| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, is it possible to use the Aqueous Orb as shelter ?
If the character with amphibious trait cast the Aqueous Orb and engulfed itself, the character can benefit advantages from the normal rules for aquatic battles :
You gain resistance 5 to acid and fire.
Ranged attacks that deal bludgeoning or slashing damage automatically miss if the attacker or target is underwater, and piercing ranged attacks made by an underwater creature or against an underwater target have their range increments halved.
What means exactly this sentence ?
Unlike most spells, you can gain this effect multiple times in the same round by Sustaining the Spell multiple times.
Is it possible to sustain 3 Aqueous Orb in a turn ?
Thanks for your future answer.
Yes, you could use it as shelter, or cover.
Yep, it says the normal aquatic battle rules apply if the creature inside is Medium or smaller. Nice, but not out of line for a 3rd level spell that requires Sustaining. Pretty good way to shut down a corridor, especially if fighting on multiple fronts.
Most spells which are Sustained can only be Sustained once per round, and that action often comes with a benefit, like moving the Aqueous Orb in this instance. But the orb has the exception that you can Sustain it (and therefore move it) more than once per round.
This has nothing to do with multiple instances of a spell which you can already Sustain separately. The limit on Sustaining once per round is also per spell; you can Sustain once for each spell that requires it.
So yes, you could Sustain 3 Aqueous Orbs in a turn (if you could find a way to cast them all), but that's true of all Sustained spells w/ separate castings. The Aqueous Orb is special because you can Sustain the same casting multiple times in order to keep moving it (and thereby have more opportunities to pick up targets).
Is it possible to use wall of ice on a aqueous orb to prevent an opponent to escape from itself ?
Is it possible to use control water to have an expansion effect on the aqueous orb ?
Hello, is it possible to use the Aqueous Orb as shelter ?
If the character with amphibious trait cast the Aqueous Orb and engulfed itself, the character can benefit advantages from the normal rules for aquatic battles :
You gain resistance 5 to acid and fire.
Ranged attacks that deal bludgeoning or slashing damage automatically miss if the attacker or target is underwater, and piercing ranged attacks made by an underwater creature or against an underwater target have their range increments halved.
Yes. I can't think of any better way of ruling things than this.
What means exactly this sentence ?
Unlike most spells, you can gain this effect multiple times in the same round by Sustaining the Spell multiple times.Is it possible to sustain 3 Aqueous Orb in a turn ?
The rule sentence means that you can spend a second or third action on sustain and be able to move the orb around on the battlefield some more.
The other way of reading your question is 'Can you get three Aqueous Orbs on the battlefield at the same time. Which is actually possible using either Effortless Concentration or Witch Cackle. Getting two out isn't hard since Aqueous Orb casting is only two actions. That third round you need a free action to sustain one of the Orbs, An action to sustain the second orb, then still have two actions left to cast the third orb.
Which is generally completely useless since you could just have one orb running around three times instead - which would only cost you one spell slot and could come online on your second turn. But it is cool B-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it possible to use wall of ice on a aqueous orb to prevent an opponent to escape from itself ?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.
No, you shouldn't be able to use the Wall of Ice spell to turn the water in the Aqueous Orb into ice and therefore imprison an enemy inside it. Wall of Ice creates its own water/ice rather than needing or using existing water.
Maybe something like casting Wall of Ice in the space around the Aqueous Orb so that the escaping character has nowhere to move to once they escape? I would still rule that if the trapped creature succeeds at the escape or swim check needed to escape, then they get a breath of air before getting pulled back into the orb. So while it would consume actions of the creature and slow down their ability to break through the wall of ice (especially since they can't cast fire spells while underwater), it won't actually cause death by drowning very often.
Is it possible to use control water to have an expansion effect on the aqueous orb ?
Probably not. The water in Aqueous Orb is already being controlled by a spell - the Aqueous Orb spell. Maybe you could justify allowing a casting of Control Water to grant a Counteract check on the Aqueous Orb, but even that would be a houserule and a bit of a stretch.
That gets into GM interpretation area.
One thing to note is the Wall doesn't freeze until it's shattered, so it won't freeze the Aqueous Orb and who knows what a GM would rule if you roll the orb through a broken portion.
Personally, while I'd allow the wall to be cast either underwater or above, the transition doesn't feel like "unbroken open space" so at best you'd put a dome over the orb and yes, you could tighten the radius so there's very little space, but a hemisphere over a circle will leave some room for air.
Maybe best would be that aquatic battle rules would apply so it'd be more difficult to break the wall, but we are talking two spells here, one of which needs to be Sustained and the other which takes 3-actions so barring high-level feats you'd need two casters.
I think the payoff is minor for all that firepower and coordination, but yes, any sort of wall might keep somebody from swimming out of the orb.
Control Water's already been the source of much discussion in regards to abnormal instances of water. You might want to look it up to see the amount of variety you may find w/ GMs. Ask yours.
Technically you could only expand upward at most. Also I'd rule that the new water wouldn't be a portion of the Aqueous Orb so no, you wouldn't be expanding the spell's area, but would be raising water out of the orb.
I have other questions about aqueous orb.
A creature that fails its save is pulled into the orb. It becomes grabbed, moves along with the orb, and must hold its breath or begin suffocating (unless it can breathe in water).
If you're immobilized by something holding you in place and an external force would move you out of your space, the force must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect holding you in place or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of the monster holding you in place.
An engulfed creature can get free either by Swimming with a successful DC 10 Athletics check or by Escaping against your spell DC.
A creature must make a Fortitude save for the Immobilized condition before it can get free by swimming with an Athletic checks ?
When a creature is an aqueous orb, what happens if an opponent cast a spell or use an effect with fire, acide, electricity damage from outside ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Particularly fun is drowning someone who is trapped in the orb with hideous laughter.
When a creature is an aqueous orb, what happens if an opponent cast a spell or use an effect with fire, acide, electricity damage from outside ?
Unless aqueous orb or the Underwater Combat rules says differently, the spell or effect with acid, fire, or electricity has its normal effect.
And for my other question, nobody ?
A creature must make a Fortitude save for the Immobilized condition before it can get free by swimming with an Athletic checks ?
Is it possible to increase the speed of the aqueous orb with a Decanter of Endless Water (you cause a powerful deluge of water to erupt at a rate of 15 gallons per round. You can direct the stream at a creature, subjecting it to the effects of hydraulic push (spell attack roll +15). You can repeat this once per round as long as the geyser continues, spending an Interact action to direct the geyser each time.) ?
A creature that fails its save is pulled into the orb. It becomes grabbed, moves along with the orb, and must hold its breath or begin suffocating (unless it can breathe in water).
If you're immobilized by something holding you in place and an external force would move you out of your space, the force must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect holding you in place or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of the monster holding you in place.
No, I use the Decanter being in the aqueous orb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW you can't use it on the Orb, it's not a creature.
And I'd add that if you could target the Orb, you'd push the water out, much like taking a firehose to a pool except the firehose's water cannot refill it. The effect would deplete the Orb's water.
I have other questions about aqueous orb.
A creature that fails its save is pulled into the orb. It becomes grabbed, moves along with the orb, and must hold its breath or begin suffocating (unless it can breathe in water).If you're immobilized by something holding you in place and an external force would move you out of your space, the force must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect holding you in place or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of the monster holding you in place.An engulfed creature can get free either by Swimming with a successful DC 10 Athletics check or by Escaping against your spell DC.A creature must make a Fortitude save for the Immobilized condition before it can get free by swimming with an Athletic checks ?
If you're immobilized by something holding you in place
In this case the force holding the creature in place is the Aqueous Orb.
and an external force would move you out of your space,
And the Aqueous Orb is also the force trying to move the creature out of its current place.
the force must succeed at a check against ... the DC of the effect holding you in place
So Aqueous Orb needs to succeed at a check against itself. I would just rule that the Aqueous Orb automatically succeeds.
And if that isn't what you are asking and instead are asking about the creature trapped in the Aqueous Orb: no, it doesn't need to make a separate Fortitude check. That is only when something else (the external force) is trying to move that creature out of the space.
So if an ally of a trapped creature wanted to use the Decanter of Endless Water to push the trapped creature out of the Orb, then the Decanter of Endless Water (or the Hydraulic Push effect) would have to make the Fortitude check against the Aqueous Orb in order to succeed at pushing the target.
No, idea here.
The spellcaster of aqueous orb is going into aqueours orb and use Decanter of Endless Water to attempt the speed of the aqueous orb above 10 feet per turn. Is it possible ?
No, idea here.
The spellcaster of aqueous orb is going into aqueours orb and use Decanter of Endless Water to attempt the speed of the aqueous orb above 10 feet per turn. Is it possible ?
Personally, it sounds like a good way to fire the user out of the orb at high speeds like a water rocket. I'm sure it'll surprise any monsters as he flies at them from the orb. ;)
Is it possible to use tangling creepers on an aqueous orb ?
Is it possible to use tangling creepers on an aqueous orb ?
No, though you could cast it and have the orb be inside the area; IE, you can't target the orb as it targets a 40-foot burst.
PS: also as a non-creature, the orb isn't slowed down by the spell either.
Is it possible to use gravity well to attract the opponents towards the aqueours orb ?
Is it possible to use gravity well to attract the opponents towards the aqueours orb ?
I don't see why not.
The only question I would have to rule on would be if the Aqueous Orb is also pulled in by the Gravity Well. It certainly isn't a creature, so it doesn't get a Reflex save. But it really isn't an unsecured object either. The Aqueous Orb is a spell effect. So maybe a counteract check to see which magic is stronger - the Aqueous Orb's magic moving the Orb around, or the Gravity Well's magic trying to pull it towards the center.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why not.
And people say that English doesn't use double negative. Hah.
And yes, I am aware that double negative in other languages is different than this. Because in this case the two negatives become a positive statement, rather than staying a negative. :-P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why not.And people say that English doesn't use double negative. Hah.
Does anyone actually say that?
I've primarily heard it more as "you shouldn't use a double negative in English, because it can make a sentence harder to follow" Despite this, people do it all the time (myself included). Or better yet, I and many others will say "yeah, no" to mean something along the lines of "I understand what you're saying, and the answer's no".I've found most languages get a lot more complicated once you start breaking the rules and actually listening to native speakers than they technically are supposed to be on paper.
I don't see why not.And people say that English doesn't use double negative. Hah.
Um, that's not the problem with double negatives. You used two negatives, intending both of them and they don't cancel out your intended meaning.
Casual, colloquial English often features a double negative even though the speaker's message only intends one negative statement.Ex. "I don't go to no such place."
If taken literally, these two negatives cancel to say the person does go to such places. Since they likely mean the opposite, it's considered sloppy in less informal speech or outright wrong in formal spheres.
Funnily enough in some languages, i.e. Japanese, negative statements often have two negatives, i.e. don't hardly. In those languages a double negative does not cancel out one's intended meaning and are expected. This makes the contrast between a negative or positive statement starker, and IMO aids communication.
So yeah, the absence of an absence is perfectly fine in English...unless you'd meant something else. :P And of course, that's grammar. In terms of style, dialogue allows anything you want as long as the message is as clear as you intend it to be. And a rigorous writer should default to positive statements so "I don't see why not" might become "I see why..." though that's well beyond forum norms and would lead to a discussion re: formality, passivity, voice, et al which is mostly irrelevant in English (though important in Japanese!).
Does anyone actually say that?
I know I've never not used them. ;)
For Tangled Forest Stance :
While you’re in Tangled Forest Stance and [u]can act[/u], every enemy in your reach that tries to move away from you must succeed at a Reflex save, Acrobatics check, or Athletics check against your class DC or be immobilized for that action.
What means exactly "can act" ? Reactions ?
If you have actions you can act. If you're ever Stunned, Paralyzed or Unconscious, you can't act.
Even more than that. When you can't act even if you do somehow manage to have actions, you still can't actually use them. Including your three actions that you get normally on your turn*, your reaction, and any other actions that you might get from things like Haste.
* You also don't regain your three actions or reaction at the beginning of your turn when you can't act.
For Tangled Forest Stance :
While you’re in Tangled Forest Stance and [u]can act[/u], every enemy in your reach that tries to move away from you must succeed at a Reflex save, Acrobatics check, or Athletics check against your class DC or be immobilized for that action.What means exactly "can act" ? Reactions ?
This means that this effect of forcing everyone else to make an Acrobatics check, an Athletics check, or a Reflex save doesn't actually require an action each round. It happens automatically just because you are in the Tangled Forest stance.
However, if you ever do gain a condition that says that you "can't act", then you would also lose this passive benefit.
It's not possible to use glyph of warding with an aqueours orb, is it right ?
The spell must be 2nd, 1st or cantrip level, is it right ?
|
It's not possible to use glyph of warding with an aqueours orb, is it right ?
The spell must be 2nd, 1st or cantrip level, is it right ?
Glyph of Warding just needs a spell of a lower level, so a 3rd level spell would work if you cast Glyph of Warding as a 4th level spell.
Aqueous Orb on the other hand wouldn't work because it doesn't meet the requirements of the spell that needs to be placed in the Glyph of Warding. The requirements are:
The stored spell must take 3 actions or fewer to cast - It only takes 2 actions
Have a hostile effect - The spell is indeed hostile
and target one creature or have an area. - The spell has no targets and no area. It just creates a ball of water and you need to move it around the field.
It's also sustained, and if you put a sustained spell into a glyph you wouldn't be able to sustain it after the first round, rendering it practically useless.
The stored spell must take 3 actions or fewer to cast - It only takes 2 actions
2 actions it's good, no ? Because it's 3 actions or fewer.
and target one creature or have an area.
If the creature triggers, the orb appears in the same space, no ?
It's also sustained, and if you put a sustained spell into a glyph you wouldn't be able to sustain it after the first round, rendering it practically useless.
If I m present to sustain the spell, is it not possible ?
|
|
and target one creature or have an area.If the creature triggers, the orb appears in the same space, no ? No, because that's not a "target". You conjure an orb at a designated location. If something is in that square they get caught in it. You aren't "targeting" any creature when you cast the spell.
Basically, the spell needs to have a "Targets" entry, and this spell doesn't.
It's also sustained, and if you put a sustained spell into a glyph you wouldn't be able to sustain it after the first round, rendering it practically useless.If I m present to sustain the spell, is it not possible ?Sure if you're there you could sustain it, but a Glyph is meant as a trap, so it's usually cast then left alone to either alert the caster of something's presence or to just cause damage.
|
It's also sustained, and if you put a sustained spell into a glyph you wouldn't be able to sustain it after the first round, rendering it practically useless.If I m present to sustain the spell, is it not possible ?
That is a question for a GM. The way I see it, glyph of warding is a set it and forget it kind of thing. You can't change something about the spell once you've turn it into a trap. Therefore, I wouldn't imagine you could sustain it upon its triggering either.
The stored spell must take 3 actions or fewer to cast - It only takes 2 actions2 actions it's good, no ? Because it's 3 actions or fewer.
Correct. Aqueous Orb meets the requirement for the number of actions needed to cast.
and target one creature or have an area.If the creature triggers, the orb appears in the same space, no ?
It isn't defined where it appears. That is why Aqueous Orb (or other spells without a target or an area) are not allowed to be used with Glyph of Warding.
It's also sustained, and if you put a sustained spell into a glyph you wouldn't be able to sustain it after the first round, rendering it practically useless.If I m present to sustain the spell, is it not possible ?
I wouldn't allow it. You are no longer the one casting the spell. The Glyph of Warding is. And you can't sustain a spell that you didn't cast. Much like Witch's Bottle - the duration can be extended by casting Cackle into the bottle, but you can't continue sustaining the spell after the other character uses the bottle and casts the spell.
I Have a question about aqueous orb and unconscious.
If an opponent is inconscious with a sleeper hold or a stupor poison, the character casts then an aqueous orb on the unconscious opponent.
The opponent don't wake up with this spell, because there are no damage, is it right ? or only with sleeper hold ?
With suffocate rules, the opponent without air can’t recover from being unconscious, is it right ?
Is it possible with a command spell to ask an unconscious opponent to speak ?
I would say that you would wake up when it touches you. Getting hit with a giant ball of water would be similar to shaking you awake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I Have a question about aqueous orb and unconscious.
If an opponent is inconscious with a sleeper hold or a stupor poison, the character casts then an aqueous orb on the unconscious opponent.
Well, you have to cast Aqueous Orb next to the opponent and then move it over them.
And they would still get the Reflex save against the spell even while unconscious.
The opponent don't wake up with this spell, because there are no damage, is it right ? or only with sleeper hold ?
With suffocate rules, the opponent without air can’t recover from being unconscious, is it right ?
I would separate the Unconscious condition due to source. So initially they are only unconscious because of the sleeper hold, poison, or other source - but not due to Aqueous Orb and Suffocation rules. So until they run out of air, they would still be able to remove the unconscious condition that they already have according to the rules for whatever is causing the condition in the first place.
It is a bit of GM adjudication to decide whether they will be holding their breath while unconscious. But it seems to be too much of a 'die with no recourse' option to not let them.
Is it possible with a command spell to ask an unconscious opponent to speak ?
Well ... you can ask. Since they can't act, they won't be able to actually obey the command to speak though.
So no, you can't use that to force an unconscious enemy to lose their air while inside an Aqueous Orb.
Also, I am not seeing 'speak' as one of the command options in the Command spell. There may be other similar spells that force the target to answer a question though.
I got an issue this week with Aqueous Orb. I was grappled by an enemy and cast Aqueous Orb on it with the goal of moving it and removing my grappled condition. The enemy succeeded at the save. So there was in the same 10ft. by 10ft. square both an Aqueous Orb and a large opponent. It was a bit weird and nonsensical. But at the same time, forcing the enemy to move even on a successfull save would have been too strong of an effect... So, it puzzled me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A sphere of water 10 feet in diameter forms in an unoccupied space in range
Reminder that you don't cast Aqueous Orb on an enemy.
When you Cast the Spell and each time you Sustain the Spell, you can roll the orb, moving it up to 10 feet
You can cast it next to them and immediately move it on top of them though. In fact, with only a 2-action cast time, you can move it on top of them and then sustain the spell for your third action - moving it again.
Your target is grabbed until the end of your next turn unless you move or your target Escapes.
If a creature succeeds at this save, it can either let the orb pass (remaining in its space or moving out of the orb's path into a space of the creature's choice) or allow itself to be pushed in front of the orb to the end of the orb's movement.
Yeah, if the enemy succeeds at the save, then they don't have to move. And certainly wouldn't want to if they are trying to maintain a grapple.
But yes, it is fairly hard to describe what it looks like to have a 10-ft diameter ball of water and a large creature sharing the same space without having the orb engulfing the creature.
The problem is that the sentence has a lot of potential meanings.
"let the orb pass (remaining in its space or moving out of the orb's path into a space of the creature's choice)"
From a technical reading, you can either remain in your space or move out of the orb's path. But in an english reading, you can't "let the orb pass" by staying in the middle of if. It's valid if the orb doesn't stop in your space. Otherwise it doesn't "pass".
Also, the 'or' can have too meanings. Either it's a choice, or it's a list of the actions you can take to let the orb pass.
So, I'm not sure it's that easy to conclude that staying in the orb is a valid way to "let the orb pass".
But I agree that a saveless ability that forces a creature to move (even if it's wherever it wants) is a bit too strong.
But I agree that a saveless ability that forces a creature to move (even if it's wherever it wants) is a bit too strong.
Yeah, because any movement breaks the grapple. Even if it is movement that allows you to remain in grapple range of the target that you were grappling.
I suppose it depends on what Logan says about voluntarily failing a save. At that point the enemy could choose to be engulfed by the Aqueous Orb so that they can maintain their grapple. But then you could forcibly move them by moving the Orb again as your next action. So that still doesn't really give them a chance in the matter.
Is it possible to use rime slick spell or cold comfort consumable to create a layer of ice on the aqueous orb ?
Or resilient sphere ?
Rime Slick: Mechanically, it wouldn't really do anything. Rime Slick makes terrain into difficult terrain and makes unattended objects difficult to pick up. An Aqueous Orb is a spell effect and is neither terrain or an object that people are going to be picking up.
But sure, you can describe it as briefly creating a layer of ice over the Aqueous Orb - that then melts rather quickly. Because small amounts of ice does that when in contact with large amounts of water.
Cold Comfort: This one is trying to replace all of the water of the Aqueous Orb with ice instead. I'm not sure if I simply wouldn't allow that at all, or if I would allow it on a successful counteract check.
Resilient Sphere: Cold Comfort wouldn't interact at all since it isn't made of water. For Rime Slick it would be the same as with Aqueous Orb. The spell would have no mechanical effect because the Resilient Sphere isn't terrain or an object to be picked up. And the description of the ice covering it should be brief as a result.
For resilient sphere, it is to prevent someone to leave the aqueous orb.
For Cold comfort, it is to freeze only the outer surface of the aqueous orb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem really determined to use a 3rd level spell to kill enemies without allowing any saving throw or means of escape. That is way, way too powerful. As a GM, I would never allow anything like that.
If a character casts a freedom movement with a verbal component in an aqueous orb, the character lose all remaining air, no ?
When you run out of air, you fall unconscious and start suffocating.
Or the character succeed to escape ?
You seem really determined to use a 3rd level spell to kill enemies without allowing any saving throw or means of escape. That is way, way too powerful. As a GM, I would never allow anything like that.
Yes and when you start combining spell effects together, or making two spell effects interact, you are into explicit GM territory. Most reasonable GMs will give an enemy a saving throw at some point.
I'm surprised you haven't tried to drown someone behind a wall yet. That technically has no save. Though they can bash through the wall.