Paizo EITHER left off the targets line by accident OR they failed to change the text of the spell. The text and the header do not agree.
Targets
Source Core Rulebook pg. 304"A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately."
So if an area attack spell lacks a target listing, the assumption is it hit everyone. A missing header listing is intentional in these situations.
Yes, I think we can all agree that it is poorly worded and needs clarification. That applies to a lot of stuff ATM. Such are the pains of early adoption.
Its the pains of any complex game PF2 is not special in that regard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As-is the text is clearly contradictory. There are two mental erratas that people are subconsciously applying.
You emit a pulsating mental blast that penetrates the minds ofall enemieseveryone in the area. Each creature in the area must attempt a Will save.
You emit a pulsating mental blast that penetrates the minds of all enemies in the area. Each affected creature in the area must attempt a Will save.
Both can be argued to be correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one believe that "each creature" in this instance is referring to the aforementioned "enemies."
Are there enemies that are not creatures?
It also doesn't say "each creature" it says "all creatures"
I also agree that the wording needs work. Not specifically just this spell but more of a consistency within all spells. Fireball just says roll damage using the general rule that if no specific targets are listed for AOE's then all are effected (which I prefer), grease says each creature (which fits this spell, halfway atleast) even though it affect all.
Don't even get me started about fireball. People can't even agree that you can burn an unattended chair with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also agree that the wording needs work. Not specifically just this spell but more of a consistency within all spells. Fireball just says roll damage using the general rule that if no specific targets are listed for AOE's then all are effected (which I prefer), grease says each creature (which fits this spell, halfway atleast) even though it affect all.Don't even get me started about fireball. People can't even agree that you can burn an unattended chair with it.
Targets
Source Core Rulebook pg. 304"A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately."
As fireball lists no targets and is an area attack, it "usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately." As chairs aren't creatures, it'd doesn't usually hit them so you'd need an explicit target info to include objects. Secondly, with no saves, hardness or hp of a chair known, there is no way to figure out the results even if you could fireball a chair... Add to that that "Damaging an unattended item usually requires attacking it directly" and I'm not sure how anything but Dm fiat allows fireball to damage objects: it attacks "indiscriminately", not "directly".
However, I WOULD appreciate some rulings on how objects are meant to take damage as currently only a handful of spells can do so. Even Strike can't hit an object... Right now it's pretty much 'ask your DM'.
So it's settled then. Fireballs can't start forest fires because...reasons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has been publishing spells and feats in the same format for over a decade. The first sentence is almost always a flavorful description that is often, but not always backed up by the rules explanation of the effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this happening?
Fireballs can't start forest fires because...reasons.
Pretty much the same reason Strike can't target an object... No one's claimed it makes sense but then the rules aren't obligated to makes real world sense. That and who really wants to be figuring out if the building you're in burns down because of an errant area attack hits every floor, wall, door, chest, ect in the room... [or what the reflex check is on a random tree in a forest]
Why is this happening?
Very poor word choices in an effort add flavor?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it matters, playtest version was enemies-only. And while I recall it was mentioned as ridiculously powerful, I don't think it'd take both the incapacitation hit and the drop to all creatures.
But anyway, people see Incapacitation and just dismiss a spell entirelly, but I saw a good number of times a wizard with color spray in Fall of Plaguestone and the current Aberrant that used to have paralize use both of these incapacitation spells with great success, and both either put in a higher slot or used as signature spell.
People should never automatically discount any option, because in my game a level 1 spell with the incapacitation trait helped turn the tide for the players against a level 7 foe. During the Severe 4 encounter the foe failed its save versus color spray. The resulting dazzled condition resulted in it missing an attack versus a vulnerable character. Earlier in the encounter this same foe brought the party's fighter to Dying 2 from almost-full health on a critical hit.
The odds might be low, but sometimes the dice roll in your favor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also agree that the wording needs work. Not specifically just this spell but more of a consistency within all spells. Fireball just says roll damage using the general rule that if no specific targets are listed for AOE's then all are effected (which I prefer), grease says each creature (which fits this spell, halfway atleast) even though it affect all.Don't even get me started about fireball. People can't even agree that you can burn an unattended chair with it.Targets
Source Core Rulebook pg. 304"A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately."
As fireball lists no targets and is an area attack, it "usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately." As chairs aren't creatures, it'd doesn't usually hit them so you'd need an explicit target info to include objects. Secondly, with no saves, hardness or hp of a chair known, there is no way to figure out the results even if you could fireball a chair... Add to that that "Damaging an unattended item usually requires attacking it directly" and I'm not sure how anything but Dm fiat allows fireball to damage objects: it attacks "indiscriminately", not "directly".
However, I WOULD appreciate some rulings on how objects are meant to take damage as currently only a handful of spells can do so. Even Strike can't hit an object... Right now it's pretty much 'ask your DM'.
Fortunately the DM using common sense is one of the primary overarching rules of the game.
Most of us can cope quite fine. Its just a bit of house keeping which Paizo will get to eventually.
If the spell affects ALL creatures in the Area, the spell is just plain weird. It only has a 30ft Range while also having a 30ft AOE, this mechanically makes the spell only usable by placing it at max range, otherwise the caster is also on the radius of the spell.
Does this really sounds right to you guys? A spell with a fixed range (contradicting its own text), because otherwise the caster is being affected as well? To me it does not.
So I think this spell means enemies in the area and all affected creatures (previously referred as enemies) make a Saving Throw.
Emanation rules, with errata:
An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s emanation radiates 5 or more feet outward from the caster. Because the sides of a target’s space are used as the starting point for the emanation, an emanation from a Large or larger creature affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature. An emanation effect includes the target of the emanation, but the creature creating the effect can exclude the target if desired.
It's both having a 30 foot range and being a 30 foot emanation that's a bit odd to me. It doesn't seem like an emanation should have a range, just an area?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People should never automatically discount any option, because in my game a level 1 spell with the incapacitation trait helped turn the tide for the players against a level 7 foe. During the Severe 4 encounter the foe failed its save versus color spray. The resulting dazzled condition resulted in it missing an attack versus a vulnerable character. Earlier in the encounter this same foe brought the party's fighter to Dying 2 from almost-full health on a critical hit.
The odds might be low, but sometimes the dice roll in your favor.
So you know how there are complaints that spells are weaker because monster saves are so high that it feels like a "50% chance that it does very little"?
Well, incap spells are 50% chance for "very little" and 50% chance for "actually, outright, nothing."
So no, I would not trust an incap spell in a fight like the one you had. Sure, the foe rolled bad and the resulting condition included a bad roll a second time, but that's two fumbled rolls for a nominal "win" on the PC's side.
If you think of the dice as having come out exactly the same values, but on different actions, the failed save was a missed attack and the failed flat check was a missed attack. Instead you dazzled him and caused one missed attack.
Game 1: Rogue, Ranger, Witch, Animal Barbarian
Game 2: Giant Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, Wizard.
Both are Age of Ashes. The only difficult battles so far have been
** spoiler omitted **
I find this amazing... specially the part of only one took damage....
What were your AC in this encounter?
Fortunately the DM using common sense is one of the primary overarching rules of the game.
Now if you can get everyone to agree on what common sense is, especially in a fantasy world with magic, that'd be great. That's unlikely though.
Most of us can cope quite fine. Its just a bit of house keeping which Paizo will get to eventually.
We'll see. They seem to have gone out of their way to make it so that objects don't take damage so I wouldn't be surprise to see them slow to do it or even just leave it up to DM fiat... It's not like big swathes of the game aren't 'ask your DM' so this one might end up there too.
I think they want us to be able to do our own things and it saves them developer time on consistency checks.
Well that's fine for a single game/DM but makes moving between tables hard as the DM might have done completely different things and it can feel like you've walked into a different version of the game even when no one is using houserules. It seems like an odd decision for a game that promotes organized play that relies on consistent rules to run.
This was a whole two or three conversations I did not expect to start...
Good to know that the playtest version of Synaptic Pulse was enemies-only, though. That makes me feel more confident in my ruling it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has been publishing spells and feats in the same format for over a decade.
Not exactly. PF1 feats had descriptive blurbs up in the feat's header and then a separate benefits section. PF2 feats aren't formatted like that.
Emanation rules, with errata:
An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s emanation radiates 5 or more feet outward from the caster. Because the sides of a target’s space are used as the starting point for the emanation, an emanation from a Large or larger creature affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature. An emanation effect includes the target of the emanation, but the creature creating the effect can exclude the target if desired.
It's both having a 30 foot range and being a 30 foot emanation that's a bit odd to me. It doesn't seem like an emanation should have a range, just an area?
Yeah, does this spell start from the caster's square? Can you put the center 30ft away even if it doesn't match emanation rules? Double editorial oversight here.
Yeah, does this spell start from the caster's square? Can you put the center 30ft away even if it doesn't match emanation rules? Double editorial oversight here.Emanation rules, with errata:
An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s emanation radiates 5 or more feet outward from the caster. Because the sides of a target’s space are used as the starting point for the emanation, an emanation from a Large or larger creature affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature. An emanation effect includes the target of the emanation, but the creature creating the effect can exclude the target if desired.
It's both having a 30 foot range and being a 30 foot emanation that's a bit odd to me. It doesn't seem like an emanation should have a range, just an area?
Several Core spells follow this though: Divine Decree, Circle of Protection and Pass Without Trace [4th] for instance.
In 1E, a spell's effects were truncated by its range. If you placed a fireball's center at max range, you would only get half a fireball (as the other half would be outside the range and thus would not take effect).
Maybe having both range and emanation is a holdover from 1E, where they had to have both, or else the emanation would be cut short by the range?
Yeah, does this spell start from the caster's square? Can you put the center 30ft away even if it doesn't match emanation rules? Double editorial oversight here.Emanation rules, with errata:
An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s emanation radiates 5 or more feet outward from the caster. Because the sides of a target’s space are used as the starting point for the emanation, an emanation from a Large or larger creature affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature. An emanation effect includes the target of the emanation, but the creature creating the effect can exclude the target if desired.
It's both having a 30 foot range and being a 30 foot emanation that's a bit odd to me. It doesn't seem like an emanation should have a range, just an area?
Emanations are always centered on the caster.
Emanation
An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s emanation radiates 5 or more feet outward from the caster. Because the sides of a target’s space are used as the starting point for the emanation, an emanation from a Large or larger creature affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature.
Given that the Range and the Area are exactly the same, I believe that is just an editor not understanding the difference.
Divine Decree, Harm (sort of), Heal (sort of), Repulsion, and Synaptic Pulse all have this issue.
Emanations are always centered on the caster.
That's not true though: Circle of Protection "Range touch; Area 10-foot emanation centered on the touched creature"
The spell makes it plain that the creature you touch is where the emanation is centered. As such, it's clear that there are exceptions to the "your" in that section. Also note it says "a target’s space are used as the starting point" and not 'your space' making a distinction between the two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Emanations are always centered on the caster.That's not true though: Circle of Protection "Range touch; Area 10-foot emanation centered on the touched creature"
The spell makes it plain that the creature you touch is where the emanation is centered. As such, it's clear that there are exceptions to the "you" in that section.
An emanation does seem to always be centered on a creature of some kind, though, rather than a point in space, and Synaptic Pulse describes no way of choosing a target for the emanation.
An emanation does seem to always be centered on a creature of some kind, though, rather than a point in space, and Synaptic Pulse describes no way of choosing a target for the emanation.Emanations are always centered on the caster.That's not true though: Circle of Protection "Range touch; Area 10-foot emanation centered on the touched creature"
The spell makes it plain that the creature you touch is where the emanation is centered. As such, it's clear that there are exceptions to the "you" in that section.
See Pass Without Trace and Divine Decree: both have no target and are emanations with a range. IMO it seems to target a space, not a target most times: "a target’s space are used as the starting point", so in these situation it seems like the target IS a point in space.
Emanations are always centered on the caster.That's not true though: Circle of Protection "Range touch; Area 10-foot emanation centered on the touched creature"
The spell makes it plain that the creature you touch is where the emanation is centered. As such, it's clear that there are exceptions to the "your" in that section. Also note it says "a target’s space are used as the starting point" and not 'your space' making a distinction between the two.
Circle of Protection isn't an Emanation though. It's a Touch spell who's effect creates an emanation. They are different.
Fireball is a Burst Spell.
If a spell read "Target creature you touch explodes in a 20 foot burst", the spell would not be a burst spell, it would be a touch spell, which results in a burst.
This is simply another example of poor wording. Circle of Protection should not have the "Area 10-foot emanation" section, as that is not the area of the spell, that is the area of the effect created by the spell, just like Cloak of Shadow or Positive Luminance.
An Emanation spell targets things within the Emanation, it doesn't create a separate enduring emanation.
Game 1: Rogue, Ranger, Witch, Animal Barbarian
Game 2: Giant Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, Wizard.
Both are Age of Ashes. The only difficult battles so far have been
** spoiler omitted **
I find this amazing... specially the part of only one took damage....
What were your AC in this encounter?
We were level 4 I believe, and at least two of us had +1 Armor, so that would have been 6+6+10=22.
The Witch may have been 21, and the Fighter may have been 23. There was also a summoned Imp.
It helped that the guy kept Blinking away in random directions at the end of his every turn, making it harder for him to stand and fight us, that was part of why it was so hard for us to hit or injure him too though.
3 of us are ranged, so pretty much the Fighter and the Imp were the only ones standing next to him at the start of his turn.
My poor Bear AC was hiding in a corner, since the guy's resistance made it impossible for Teddy to injure it.
In 1E, a spell's effects were truncated by its range. If you placed a fireball's center at max range, you would only get half a fireball (as the other half would be outside the range and thus would not take effect).
Maybe having both range and emanation is a holdover from 1E, where they had to have both, or else the emanation would be cut short by the range?
Wait, what!?
That...that is utterly silly. I'm not doubting what you're saying, but what is the mechanics of how that works? Why would a Fireball be cut short because of some arbitrary absolute range? I've never once played this way, and don't understand from a physical sense why that would even work.
Is the idea that you as the Wizard/Sorcerer/Whatever have a maximum range to your magical "aura" and so if you try and fire a fireball outside of that range, the fire disappears as if it exploded next to an antimagic field?
In 1E, a spell's effects were truncated by its range. If you placed a fireball's center at max range, you would only get half a fireball (as the other half would be outside the range and thus would not take effect).
Maybe having both range and emanation is a holdover from 1E, where they had to have both, or else the emanation would be cut short by the range?
Wait, what!?
That...that is utterly silly. I'm not doubting what you're saying, but what is the mechanics of how that works? Why would a Fireball be cut short because of some arbitrary absolute range? I've never once played this way, and don't understand from a physical sense why that would even work.
Is the idea that you as the Wizard/Sorcerer/Whatever have a maximum range to your magical "aura" and so if you try and fire a fireball outside of that range, the fire disappears as if it exploded next to an antimagic field?
I don't recall any in-world explanation for it, but a personal "magic zone aura" makes as much sense to me as anything else. The more powerful a caster you are, the more reality you can manipulate. :)
I don't recall any in-world explanation for it, but a personal "magic zone aura" makes as much sense to me as anything else. The more powerful a caster you are, the more reality you can manipulate. :)In 1E, a spell's effects were truncated by its range. If you placed a fireball's center at max range, you would only get half a fireball (as the other half would be outside the range and thus would not take effect).
Maybe having both range and emanation is a holdover from 1E, where they had to have both, or else the emanation would be cut short by the range?
Wait, what!?
That...that is utterly silly. I'm not doubting what you're saying, but what is the mechanics of how that works? Why would a Fireball be cut short because of some arbitrary absolute range? I've never once played this way, and don't understand from a physical sense why that would even work.
Is the idea that you as the Wizard/Sorcerer/Whatever have a maximum range to your magical "aura" and so if you try and fire a fireball outside of that range, the fire disappears as if it exploded next to an antimagic field?
That doesn't explain why certain spells have longer ranges than others, if it is limited by your own personal aura. But I suppose it's the best we got.
Personally I'm just going to continue to ignore that, as I don't think that increasing the maximum range that you could possibly hit something with Fireball increasing from 500 feet to 510 feet to be that big of a buff.
Circle of Protection isn't an Emanation though. It's a Touch spell who's effect creates an emanation. They are different.
So Synaptic Pulse is a ranged spell that creates an emanation? What's the difference? Touch is as valid a range as a number range.
Yeah, while it may be a typo I don't think creating an emanation centered on a square within a target range is that hard to parse. It does mean though that the caster will have to make a save against their own spell if we use the 'all creatures' interpretation and they don't center it on themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, while it may be a typo I don't think creating an emanation centered on a square within a target range is that hard to parse. It does mean though that the caster will have to make a save against their own spell if we use the 'all creatures' interpretation and they don't center it on themselves.
Then it would just be a blast. An emanation emanates from the caster. That's why it's called an emanation.
Yeah, while it may be a typo I don't think creating an emanation centered on a square within a target range is that hard to parse. It does mean though that the caster will have to make a save against their own spell if we use the 'all creatures' interpretation and they don't center it on themselves.Then it would just be a blast. An emanation emanates from the caster. That's why it's called an emanation.
If that was the case why does it talk about the "target of the spell" instead of saying "you". Why say ""a target’s space are used as the starting point" is it really means "your space is used as the starting space". Why say "the creature creating the effect can exclude the target if desired" instead of "You can exclude yourself if desired."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because we've already established that their wording is bad.
Because we've already established that their wording is bad.
It says "your" only once but says "target" three times: You're hanging your hat on the "your" part by saying "Emanations are always centered on the caster" but that ignores the "target" part.
Now it could be bad wording but that would mean that they not only double downed on it but triple downed on target vs your. I'm no saying it, like a lot of other things, couldn't use a rewrite but I don't think it's worded so badly that it can't be parsed. Circle of Protection alone proves that not every emanation originated from the casters space. Even if "It's a Touch spell who's effect creates an emanation", that emanation isn't in the casters space.
Then it would just be a blast. An emanation emanates from the caster. That's why it's called an emanation.
Bursts begin at grid intersections, emanations start from a whole square and can exclude that square. So no they aren't the same. Different shapes, different use cases.
You're right, most emanations emit from the caster and Synaptic's effect might be a typo, but it could just as easily be an emanation that allows you to pick its starting square instead. It's not as unimaginable of a possibility as you're suggesting it is.
It's obvious this needs an extra editing pass, to determine if the designers wanted it to be a spell you can cast away from yourself as a burst, or if it's supposed to be an emanation. Either one is fine, but it seems like it can't be both.
It's obvious this needs an extra editing pass, to determine if the designers wanted it to be a spell you can cast away from yourself as a burst, or if it's supposed to be an emanation. Either one is fine, but it seems like it can't be both.
I don't see why it can't be both. Circle of Protection is an Emanation you don't cast on yourself along with other core spells that do the same: if they are all in error, then a major overhaul needs done. One I can see as an error: you start hitting 4+ and it sure seems a LOT less likely.