|
Fair, I guess it's a question of how much this would change existing wording. Presumably if the intent was that Spiritual Weapon should be usable multiple times, they'll have to add wording there. It's probably a question of what they expect "the norm" to be for spells in the future.I fail to see how sustaining dancing lights multiple times breaks anything fundamental.Still might be a good idea to future proof things. All it would take is a metamagic feat or similar ability that made light spells into burning spells or something, then suddenly how often you can sustain can really matter.
Spiritual Weapons existing wording is fine. Flaming Sphere is the one that breaks template. They might opt to reword it to make it more explicit, but I don't feel its needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spiritual Weapons existing wording is fine. Flaming Sphere is the one that breaks template. They might opt to reword it to make it more explicit, but I don't feel its needed.Fair, I guess it's a question of how much this would change existing wording. Presumably if the intent was that Spiritual Weapon should be usable multiple times, they'll have to add wording there. It's probably a question of what they expect "the norm" to be for spells in the future.I fail to see how sustaining dancing lights multiple times breaks anything fundamental.Still might be a good idea to future proof things. All it would take is a metamagic feat or similar ability that made light spells into burning spells or something, then suddenly how often you can sustain can really matter.
Actually no, Flaming Sphere is not the one that breaks the mold, and requires no additional text.
Sustain a Spell is missing the following addition to its entry according to what we can infer from Mark:
“You can only sustain an instance of a spell once per round.”
Where instance is a spell that was cast. Thus, if you cast a Hex and flaming sphere you can sustain both provided you have the actions to do so.
You could also, since it is an instance and not in general, cast two flaming spheres and sustain each of them separately (again, provided you have the actions to do so)
Then spells like Spectral Weapon need an additional line or a new trait that says “you can sustain this spell multiple times in a single round”.
It's the most intuitive and balanced way to read what was provided and it means no fundamentals really have to change to support it (we were already under the assumption you could sustain two different things in a given round, due to Bards and Witches).
It is intuitive to me, but that's because I'm a programmer. In my experience the concept of "instances" as used here is very confusing for many people. I think a more verbose explanation would be required.“You can only sustain an instance of a spell once per round.”
Where instance is a spell that was cast...
I am of the same mind, but you could probably just replace "instance" with "casting" to satisfy that need:
"You can only sustain a given spell that that has been cast once per round. You can sustain separate castings of the same spell, provided you have the actions available."
The second line would suffice to provide the clarification necessary I think, but the syntax guru's at Paizo might have a more concise way to word it.
Proposed fix:
Add "A creature may only take damage from a sustained Flaming Sphere spell up to once per round maximum."
That meets half-way. Lot's of flexibility, lots of damage, but must be "horizontalized".
Cheers.
Rainzax, normally love anything you write, but this doesn't work for several reasons to me.
For starters, it means that if I were to cast two Flaming Sphere's, which should be treated no differently than two entirely separate spells, that as written this would mean I can't send both spheres at the same target.
If you replaced the second Flaming Sphere with a completely different spell, power wise, it would then be more effective.
I do not have a problem with someone casting Flaming Sphere on Round 1, sustaining it on Round 2, Casting a second Flaming Sphere on Round 2, and then sustaining both Flaming Sphere's on Round 3 to target the same enemy.
My reasoning is that if I had cast any other spell in place of Flaming Sphere in Round 2, that spell would have retained it's full value. Thus we are punishing repeated casts, when any other repeated cast spell without a Sustain action, would not be any less effective.
Flaming Sphere, in my opinion, doesn't need any changes. Sustain a Spell needs clarification (it needs this in general) and Spectral Weapon needs additional text for specificity to override the default rule for Sustain.
You shouldn't be able to Sustain a Spell on Personal Blizzard (Witch Hex) multiple times a round either (effectively triggering damage multiple times) or any other variation of multiple sustains that could come in the future.
And in the case of the above change to Sustain a spell, the added text is not necessary for Flaming Sphere.
I gave an example of another spell in the description, personal blizzard.
But it applies to any spell that can be sustained. Another one, depending on how you want to read Summon spells, currently is only limited to two actions for one sustain because of the minion trait, now directly prevents sustaining twice at all on a summon (which would be a waste of an action).
For instance, what about illusory creature? It’s not an actual creature, just an illusion, which makes the minion trait potentially not apply. And since it’s not explicitly summoned, it’s not a minion as far as I can tell.
What about Impaling Briars? It says each round you can sustain the spell to achieve one of the below effects, it doesn’t specify you can’t sustain more than once, and that would allow you to get all three at once which is antithetical.
Then there’s Storm of Vengeance which has to outright state the first time you sustain a spell each round, which implies you can sustain it more than once but with no effect.
The game seems to assume that generally, be default, you should only be sustaining a specific casting of a spell once per round, and that Spectral Weapon and Blink are exceptions to the general premise.
Even in the case of spells that can be sustained twice but with no effect, why would the rules want to allow what amounts to the waste of an action (like Storm of Vengeance or Summoned monsters).
For instance, what about illusory creature? It’s not an actual creature, just an illusion, which makes the minion trait potentially not apply. And since it’s not explicitly summoned, it’s not a minion as far as I can tell.
Hmm, illusory creature is not a Minion, but does behave exactly like one.
In combat, the illusion can use 2 actions per turn, which it
uses when you Sustain the Spell. It uses your spell attack roll
for attack rolls and your spell DC for its AC. Its saving throw
modifiers are equal to your spell DC – 10. It is substantial
enough that it can flank other creatures. If the image is hit by
an attack or fails a save, the spell ends.
I'm not sure why they would go out of their way to not include the Minion trait if they want it to behave like one. Perhaps to avoid Illusionary creature from "Defending itself" on turns where you didn't sustain the spell to command it? But if you didn't sustain the spell, then it would end so that feels like a moot point.
This ambiguity also makes it seem that an illusory creature could use reactions whereas standard minions like summons or animal companions cannot. I doubt very highly that this is the intention, but that is the risk you take when you try to word something to operate like something else but be different.
To be very clear, I don't think Illusory Creatures can use reactions, just pointing out that since they aren't minions they don't have the "and can't use reactions" part of the trait. In all other ways they seem to operate exactly like minions which is.. confusing.
For instance, what about illusory creature? It’s not an actual creature, just an illusion, which makes the minion trait potentially not apply. And since it’s not explicitly summoned, it’s not a minion as far as I can tell.
Hmm, illusory creature is not a Minion, but does behave exactly like one.
In combat, the illusion can use 2 actions per turn, which it
uses when you Sustain the Spell. It uses your spell attack roll
for attack rolls and your spell DC for its AC. Its saving throw
modifiers are equal to your spell DC – 10. It is substantial
enough that it can flank other creatures. If the image is hit by
an attack or fails a save, the spell ends.I'm not sure why they would go out of their way to not include the Minion trait if they want it to behave like one. Perhaps to avoid Illusionary creature from "Defending itself" on turns where you didn't sustain the spell to command it? But if you didn't sustain the spell, then it would end so that feels like a moot point.
This ambiguity also makes it seem that an illusory creature could use reactions whereas standard minions like summons or animal companions cannot. I doubt very highly that this is the intention, but that is the risk you take when you try to word something to operate like something else but be different.
To be very clear, I don't think Illusory Creatures can use reactions, just pointing out that since they aren't minions they don't have the "and can't use reactions" part of the trait. In all other ways they seem to operate exactly like minions which is.. confusing.
Technically I don’t think it has reactions, since it’s not a creature at all.
But this is just why I further think the rules are written with what mark previously stated in mind.
It’s not so much a “change” as it is filling in the obvious blank space, since a lot of spells operate under that assumption already. But that’s me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Proposed fix:
Add "A creature may only take damage from a sustained Flaming Sphere spell up to once per round maximum."
That meets half-way. Lot's of flexibility, lots of damage, but must be "horizontalized".
Cheers.
Rainzax, normally love anything you write, but this doesn't work for several reasons to me.
For starters, it means that if I were to cast two Flaming Sphere's, which should be treated no differently than two entirely separate spells, that as written this would mean I can't send both spheres at the same target.
Thanks! And likewise!
And one more try:
Add "A creature may only take damage from a sustained Flaming Sphere spell up to once per round per casting maximum."
italics added
Proposed fix:
Add "A creature may only take damage from a sustained Flaming Sphere spell up to once per round maximum."
That meets half-way. Lot's of flexibility, lots of damage, but must be "horizontalized".
Cheers.
Rainzax, normally love anything you write, but this doesn't work for several reasons to me.
For starters, it means that if I were to cast two Flaming Sphere's, which should be treated no differently than two entirely separate spells, that as written this would mean I can't send both spheres at the same target.
Thanks! And likewise!
And one more try:
Add "A creature may only take damage from a sustained Flaming Sphere spell up to once per round per casting maximum."
italics added
"A single flaming sphere may only deal damage creatures once per round with sustain actions."
It bothers me that it’s essily intuited when you’ve got the idea of “instance” but in order to write a concise and clearly strict rule it ends up sounding overly complex.