spells things like......rules. Which is what this forum is about.
All that speculation up thread? Perfectly reasonable rulings.
But not rules.
At what point do "obvious" realities (such as the inability to grapple air) need to be put in print?
Do we really need to have the discussion about decapitated PCs remaining active, again?
|
At what point do "obvious" realities (such as the inability to grapple air) need to be put in print?
You're not grappling air. You're grappling a creature that for an instant isn't solid.
And to answer your idiotic question, when the author wants to claim that such things are 'rules' instead of 'rulings'.
|
|
I just realised I have been playing Cause Fear wrong all this time. I mean as the Spell says
"The affected creature becomes frightened. If the subject succeeds on a Will save, it is shaken for 1 round. Creatures with 6 or more HD are immune to this effect. Cause fear counters and dispels remove fear."
I would certainly think if you pass your save and become shaken that you have been affected by the spell and well, as the first sentence says, the affected creature becomes frightened. So now whether you pass or fail your save you flee from the caster. Gotta love those OP level 1 spells.
The selective reasoning/rules lawyering and trying to squeeze every ounce of power out of abilities in this game, especially in PFS where it is totally unnecessary due to power levels of characters vs scenarios, is beginning to ruin the game for me.
|
|
At what point do "obvious" realities (such as the inability to grapple air) need to be put in print?You're not grappling air. You're grappling a creature that for an instant isn't solid.
And to answer your
idioticquestion, when the author wants to claim that such things are 'rules' instead of 'rulings'.
How many actions can a dead character perform?
Do we really need to go there?
|
|
I think what I like most about SKR's comment is its anti-"RAW" quality.
There are some ridiculous arguments out there that throw out all common sense ("decapitation doesn't kill you so long as you still have HP").
It's nice to know that the Developers similarly think that such ridiculous ideas don't need to be mentioned in print.
It's sad to know that many players need them to be.
|
|
"Obvious to whom?"
SKR evidently.
Seriously, please read previous dev quotes on this.
They all point toward windy escape escaping a grapple. Now, granted, these are quotes by a now former dev--and who knows what current devs think. Pretending that the first sentence of the spell description is all fluff and should therefore be ignored, however, is disingenuous.