| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything is happening simultaneously - if you chose to move the sphere, it is moving away at roughly the same time the person enters the square, so they either aren't in contact at all, or at least not for long enough to take damage.
I know I used tohave them take the damage for entering the square but I could see it igther way with how it's worded.
Yeah it seems like it works more like implosion. Where you just choose a target for it every round. I will probably continue to treat it like it used to be in my home games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've asked this before, more or less.
When you sustain a flaming sphere and move it to a new square, does it damage everything in its path, or just those things in the end square in which it stops?
I think you already know the answer, or at least could determine it if you consider it's a 2nd level spell, therefore not something comparable to a moving Wall of Fire.
It generally helps to read spells literally and don't apply logic to them - it states that it rolls to a square like the square it started in and does damage. It doesn't specify that it does damage along the way so it probably doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on the specific issues I want addressed in this thread?The enemy takes no damage.
Everyone so far has addressed the issues, but then you choose to interpret those answers as being unrelated.
Everyone so far has addressed the issues, but then you choose to interpret those answers as being unrelated.Could you please give your thoughts on whether you feel Pathfinder 2 offering a quite different spell compared to classic spheres of flame?
No. It's a new edition. Sometimes that means details of spells change too. Check out Detect Magic.
Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on the specific issues I want addressed in this thread?The enemy takes no damage.
Which one?
Basically, how the spell is described as creating a sphere of flame with no language pertinent to its differences compared to classic versions of the spell.
The actual spell description is pretty close to how it was previously described. For instance, in AD&D: "A flaming sphere spell creates a burning globe of fire within 10 yards of the caster"
Yet, previously the spell was continuous, now it is... intermittent, is that a good characterization?Do you feel the spell's description should have been altered to better match its (new) mechanics?
It seems to fit well enough. Think like this. It's a small sphere of flames, you can direct it to an opponent but outside of that the opponent can dodge without much trouble since it isn't large enough.
At least that's my take on it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I view it as, the s phere isn't hte size of the entiresquare. So if you are not controlling it (sustaining) it to actually attack someone then its just sitting there. Which means someone can enter the area and still avoid touching, sure you'll feel heat but not enough for functional damage.Or, you could picture it as sort of pinballing around at everyone in a square upon appearance or Sustain, otherwise it just sits there.Or... crazy idea here...
the spell description could actually give us a picture and save us from guessing...!
Radical, I know.
;)
The PF1 spell description doesn't really define the flaming sphere very well either. I think that most people are imagining the Diablo II human-sized ball of rock and magma. The original spell says that it is a 5-foot sphere in area and has a spongy surface. So it could be assumed that it is a 5 foot diameter sphere of sponge that is on fire. It could also be ruled that the 5-foot diameter is the area of effect, not the actual size of the sphere.
Also, I don't see anywhere in the original spell that prevents characters from moving through the area occupied by the flaming sphere. Or where it says that anyone who does so takes damage for being in the same space.
Some of the mechanics changed slightly between the two versions in order to handle the new mechanics of sustaining a spell. It gained the ability to move the sphere through or past other creatures (it originally had to stop once it entered the square of the first creature it encountered).
So why does it need a new name and description for effectively the same spell.
The spell creates a ball of flame of indeterminate size that has a one-5-foot-square area of effect. It can be moved to one other location within the spell's range (up to 30 ft) and deals damage to a character in that location. A successful reflex save negates that damage entirely. The flaming sphere does not do any physical damage, nor can it prevent characters from moving through the area it currently occupies. Nor can it move or push other creatures.
Now, which version of the spell did I just describe?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Care to explain why you engage in a thread just to say you won't engage in the thread?
No.
I answered your question. I can't give any thoughts on whether I feel P2 gave a different spell compared to classic (whatever that is, I presume P1). I even said why but you clipped that from your quote.
I engaged. You just didn't like my answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to fit well enough. Think like this. It's a small sphere of flames, you can direct it to an opponent but outside of that the opponent can dodge without much trouble since it isn't large enough.
At least that's my take on it.Thanks.
Yes, it's not that I can't make it work.
It's just strange that Paizo didn't opt to include a minimal amount of descriptive text to flag "this isn't your grandfather's Flaming Sphere".
But it's exactly the same... The only difference i can see between the two spells(Pf1 version and pf2 version) now is that before it stopped on the first guy who touched it and now it can go through creatures before stopping where you ask it to... Before it also did not do damage as you passed inside it... I am confused. Is that you misinterpreted the spell all along?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Care to explain why you engage in a thread just to say you won't engage in the thread?
No.I answered your question. I can't give any thoughts on whether I feel P2 gave a different spell compared to classic (whatever that is, I presume P1). I even said why but you clipped that from your quote.
I engaged. You just didn't like my answer.
That's pretty par the course, really.
That's pretty par the course, really.Care to explain why you engage in a thread just to say you won't engage in the thread?
No.I answered your question. I can't give any thoughts on whether I feel P2 gave a different spell compared to classic (whatever that is, I presume P1). I even said why but you clipped that from your quote.
I engaged. You just didn't like my answer.
The OP has a habit of asking for input then reframing any input that they don't like as being irrelevant, I don't know why I bother engaging with their posts anymore.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this another "Zapp says rules are unclear/badly written, everybody else tells them that they aren't, Zapp ignores every interpretation that doesn't support their view" thread, a bit like that Stealth one?
Asking for a friend.
The only difference i can see between the two spellsFlaming Sphere used to create a, wait for it, flaming sphere 5 ft.
Rules language back then wasn't as well developed, so you'd simply assume that whenever a flaming sphere rolls through you, or when you willingly run through it, you burn.
Compared to this, the PF2 spell is more akin to... let's see... the glowing, pea-sized bead of Fireball fame, except instead of streaking to a point of impact, it just hangs there in the center of a square, easily avoidable, and causing no worse harm than a cigarette burn even if you don't avoid it.
Then, at select points in time, it flares up, enveloping its square in flames. The bead can move, but still causes no damage just by passing you by. It is only in the square where it first appears (when the spell is cast) and in the square it ends its movement, including no movement (when sustained) there's any damage dealt.
See?
This way the description explains how and why there is no damage except when there is.
The rules are clear. If you have never played a previous game of D&D there's no cause for confusion.
And with a changed description (and maybe even a new spell name) there would be no confusion even for those of us with prior experience! :)
Except not really the way it's described by raw you do not burn if you pass by it in both editions. You may have misunderstood the spell before and now are making the same mistake.
It might been a mistake from your whole table but happens in mine took a while for a player to understand that trip do not need an attack roll before the save. I would recommend instead using raw or rai as you see fit, specially if you are the DM do you think the spell is more interesting dealing damage to the foes that pass by it? Go with that but if you want to play more raw just read what the spell does and it does that... Do not assume just be a use logic applies that it will apply to the game. If it did dragons wouldn't exist.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you feel the spell's description should have been altered to better match its (new) mechanics?
Are it’s mechanics that different? The 5e version allows for people to move through the square and only take damage if they end their turn inside the sphere.
Both the PF1 and 3.0/3.5 descriptions only make mention of making a save or taking damage if the sphere roles into your square - making no mention of what happens if you step into its square.
The 2e version was the last version that explicitly stated anyone who enters the sphere must save or take damage.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does that change the fact the description doesn't match the mechanics?
The description does match the mechanics. The only thing that isn’t accounted for here is your assumption that everyone who comes in contact with the sphere must make a save or take damage. Which is not supported by the rules as written in the last five versions of the game that included this spell.
Why do you insist on just discussing the rules when I've repeatedly stated I have no questions regarding the rules?
Because you presented your argument as involving a discrepancy between the versions of this spell across multiple editions. I cited rules to point out that no such discrepancy exists.
Why don't you instead engage on topic
I am engaging on topic, every other person who replied to you has as well. You created this thread but you aren’t a moderator of it, you do not get to dictate how people engage with the conversation.
provide your feedback on a description like "a floating glowing ember that pulsates with great gouts of flame at (ir)regular intervals"?
Sure: my feedback is that the description you propose is unwarranted because your issue with the spell does not exist. Flaming Sphere in PF2 does what it did in PF1, 5e, 3.5, and 3.0. Your assumption that it did more than what was defined in those editions was unsupported by the rules as written for the last 20 years.
When the rule doesn’t support your headcanon; it isn’t the rule that’s wrong
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like people are jumping down Zapp's throat a little prematurely here. He explained that his question had more to do with the flavor of the spell and how that flavor interacts with the rules rather than the rules themselves and whether this is congruent with how the spell has previously been depicted.
Now, personally I do still feel that the spell is fine as is. In PF1 Flaming Sphere ALSO could not pass through creatures and burn multiple people on it's path. In the description of the old version of the spell it specifically describes how the sphere cannot pass through people and stops it's movement if it passes through someone. This functions exactly the same way except that the language is rearranged a bit so that rather than the sphere "being stopped" by a creature it runs into, you as the caster chose to stop it on a creature and damage that creature.
The visual image of the spell can stay exactly the same as before. It doesn't need to be a pea sized flame that you can make pulse out. It just needs to be small enough (Basketball sized let's say) that enemies slide past it without any issue and it has the sponge-y consistency so it can't pass through people and can hit one person each turn.
If anything this just feels a bit more clear and puts you in control rather than your sphere being stopped by someone else.
The one thing it seems that it CAN now do that it couldn't before is pass by a square without having to hit that person. Before if you were in a 5 foot wide hallway and you wanted to have the sphere move past your Barbarian buddy to hit the monster behind him, you couldn't do that (not RAW at least). Now I can see no reason why you can't. Which makes sense as I can't see why the Barbarian couldn't just sidestep and let the sphere pass. Especially if it is just the size of a Basketball as I have always assumed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like people are jumping down Zapp's throat a little prematurely here. He explained that his question had more to do with the flavor of the spell and how that flavor interacts with the rules rather than the rules themselves and whether this is congruent with how the spell has previously been depicted.
Now, personally I do still feel that the spell is fine as is. In PF1 Flaming Sphere ALSO could not pass through creatures and burn multiple people on it's path. In the description of the old version of the spell it specifically describes how the sphere cannot pass through people and stops it's movement if it passes through someone. This functions exactly the same way except that the language is rearranged a bit so that rather than the sphere "being stopped" by a creature it runs into, you as the caster chose to stop it on a creature and damage that creature.
The visual image of the spell can stay exactly the same as before. It doesn't need to be a pea sized flame that you can make pulse out. It just needs to be small enough (Basketball sized let's say) that enemies slide past it without any issue and it has the sponge-y consistency so it can't pass through people and can hit one person each turn.
If anything this just feels a bit more clear and puts you in control rather than your sphere being stopped by someone else.
The one thing it seems that it CAN now do that it couldn't before is pass by a square without having to hit that person. Before if you were in a 5 foot wide hallway and you wanted to have the sphere move past your Barbarian buddy to hit the monster behind him, you couldn't do that (not RAW at least). Now I can see no reason why you can't. Which makes sense as I can't see why the Barbarian couldn't just sidestep and let the sphere pass. Especially if it is just the size of a Basketball as I have always assumed.
I offered explanations that reconciled the flavour and the OP told me my response wasn't valid. Then after repeated instances of that, yes, I jumped down their throat, though it wasn't premature at all. This is after trying to patiently engage in good faith in multiple similar threads and coming up against the same problem by the way.
I feel like people are jumping down Zapp's throat a little prematurely here. He explained that his question had more to do with the flavor of the spell and how that flavor interacts with the rules rather than the rules themselves and whether this is congruent with how the spell has previously been depicted.No worries.
All I wanted was confirmation on "doesn't the spell warrant a description like [provided]" with a couple of posters ignoring this repeatedly and adamantly missing my point, refusing to see any issue.
They're easy enough to ignore. Thanks for your support :)
The thing is... Most people weren't ignoring they are just putting forward the point of, first it didn't change like you said it did:
It's just strange that Paizo didn't opt to include a minimal amount of descriptive text to flag "this isn't your grandfather's Flaming Sphere".
Thank you.
Had the description changed, or they hadn't reused the exact name as the old spell, there would have been zero issue.
Maybe a few of the posters did go a bit overboard even i did a bit. But still when someone is saying the description does not fit, people go and explain how it fits even better than the text did before and the new mechanics actually seem to fit better than an 5feet sphere... It's a bit hard to put on points when he answers.
Rules language back then wasn't as well developed, so you'd simply assume that whenever a flaming sphere rolls through you, or when you willingly run through it, you burn.Compared to this, the PF2 spell is more akin to... let's see... the glowing, pea-sized bead of Fireball fame, except instead of streaking to a point of impact, it just hangs there in the center of a square, easily avoidable, and causing no worse harm than a cigarette burn even if you don't avoid it.
When someone wants to use their house rules on a discursion he made about rules... Instead of RAW it gets a bit harder to make arguments.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you insist on just discussing the rules when I've repeatedly stated I have no questions regarding the rules?
This is the rules board.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you're entirely correct to suggest that Rules ain't it.
He’s not suggesting that. He’s answering your question about why people kept bringing up the rules. You asked a question about color text by admittedly beginning from the premise that the rules had vastly changed. You then rudely defined anybody who disagreed with your premise as having gone “off topic” so you could dismiss and then chastise them for not following the unpublished rules of your thread.
Also, if this question about the rules of a spell not matching the color text of the spell doesn’t belong in the rules forum, where would it belong?
However, I'm sure this thread is not the first one to experience topic drift
The thing you’re describing as topic drift is not what topic drift is.
You brought up the idea that the rules had changed and asked for “Thoughts.” People gave you thoughts on your initial statements. That IS the topic. People explaining that the rule still worked as it did in previous editions - or that the thing you (again by your own admission) assumed about a previous iteration of the spell was not based on the RAW of the time had not “drifted.”
You waiting more than 10 posts into a thread to reframe the conversation to be about soliciting approval for a change to color text is actually topic drift.