entering a Flaming Sphere?


Rules Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.
You create a sphere of flame in a square within range. The sphere must be supported by a solid surface, such as a stone floor. The sphere deals 3d6 fire damage to each creature in the square where it first appears; each creature must attempt a basic Reflex save. On subsequent rounds, you can Sustain this Spell, leaving the sphere in its square or rolling it to another square within range and dealing 3d6 fire damage; each creature in its square must attempt a basic Reflex save.

There is no language for taking damage at any other time than a) when it first appears or b) when caster Sustains.

If we take this RAW, there's no damage outside the caster's turn - creatures can enter the sphere, exit the sphere and pass by the sphere unharmed.

Also, the sphere does not appear to actually occupy a square - as in, crowding out other creatures. Its quite evident you're meant to be able to stand in the square occupied by the sphere (because that's the only way to barbeque anyone), but this seems to mean you can just walk past it or thru it as if it was just an empty square.

To me, that's not a continuously flaming sphere - it's a spell that flares up a flame on specific occasions but isn't threatening/damaging otherwise.

Compared to classic spheres of flame*, Pathfinder 2 seems to intentionally/deliberately offer a quite different spell.

Thoughts?

*)
https://www.aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Flaming%20Sphere
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flamingSphere.htm
https://vodabois.fi/2eSpells/ (select "Wizard", then "Flaming Sphere")
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Flaming_sphere


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.


Tender Tendrils wrote:
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.

??

You appear not to engage the issue at hand.

If you enter a stationary sphere with a Stride, take an action while there (quaff a Potion, shoot an arrow, anything), and then Stride out again, and you are not harmed, then it is pretty obvious to me the spell is not the same as it used to be.

Also, if the sphere enters your sphere, it can kill you - but won't harm the next monster that steps into that sphere. Only on the enemy caster's turn will the sphere cause any game effect at all.

A spell described as a flaming sphere leads you to believe you take damage on your turn as opposed to only on the caster's turn. If we instead change the description to, say, a floating glowing ember that pulsates with great gouts of flame at (ir)regular intervals but otherwise is safe, we match fluff with crunch much better.

Please state your thoughts on this in your further postings. Thank you :-)


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.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I've asked this before, more or less.

Ravingdork wrote:
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?
Castilliano wrote:
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.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
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.


Possibly, but that's not how I read it. The line, "each creature in it's square must attempt a basic Reflex save" would indicate to me that anyone passing through the square also needs to save. Also, anyone in the square where it remains needs to save if you choose to leave it where it is when you Sustain it.

EDIT: But interpreting it in a more limited way does actually make sense since it's only a second level spell


Thank you but please note:

- I am not disputing that per RAW the spell doesn't dish out damage "continuously"
- I am not discussing timing issues
- I am not questioning the power of a 2nd level spell
- I am not asking for advice on how to homebrew the spell's mechanical effects

I AM questioning the wisdom in reusing a same name and general fluff for a spell that's functionally quite different. I AM asking y'all what you think about the practice of repurposing classic spells for new functionality. I AM not satisfied with the disconnect in how the spell is described ("fluff") and how it performs ("crunch").

Finally, would you say it would be helpful to tell my players the following description suits the mechanics better: "a floating glowing ember that pulsates with great gouts of flame at (ir)regular intervals"?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

@Zapp

Your OP ended with the completely open-ended, "Thoughts?", so I don't think you should be surprised to get responses that are not perfectly in line with your requirements.


mrspaghetti wrote:

@Zapp

Your OP ended with the completely open-ended, "Thoughts?", so I don't think you should be surprised to get responses that are not perfectly in line with your requirements.

That's why I thank the respondents but at the same time clarify what specific thoughts I would like feedback on.


The enemy takes no damage.

Quote:
You raise a blazing wall that burns creatures passing through it. You create either a 5-foot-thick wall of flame in a straight line up to 60 feet long and 10 feet high, or a 5-foot-thick, 10-foot-radius ring of flame with the same height. The wall stands vertically in either form; if you wish, the wall can be of a shorter length or height. Everything on each side of the wall is concealed from creatures on the opposite side. Any creature that crosses the wall or is occupying the wall's area at the start of its turn takes 4d6 fire damage.

This is from wall of fire.

Check for the last part so you can see the difference between the 2 spells.

The intent is to give a damaging Ball which deals damage on its turn.

If you want a wall of fire, you cast a wall of fire (higher lvl spell).


K1 wrote:

The enemy takes no damage.

Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on the specific issues I want addressed in this thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
K1 wrote:

The enemy takes no damage.

Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on the specific issues I want addressed in this thread?

Everyone so far has addressed the issues, but then you choose to interpret those answers as being unrelated.


Zapp wrote:
K1 wrote:

The enemy takes no damage.

Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on the specific issues I want addressed in this thread?

Which one?

The sphere deals dmg on the caster turn once moved,if moved, or when it appears.

The sphere is not a physical object, so you can pass through it without taking dmg.

It deals no dmg while moving, because it says it deal dmg on its square.


Tender Tendrils wrote:
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?

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah based on the rules I am going to just interpret this as a small ball of fire that flares up when the conditions are met. It can otherwise be avoided as a 5’ square is a big place.


K1 wrote:
Zapp wrote:
K1 wrote:

The enemy takes no damage.

Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on the specific issues I want addressed in this thread?

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?


Zapp wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
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.


Zapp wrote:
K1 wrote:
Zapp wrote:
K1 wrote:

The enemy takes no damage.

Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on the specific issues I want addressed in this thread?

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 agree with the OP's apparent opinion that the descriptions should have been changed to better match the mechanics. The descriptions and mechanics should be in harmony, or else verisimilitude can be harmed and confusion and at-table arguments ensue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Skimmed the thread but not read entirely.

I view it as, the s phere isn't hte size of the entire square. 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.

So. I assume its intentional wording.


Zwordsman wrote:

Skimmed the thread but not read entirely.

I view it as, the s phere isn't hte size of the entire square. 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.

So. I assume its intentional wording.

Or, you could picture it as sort of pinballing around at everyone in a square upon appearance or Sustain, otherwise it just sits there.

Yeah, I guess it does make sense that you could go through without saving.


OR it sort of "splashes down" when it lands in a square (if you're willing to ignore the word "rolling" and read it as simply "moving" or even "dropping").


AnCap Dawg wrote:


No.

Care to explain why you engage in a thread just to say you won't engage in the thread?


oholoko wrote:

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".


Tiene wrote:
I agree with the OP's apparent opinion that the descriptions should have been changed to better match the mechanics. The descriptions and mechanics should be in harmony, or else verisimilitude can be harmed and confusion and at-table arguments ensue.

Thank you.

Had the description changed, or they hadn't reused the exact name as the old spell, there would have been zero issue.


Zwordsman wrote:
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.
mrspaghetti wrote:
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.

;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Zwordsman wrote:
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.
mrspaghetti wrote:
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.

flaming sphere description wrote:


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.
Zapp wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:


No.
Care to explain why you engage in a thread just to say you won't engage in the thread?

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.
Zapp wrote:
oholoko wrote:

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.
AnCap Dawg wrote:
Zapp wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:


No.
Care to explain why you engage in a thread just to say you won't engage in the thread?

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.


Captain Morgan wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:
Zapp wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:


No.
Care to explain why you engage in a thread just to say you won't engage in the thread?

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.

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.


Somebody tipped me off to the playtest discussion of this spell.

It appears at that time the focus was entirely on making the rules text clean and succinct.

While that is understandable and commendable, it also makes sense: in their sole focus to provide unambiguous rules, they completely lost sight of the small fact the spell now isn't what it used to be, with nobody saying "wait a minute - why are we still calling our new spell Flaming Sphere? Won't that just cause confusion if we don't change the description?"

It's still not nearly as bad as the clusterfrak that was 5th Edition's Barkskin, but still...


breithauptclan wrote:
I think that most people are imagining the Diablo II human-sized ball of rock and magma.

Yes...

And your conclusion, based on this revelation...?


oholoko wrote:
The only difference i can see between the two spells

Flaming 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! :)

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.


Zapp wrote:
oholoko wrote:
The only difference i can see between the two spells

Flaming 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.
Zapp wrote:
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.


How does that change the fact the description doesn't match the mechanics?

Why do you insist on just discussing the rules when I've repeatedly stated I have no questions regarding the rules?

Why don't you instead engage on topic, and provide your feedback on a description like "a floating glowing ember that pulsates with great gouts of flame at (ir)regular intervals"?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
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.

“Zapp” wrote:
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.

“Zapp” wrote:
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.

“Zapp” wrote:
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.
Vali Nepjarson wrote:

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.


Vali Nepjarson wrote:
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 :)


Zapp wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
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:

Zapp wrote:
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".
Zapp wrote:

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.

Zapp wrote:


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.
Zapp wrote:
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.


BellyBeard wrote:
Zapp wrote:
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.

True.

If you read through the thread you'll notice that the first order of business was to ascertain whether the spell actually worked a certain way (despite its unchanged description).

Only when I got confirmation that yes that is correct did the main focus of discussion move over to discussing whether the description accurately matches the mechanics. I can't immediately say which subforum is best for that discussion, but you're entirely correct to suggest that Rules ain't it.

However, I'm sure this thread is not the first one to experience topic drift, and I wouldn't be surprised if forum policy is to leave threads in place once assigned a home. (Feel free to inform me I'm wrong!)

Cheers!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
“Zapp” wrote:
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?

“Zapp” wrote:
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.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / entering a Flaming Sphere? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.