|
Does the definition of "Target" change when casting a 3-action Heal?
This came up during a discussion on whether a character or NPC is affected by a 3-action Heal. It was part of a larger discussion on Godless Healing. The discussion the Organized Play forum cans be found here.
For reference, here is the Heal spell.
Targets 1 willing living creature or 1 undead
You channel positive energy to heal the living or damage the undead. If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 Hit Points. If the target is undead, you deal that amount of positive damage to it, and it gets a basic Fortitude save. The number of actions you spend when Casting this Spell determines its targets, range, area, and other parameters.
Single Action: The spell has a range of touch.
Two Actions: The spell has a range of 30 feet. If you're healing a living creature, increase the Hit Points restored by 8.
Three Actions: You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot emanation. This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst.
Note, I am only talking about living creatures.
I believe that the definition of Target does not change when casting a 3-action Heal. A character or NPC can choose not to be a willing recipient of the spell and thus would not receive any healing. This is also true for 1 or 2 action Heals.
What the Target is does not change when it moves from 1 Target to multiple Targets.
Others do not believe this and I hope they will bring their thoughts to this discussion.
I hope Mark Seifter will step-in and give us guidance on this question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes of course the target changes. Otherwise the 3 Action heal would still only heal "1 willing living creature" in the area, which would be pretty pointless.
It even says "This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst."
Is the issue with the "willing" bit? When would that even come up? Why are you trying to forcibly heal an unwilling creature?
When would that even come up?
Every time there are enemies in the emanation. Unless they recognize the spell, they are unwilling targets.
Unfortunately, I think the target changes to all creatures, even unwilling ones. Certainly to avoid using it on allies only without Selective Energy.
When would that even come up?Every time there are enemies in the emanation. Unless they recognize the spell, they are unwilling targets.
Unfortunately, I think the target changes to all creatures, even unwilling ones. Certainly to avoid using it on allies only without Selective Energy.
Yeah, you definitely have to aim it to avoid healing your enemies. Just like you have to aim a Fireball to avoid injuring your allies.
|
|
Yes of course the target changes. Otherwise the 3 Action heal would still only heal "1 willing living creature" in the area, which would be pretty pointless.
So why does moving from "Target" to "Targets" change the definition of Target for the spell?
Doesn't each "Target" get evaluated separately?
If not, why not?
|
|
When would that even come up?Every time there are enemies in the emanation. Unless they recognize the spell, they are unwilling targets.
Unfortunately, I think the target changes to all creatures, even unwilling ones. Certainly to avoid using it on allies only without Selective Energy.
Interesting comment about recognizing the spell. That is a whole new dimension to the discussion.
So if an enemy does recognize the Heal spell, could they make themselves unwilling? Or willing?
How I wish the FAQ button was on...
|
|
Who would of thought that there was a definition in the CRB on Targets:
Some effects require you to choose specific targets. Targeting can be difficult or impossible if your chosen creature is undetected by you, if the creature doesn’t match restrictions on who you can target, or if some other ability prevents it from being targeted.
Some effects require a target to be willing. Only you can decide whether your PC is willing, and the GM decides whether an NPC is willing. Even if you or your character don’t know what the effect is, such as if your character is unconscious, you still decide if you’re willing.
Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to protect. You are not your own ally. If it isn’t clear, the GM decides who counts as an ally or an enemy.
This pretty much answers the question about recognizing the spell.
I will point out that the title of part is Targets but then uses target when talking about being willing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "willing creature" stipulation might be relevant regarding living creatures with the negative healing ability, such as dhampirs.
|
|
Yes of course the target changes. Otherwise the 3 Action heal would still only heal "1 willing living creature" in the area, which would be pretty pointless.So why does moving from "Target" to "Targets" change the definition of Target for the spell?
Doesn't each "Target" get evaluated separately?
If not, why not?
Treat the spell text as changing to what it says it changes to.
So you have the 1 action version which effectively says:
Range Touch
Targets 1 willing living creature or 1 undeadThe 2 action version which effectively says:
Range 30 feet
Targets 1 willing living creature or 1 undeadAnd the 3 action version which effectively says:
Area 30-foot emanation
Targets all living and undead creatures in the area
So how does this work with the definition of Targets in the CRB and the for a "willing target" target specifically?
Just going from singular to plural does not change the meaning of Target. All the 3-action is doing effecting more targets. It is not changing the definition of Target or what is required to be a valid Target.
The 3-action is still targeting living creatures and in order for the spell to work with them they have be willing per the Targets entry of the spell.
For reference, here is the section about how to read a spell description.
Source Core Rulebook pg. 306
Each spell uses the following format. Entries appear only when applicable, so not all spells will have every entry described here. The spell’s name line also lists the type of spell if it’s a cantrip or focus spell, as well as the level.
Spell Name Spell Level
Tradition This entry lists the magical traditions the spell belongs to. Some feats or other abilities might add a spell to your spell list even if you don’t follow the listed traditions.
Cast The number of actions required to Cast the Spell are listed here. Spells that can be cast during a single turn have the appropriate icon, as do those that can be cast as a free action or a reaction. Spells that take longer to cast list the time required, such as “1 minute.” After this, the spell’s components are listed. If Casting the Spell has a cost, requirements, or a trigger, that information is also listed in this section. A cost includes any money, valuable materials, or other resources that must be expended to cast the spell.
Range, Area, and Targets This entry lists the range of the spell, the area it affects, and the targets it can affect, if any. If none of these entries are present, the spell affects only the caster.
Saving Throw and Duration If a spell allows the target to attempt a saving throw, the type of save appears here. Any details on the particular results and timing of the save appear in the text unless the entry specifies a basic saving throw, which follows the rules found on page 449. If the spell requires a save only under certain circumstances or at a certain time, this entry is omitted, since the text needs to explain it in more detail. A spell that doesn’t list a duration takes place instantaneously, and anything created by it persists after the spell.
A horizontal line follows saving throws and duration, and the effects of the spell are described after this line. This section might also detail the possible results of a saving throw: critical success, success, failure, and critical failure.Heightened (level) If the spell can be heightened, the effects of heightening it appear at the end of the stat block.
End of spolier.
Please take a moment to consider this information. My concern is that we are applying a 1e interpretation that has changed going to 2e.
Boy do we need a FAQ on this question.
|
|
I agree this is a corner case of when a character or NPC would not be willing to accept divine healing.
It is important because of Organized Play. It is highly possible that a party could have Cleric and another character who does not follow a god and thus may wish to refuse to accept divine healing.
Some are saying they CANNOT refuse. I am saying that they CAN.
I agree this is a corner case of when a character or NPC would not be willing to accept divine healing.
It is important because of Organized Play. It is highly possible that a party could have Cleric and another character who does not follow a god and thus may wish to refuse to accept divine healing.
Some are saying they CANNOT refuse. I am saying that they CAN.
I think this is more of an organized play etiquette issue than a rules issue. If someone wants to troll a player that follows the Laws of Mortality by giving them divine aid, there are plenty of other spells they can use.
Improved Communal Healing
Field of Life
Moment of Renewal
Revival
Rebuke Death
Those are just the Divine Spells and abilities from the CRB that restore HP. If we also count all Divine buff Spells, the number increases exponentially.
Also, the Selective Energy Cleric Feat would be negated if Heal did not impact all creatures in the area.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is important because of Organized Play. It is highly possible that a party could have Cleric and another character who does not follow a god and thus may wish to refuse to accept divine healing.
It could be allowed on some games, but definitely not hightly possible.
Normality would see the follower of the law of mortality not teaming up with divine spellcasters.
Apart from that, what ( in my opinion ) is not clear enough is how spells and creatures relate.
Given a creature which has no understanding of magic, spells and similar stuff:
1)How can that creature understand if a spell is a good one or not?
2)How can that creature understand if a spell is cast by a friend or an enemy?
which leads to point 3
3) will a creature be able to resist to that effect?
And, what does willing mean?
Can a dying character be willing to accept something or he simply accept it?
It seems that "willing creature" is just set to deal with creatures with positive damage weakness.
.
.
Some effects require a target to be willing. Only you can decide whether your PC is willing, and the GM decides whether an NPC is willing. Even if you or your character don’t know what the effect is, such as if your character is unconscious, you still decide if you’re willing. Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to protect. You are not your own ally. If it isn’t clear, the GM decides who counts as an ally or an enemy.
|
|
Also, the Selective Energy Cleric Feat would be negated if Heal did not impact all creatures in the area.
This is a tangent but...
Can you explain more? My first read of your comment was if a character is an unwilling target of a Heal spell than someone could not use Selective Energy Feat to NOT exclude you for a Heal spell. Doing so would invalidate the feat and thus the spell?
I don't see an interaction here. Please help me to see what you see.
|
|
Normality would see the follower of the law of mortality not teaming up with divine spellcasters.
In Organized Play, this can happen. Otherwise, someone will not be able to play the character they wanted. In Organized Play, if someone wants to play and they have a legal character, they get to play. So any interaction would have to handled by the players themselves and the GM.
And in Organized Play, the number 1 rule is "Don't Be A Jerk".
It would be a jerk move to give divine healing to someone who does not believe in gods. So having a way for that character to say "No, No Divine healing from you!" is needed.
In game, there is no reason to say a godless character (for lack of a better term) would not accept Treat Wounds from a cleric. It providing healing but is not divine in nature.
So we can't just say "These characters will never be in the same party so we don't need to worry about it."
|
|
I think this is more of an organized play etiquette issue than a rules issue.
Agree it is to a certain extent but the what is a Target and when it is defined is not an Organized Play etiquette question. It is a game system question.
If someone wants to troll a player that follows the Laws of Mortality by giving them divine aid, there are plenty of other spells they can use.
Improved Communal Healing
Field of Life
Moment of Renewal
Revival
Rebuke Death
Improved Communal Healing: I think a character would have to meet the original spell parameters (Heal) to be given the healing that was going to the cleric. So that would be the target of feat would need to be willing, just like they would need to be a willing target of the burst Heal (yeah i know, we disagree on this point). So no, I would not allow a cleric to troll another character in this way.
Field of Life: This is an interesting spell. Yes, I can see a cleric trolling a character because no Target is defined.
Moment of Renewal: Another interesting and cool spell. It does not provide healing from a divine source. Instead is allowing the character to regain hit points as if they had rested for 24 hours. So I don't see any problems here.
Revival: A pretty cool 10th level spell. It does have a Target, which does not have to be willing, so a cleric could troll a character.
Rebuke Death: This is an interesting focus spell. Yes, I can see a cleric trolling a character because the Target is a living creature. Interesting that if a character has the dying condition they are still alive. Makes sense once you think about it.
Also, the Selective Energy Cleric Feat would be negated if Heal did not impact all creatures in the area.This is a tangent but...
Can you explain more? My first read of your comment was if a character is an unwilling target of a Heal spell than someone could not use Selective Energy Feat to NOT exclude you for a Heal spell. Doing so would invalidate the feat and thus the spell?
I don't see an interaction here. Please help me to see what you see.
Selective Energy allows you to exclude targets from an AoE Heal. The main purpose of that is going to be to exclude enemies to avoid Healing them.
If Targets already had to be Willing, this would not serve much purpose, because, as SuperBidi pointed out, many would claim that enemies are inherently "Unwilling", and thus would always be excluded anyway.
Why would I need to waste a Feat to exclude Targets if they are already going to exclude themselves most of the time?
Reading a 3 Action Heal as requiring the Targets to be willing is a comparable power boost to saying that Fireball automatically ignores your allies, so you don't need to worry about placement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Willingness has to be somewhat meta, otherwise you could never Heal unconscious allies. In character, they are neither willing nor unwilling.
Boy, would that lead to a major shift in play!
"You're all Half-Orcs?!" "Yes. Yes, we are."
And IMO, the AoE Heal still carries the 'willing' requirement.
Also, not believing in gods doesn't mean rejecting all divine magic (though that is an option). Some abilities require that, but Ezren, an example atheist, wouldn't deny Kyra's healing even if he thinks she's a fool for thinking Saranrae is worthy of worship. He'd likely use mental "scare quotes" when referencing the "goddess", even if too polite to express the sentiment (or he recognizes the value of befriending healers).
|
Hmmm, I try to be consistent with rulings and I cannot reconcile people being able to willingly opt out of an area heal, yet undead/allied dhampirs cannot just because it will harm rather than heal them. I think I would rule that you cannot opt out. There is a rule specifically for that, Selective Energy, otherwise no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and I cannot reconcile people being able to willingly opt out of an area heal, yet undead/allied dhampirs cannot just because it will harm rather than heal them.
That's already how heal works though, regardless of how you fall on this position (at least for the other versions):
If the target is a willing living creature, you restore 1d8 Hit Points. If the target is undead, you deal that amount of positive damage to it, and it gets a basic Fortitude save.
Bolded for emphasis. The spell cares if a living target is willing, but not an undead target.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except the argument is that the target package changes when you switch from one creature which is the standard target of heal or harm to the three-action version that has a target of all creatures in the emanation. In that circumstance, the rules are not clear which is why Gary asked the question in the first place. It would be an inconsistent ruling to say living allies could opt out, but living dhampir allies couldn’t just because they are taking damage, or undead couldn’t opt out either. Certainly the undead cannot opt out for obvious reasons, but if you are going to allow allies to opt out, you have to allow allied dhampirs too as well. However, IMO, that is not the case at all as the spell loses the opt-out clause because of the change in targeting. YMMV
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead).
Willingness part isn't the caster's decision anyway. So an AoE healing spell healing enemies, is the enemy's choice regardless :p.
Undead being hit involves no willingness check and RAW PCs with the undead tag are just hit.
Personally I read the spell as changing the targeting conditions and removing the willing element (personal taste bias), but it can 100% be read both ways and should get a FAQ imo.
|
|
Also, the Selective Energy Cleric Feat would be negated if Heal did not impact all creatures in the area.This is a tangent but...
Can you explain more? My first read of your comment was if a character is an unwilling target of a Heal spell than someone could not use Selective Energy Feat to NOT exclude you for a Heal spell. Doing so would invalidate the feat and thus the spell?
I don't see an interaction here. Please help me to see what you see.
Selective Energy allows you to exclude targets from an AoE Heal. The main purpose of that is going to be to exclude enemies to avoid Healing them.
If Targets already had to be Willing, this would not serve much purpose, because, as SuperBidi pointed out, many would claim that enemies are inherently "Unwilling", and thus would always be excluded anyway.
Why would I need to waste a Feat to exclude Targets if they are already going to exclude themselves most of the time?
Reading a 3 Action Heal as requiring the Targets to be willing is a comparable power boost to saying that Fireball automatically ignores your allies, so you don't need to worry about placement.
I find the logic of an enemy being unwilling to accept a burst Heal not valid. Why would a bad guy not want to get healing from their enemy? It is counter-intuitive.
So that is why there is Selective Energy. It is a specific feat that changes the Target the Heal speall from "living willing" to "whomever I choose to be the target, who also have be willing if they are living."
|
|
Reading a 3 Action Heal as requiring the Targets to be willing is a comparable power boost to saying that Fireball automatically ignores your allies, so you don't need to worry about placement.
Ok, be careful about throwing out a different spell to support an argument.
Here is Fireball
Traits: Evocation and Fire
Traditions: arcane, primal
Cast: Two Actions somatic, verbal
Range: 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst
Saving Throw: basic Reflex
There is no Target defined in the spell! Since there is no target, the creatures in the 20' burst don't get the option to ignore.
Also, read the Target section that included above. Only when the Target is listed as "willing" is there a choice. If the spell does not define Target as "willing" there is no option.
You are being overly broad in you readings of the spell descriptions.
This argument is completely without merit.
|
|
<snipped for space>All I can say is this:
If you do not think the spell saying "all living and undead creatures" instead of "all willing living, and all undead creatures" is enough to clarify the intent to remove the 'willing' part of the original target line... what would be? How would the author communicate the change of the need to be willing if living?
This is why I am hoping to get a clarification. Because when reading the rules on Targets I linked before, the wording of the 3 action Heal does not change the Target as defined by the spell.
Need to break it down piece by piece. When you cast Heal, regardless of the number of actions, you have to adhere to the parameters of the spell. This includes what the spell defines as a Target. Going from a single to a multiple target does not change the definition.
|
|
Hmmm, I try to be consistent with rulings and I cannot reconcile people being able to willingly opt out of an area heal, yet undead/allied dhampirs cannot just because it will harm rather than heal them. I think I would rule that you cannot opt out. There is a rule specifically for that, Selective Energy, otherwise no.
Consider this in the context of 2e, not 1e.
|
|
Except the argument is that the target package changes when you switch from one creature which is the standard target of heal or harm to the three-action version that has a target of all creatures in the emanation. In that circumstance, the rules are not clear which is why Gary asked the question in the first place. It would be an inconsistent ruling to say living allies could opt out, but living dhampir allies couldn’t just because they are taking damage, or undead couldn’t opt out either. Certainly the undead cannot opt out for obvious reasons, but if you are going to allow allies to opt out, you have to allow allied dhampirs too as well. However, IMO, that is not the case at all as the spell loses the opt-out clause because of the change in targeting. YMMV
Ok confused why are are talking dhampirs? Are they a legal race in 2e?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Negative Healing:
"A creature with negative healing draws health from negative energy rather than positive energy. It is damaged by positive damage and is not healed by positive healing effects. It does not take negative damage, and it is healed by negative effects that heal undead."
Heal "heals the living or damages the undead".
Dhampir (at least in the Bestiary) do not count as undead; they have Negative Healing. So Heal, which only harms undead, does not damage them. Dhampir, due to Negative Healing, are also not healed by positive healing effects.
They are immune to Heal.
Dhampir are not immune to Harm, since they explicitly can be healed by negative effects that heal undead. So they should hide their nature when fighting evil Clerics. :) And take ranks in Deception. "Oh, NO!"
Yes, that's odd in a system where one would expect mirroring, but the Heal energy is targeting the Dhampir w/ a positive healing effect since they're living. And it doesn't work. It's not converted to damaging energy.
Gary: Dhampir have already been previewed.
Also, the Selective Energy Cleric Feat would be negated if Heal did not impact all creatures in the area.This is a tangent but...
Can you explain more? My first read of your comment was if a character is an unwilling target of a Heal spell than someone could not use Selective Energy Feat to NOT exclude you for a Heal spell. Doing so would invalidate the feat and thus the spell?
I don't see an interaction here. Please help me to see what you see.
Selective Energy allows you to exclude targets from an AoE Heal. The main purpose of that is going to be to exclude enemies to avoid Healing them.
If Targets already had to be Willing, this would not serve much purpose, because, as SuperBidi pointed out, many would claim that enemies are inherently "Unwilling", and thus would always be excluded anyway.
Why would I need to waste a Feat to exclude Targets if they are already going to exclude themselves most of the time?
Reading a 3 Action Heal as requiring the Targets to be willing is a comparable power boost to saying that Fireball automatically ignores your allies, so you don't need to worry about placement.
I find the logic of an enemy being unwilling to accept a burst Heal not valid. Why would a bad guy not want to get healing from their enemy? It is counter-intuitive.
So that is why there is Selective Energy. It is a specific feat that changes the Target the Heal speall from "living willing" to "whomever I choose to be the target, who also have be willing if they are living."
The enemy doesn't know that you are casting a healing spell.
If the GM said to you "The enemy Orc standing next to you begins casting a Spell. Are you a Willing Target for the Spell?"
You're going to assume that it's a hostile spell and say no.
The enemy is going to do the same thing when a player casts a Spell.
Reading a 3 Action Heal as requiring the Targets to be willing is a comparable power boost to saying that Fireball automatically ignores your allies, so you don't need to worry about placement.Ok, be careful about throwing out a different spell to support an argument.
Here is Fireball
Traits: Evocation and Fire
Traditions: arcane, primal
Cast: Two Actions somatic, verbal
Range: 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst
Saving Throw: basic ReflexThere is no Target defined in the spell! Since there is no target, the creatures in the 20' burst don't get the option to ignore.
Also, read the Target section that included above. Only when the Target is listed as "willing" is there a choice. If the spell does not define Target as "willing" there is no option.
You are being overly broad in you readings of the spell descriptions.
This argument is completely without merit.
I believe you are missing the point of my argument. The 3 Action Heal does not contain the word willing in its target entry, as thenobledrake pointed out.
Adding the word willing to it would mean that it automatically ignores enemies, because, unless they have the Recognize Spell Reaction, use it, and Succeed, they are inherently unwilling targets for your Spells, because they don't know what the Spell is going to do, as I laid out above.
Being able to cast a 3 Action Heal without having to worry about placement is comparable to being able to cast a Fireball without having to worry about placement.
Adding the word willing to targets of a 3 Action Heal would have the same basic effect as adding the word foes to the targets of Fireball, in that it would automatically exclude all of the people that you want excluded.
|
|
<snip>
The enemy doesn't know that you are casting a healing spell.If the GM said to you "The enemy Orc standing next to you begins casting a Spell. Are you a Willing Target for the Spell?"
You're going to assume that it's a hostile spell and say no.
This is just far out from what really happens during an adventure to be ridiculous. What DM do you know that does this? Do you? I doubt. I don't. I am open to valid points. This is not one.
And how many harmful spells have "Willing" in the Target definition of the spell? You're grasping here.
I believe you are missing the point of my argument. The 3 Action Heal does not contain the word willing in its target entry, as thenobledrake pointed out.
I am not ignoring it. I don't agree with the assertion.
The 3 Action is cast under the Heal spell. The Heal spell has a Target definition. All effects of the Heal spell have to meet that Target definition. The 3 Action casting is description what is happening. To be a Target, it must meet the definition provided by the spell.
And you are ignoring my point. That it is the spell block that defines the target, the not description of the effect of the spell.
Look at the page 306 of the CRB on Reading Spells. It is there.
|
|
And how many harmful spells have "Willing" in the Target definition of the spell? You're grasping here.
I went out looked for all spells, including focus spells, that had "willing" in the Targets definition for the spell.
They are:
Barkskin
Collective Transposition:Does not have willing in the Targets definition but does allow for a safe for unwilling creatures in the area of affect.
Darkvision: Heightened versions of the spell Targets willing creatures.
Disrupting Weapons
Divine Inspiration
Dreaming Potential
Endure Elements
Enlarge
Ethereal Jaunt: Heightened versions of the spell Targets willing creatures.
Feet to Fins
Gaseous Form
Ghostly Weapon
Harm: Willing undead. Living creatures does not have the willing adjective.
Heal
Levitate
Magic Fang
Magic Weapon
MindLink
Modify Memory: This is a hostile spell and does not have "willing" in the Targets definition. The heightened version of the spell Targets willing creatures in order to suppress a bad memory.
Moon Frenzy
Negate Aroma
Plane shift
Primal Hero
Regenerate
Shadow Walk
Shrink
Silence
Soothe
Spirit Link
Status
Telepathic Bond
Teleport
Unrelenting Observation
Zealous Conviction
Lay on Hands
Bit of Luck
Cloak of Shadow
Healer’s Blessing
Malignant Sustenance
Mystic Beacon
Positive Luminance: Does not have a Targets entry in the description of the spell does it states the spell can target a willing creature.
Safeguard Secret
Sweet Dream
Heal Animal
Diabolic Edict
Diviner’s Sight
Didn't see a hostile spell in this list other than the one I comment on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am open to valid points. This is not one.
I don't think you get to unilaterally declare which arguments people are allowed to make or not.
If you want to handwave away spell identification, that's fine. I know some GMs do that, but to act like it's universal or that Aratorin is somehow invalid because he doesn't play the game the way you do is absurd.
I think it's a little strange that you asked for clarification on something, and then when people inform you of what's correct (that targets don't need to be willing because the spell does not say willing on 3-action) get mad at them for the clarification.
This is just far out from what really happens during an adventure to be ridiculous. What DM do you know that does this? Do you? I doubt. I don't. I am open to valid points. This is not one.<snip>
The enemy doesn't know that you are casting a healing spell.If the GM said to you "The enemy Orc standing next to you begins casting a Spell. Are you a Willing Target for the Spell?"
You're going to assume that it's a hostile spell and say no.
So all of your players automatically Recognize every Spell that the enemy is casting, and vice versa?
That invalidates 3 Skill Feats and an entire game mechanic. Seems like a big no no for PFS, which is what you are specifically asking about, but you do you.
I went out looked for all spells, including focus spells, that had "willing" in the Targets definition for the spell.
Didn't see a hostile spell in this list other than the one I comment on.
Of course damage dealing spells don't require a willing target. Because your enemy is unwilling. That's the entire point. If they required a willing target, they would do nothing. Just like if a 3 Action Heal required a willing target, you would never have to worry about accidentally healing enemies.
You are literally proving the exact point that you are claiming is invalid.
I am no longer interested as you have made it clear that points of view other than your own are "invalid".
|
|
I am open to valid points. This is not one.I don't think you get to unilaterally declare which arguments people are allowed to make or not.
If you want to handwave away spell identification, that's fine. I know some GMs do that, but to act like it's universal or that Aratorin is somehow invalid because he doesn't play the game the way you do is absurd.
Please don't quote me out of context. I made that statement because the of agruement given.
For those who can't, or wont, scroll up to find it, here it is for reference.
<snip>
The enemy doesn't know that you are casting a healing spell.If the GM said to you "The enemy Orc standing next to you begins casting a Spell. Are you a Willing Target for the Spell?"
You're going to assume that it's a hostile spell and say no.
That example is not a good argument because it wound not happen during the course of a game. This is my point and why I stated it was invalid.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a little strange that you asked for clarification on something, and then when people inform you of what's correct (that targets don't need to be willing because the spell does not say willing on 3-action) get mad at them for the clarification.
But that is not what the spell is saying! As I have repeated several times, the Targets section of the spell defines what the Targets are. The 3-action does not change the Targets and thus does not need to state that the Targets need to be willing because it is already been defined. So, in my view, "correct (that targets don't need to be willing because the spell does not say willing on 3-action)" is wrong. If you look closely, the 1-action and 2 action do not say "willing" either. Why all the sudden does the 3-action need to say "willing"?
I am not mad. Tone is difficult on the forums. I am trying to make the point that we need to read the rules of the game and not apply how things were done in 1e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't quote me out of context. I made that statement because the of agruement given.
It's not out of context. And, again, unilaterally declaring something invalid just because you don't like it or play that way is ridiculous.
|
|
Please don't quote me out of context. I made that statement because the of agruement given.It's not out of context. And, again, unilaterally declaring something invalid just because you don't like it or play that way is ridiculous.
So you agree with the example given is something that would happen in the normal course of a game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The enemy doesn't know that you are casting a healing spell.
If the GM said to you "The enemy Orc standing next to you begins casting a Spell. Are you a Willing Target for the Spell?"
You're going to assume that it's a hostile spell and say no.
The enemy is going to do the same thing when a player casts a Spell.
There are a couple of potential issues with this in my opinion
A) Players can be willing even while unconscious (the rules specifically point this out) which suggests to me that there is a major meta element to the willingness element.
B) How do other player characters know that the spell is coming from an ally / beneficial to them and not intended to harm allies. We could talk about general expectations or shouted "I am healing you"'s, but that gets a bit murky and the last one could benefit both sides.
The willing element of the healing spell I always thought was there to stop "we torture and heal you magically" loops historically, however this is just a guess at intention.