Expansive Spellstrike and Directionality


Rules Discussion


Hi all,

I plan on playing a Starlit Span Magus and am looking at Expansive Spellstrike as my 2nd level feat which opens up some nice cone and line AEO spells. With that said, does the feat allow me choose the direction of the cone/line (e.g. sideways/backwards wrt to the target of my Strike) or must it always move "away from me" (i.e. direction is unaffected just the origin point is the target of my Strike as opposed to me)?

Basically, I'm wondering if the following clause "if you're not adjacent to the target (using a reach weapon or starlit span, for example), choose any square adjacent to the target as the source" allows me to choose the directionality of my cones/lines?

Thanks in advance for your collective wisdom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe it does allow you to change the direction. The only requirement is that your target is in the area. You pick the source.


Thanks aobst128. The more I study that clause the more I think it *must* be the case that I can choose the directionality because:

1) I can choose any square adjacent to the target as the source AND
2) the target must be in the area

So if I'm 30 feet south of the target, and I choose the square to the left of the target and it needs to be in the area, by definition, the cone/line is moving from left to right (aka east to west).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dpb123 wrote:

Thanks aobst128. The more I study that clause the more I think it *must* be the case that I can choose the directionality because:

1) I can choose any square adjacent to the target as the source AND
2) the target must be in the area

So if I'm 30 feet south of the target, and I choose the square to the left of the target and it needs to be in the area, by definition, the cone/line is moving from left to right (aka east to west).

Yeah, it makes expansive spellstrike a unique option for starlit span. The extra flexibility you get with area spells is pretty handy. You can even cast line spells backwards and with meteoric spellstrike, double dip on that line damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
You can even cast line spells backwards and with meteoric spellstrike, double dip on that line damage.

Nice! I hadn't thought that far enough ahead to see that interaction. Thanks for pointing that out.


It's not quite that good:

Expansive Spellstrike wrote:

If the spell has an area, the target must be in that area. A burst is centered on a corner of the target's square, or the square corner closest to the center of the target, if the target is Large or larger; you choose the corner if more than one is eligible. A cone or line emits from you and must include the target; if you're not adjacent to the target (using a reach weapon or starlit span, for example), choose any square adjacent to the target as the source. The spell affects all creatures in the area as normal, but the Strike still targets only one creature.

That is all one sentence, so the cone or line still emits 'from you' but you can select its starting point, which means the cone or line will still always be going away from you. You can't change the orientation of the effect except by moving yourself.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Asethe wrote:

It's not quite that good:

Expansive Spellstrike wrote:

If the spell has an area, the target must be in that area. A burst is centered on a corner of the target's square, or the square corner closest to the center of the target, if the target is Large or larger; you choose the corner if more than one is eligible. A cone or line emits from you and must include the target; if you're not adjacent to the target (using a reach weapon or starlit span, for example), choose any square adjacent to the target as the source. The spell affects all creatures in the area as normal, but the Strike still targets only one creature.

That is all one sentence, so the cone or line still emits 'from you' but you can select its starting point, which means the cone or line will still always be going away from you. You can't change the orientation of the effect except by moving yourself.

If such was the case, you could not both choose any square adjacent to the target as the source AND ensure that the target must be in that era. So, yes you can change the orientation.


The Raven Black wrote:
Asethe wrote:

It's not quite that good:

Expansive Spellstrike wrote:

If the spell has an area, the target must be in that area. A burst is centered on a corner of the target's square, or the square corner closest to the center of the target, if the target is Large or larger; you choose the corner if more than one is eligible. A cone or line emits from you and must include the target; if you're not adjacent to the target (using a reach weapon or starlit span, for example), choose any square adjacent to the target as the source. The spell affects all creatures in the area as normal, but the Strike still targets only one creature.

That is all one sentence, so the cone or line still emits 'from you' but you can select its starting point, which means the cone or line will still always be going away from you. You can't change the orientation of the effect except by moving yourself.
If such was the case, you could not both choose any square adjacent to the target as the source AND ensure that the target must be in that era. So, yes you can change the orientation.

Being able to do something completely different because you're using a long stick or a bow that a close melee magus couldn't is clearly in the tgtbt territory, and the 'any square' simply allows you, generally, a selection of two or three origin squares without having to waste words.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe what the rules state is that either, a cone or line emits from you, or that it emits from an adjacent square if using reach or ranged attacks. It's not emitting from you when you change the source from range or reach, it has a new source. "From you" in this case isn't deciding direction but the source.


aobst128 wrote:
I believe what the rules state is that either, a cone or line emits from you, or that it emits from an adjacent square if using reach or ranged attacks. It's not emitting from you when you change the source from range or reach, it has a new source. "From you" in this case isn't deciding direction but the source.

I view it as both as it has no language to exclude the caster for directional purposes. Functionally it would operate similar to a spell under the Reach Spell metamagic feat; the alignment is the same, it just starts all the way over there.

To expand on my previous assertion, that this would allow the starlit span or reach weapon magus to do something that a regular melee magus or a caster with a Reach Spell feat couldn't falls into the too good to be true territory. There is a clear disconnect in the way the 'any square' part is being read and previous similar spell interactions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Asethe wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
I believe what the rules state is that either, a cone or line emits from you, or that it emits from an adjacent square if using reach or ranged attacks. It's not emitting from you when you change the source from range or reach, it has a new source. "From you" in this case isn't deciding direction but the source.

I view it as both as it has no language to exclude the caster for directional purposes. Functionally it would operate similar to a spell under the Reach Spell metamagic feat; the alignment is the same, it just starts all the way over there.

To expand on my previous assertion, that this would allow the starlit span or reach weapon magus to do something that a regular melee magus or a caster with a Reach Spell feat couldn't falls into the too good to be true territory. There is a clear disconnect in the way the 'any square' part is being read and previous similar spell interactions.

There is no precedent with reach spell since reach spell doesn't work with lines and cones. There's no precedent at all for this type of effect so all we have to work with is the raw here. Starlit span and reach weapons already do something that no reach magus's can't do. The tgtbt doesn't really fit. Starlit and reach expansive spellstrike is a wholly unique effect. There's nothing in the text that suggests that it works the way you describe.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Note that the use of the semicolon means that both parts before and after are different and of equal value. It is pretty much like bullet points. So the first part does not impact the second one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I still think it feels very wrong that simply changing weapons dramatically increases the utility of these types of spells, I have to concede you are technically right, and in this subforum, that is always the best kind of right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even if RAW, you could pick any other square adjacent to the target, it falls under both the Too Good To Be True clause, but also breaks immersion IMO.

It makes no sense for a damage spell to have an origin point completely separate from the projectile's intended line of travel or from a range further than the weapon's reach.

I would not expect a GM to let me pick an effect that I could both not see as an origin point for the spell (because it's obstructed by a wall or cover), nor would I expect them to let me pick a spot that wasn't on the projectile's intended trajectory, or a spot further from the weapon's reach.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It makes no sense for a damage spell to have an origin point completely separate from the projectile's intended line of travel or from a range further than the weapon's reach.

So, for instance, you'd say Wind-Tossed Spell makes no sense because it allows you to "ignore the target's concealed condition and any cover"? Or Through Spell ignoring "cover provided by living or undead creatures"? We're talking about magic here not a mundane effect like a firecracker, so I'm not sure why treating it like a mundane projectile factors into how the magic is activated. IMO, it makes as much sense as anything else does: you're making all the other choices for the spell, why is origin square an issue? We don't have facing in the game and can attack in any direction so why is it unimaginable that an attack could hit any part of the target and activate? You aren't talking a static unmoving target after all. IMO it breaks immersion more if someone starts trying to reason why magic can't do something... magical and must conform to the mundane. It can create a meteor out of thin air but somehow it is too good to be true if it can pick the square it begins from on a target? Not IMO.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I would not expect a GM to let me pick an effect that I could both not see as an origin point for the spell (because it's obstructed by a wall or cover), nor would I expect them to let me pick a spot that wasn't on the projectile's intended trajectory, or a spot further from the weapon's reach.

Not only would I, I have. Without it, I might just pick another character as leaving it out really makes a lot interesting as a lot of tactics are lost without it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think this one is pretty clear. If you have reach or range for spellstrike you pick a square adjactent to the target as the source of the spell. The only other requirement is that the creature be included in the area of the spell. If it wanted the spell to go in the same direction as the attack it would say so.

As for logic, I mean you are blasting out an arrow or reach attack with a spell charged in it, why couldn't you control the direction it goes? In fact, it should probably let you do that even with a non-reach weapon, magus gets pushed pretty hard into reach weapons already.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It makes no sense for a damage spell to have an origin point completely separate from the projectile's intended line of travel or from a range further than the weapon's reach.

So, for instance, you'd say Wind-Tossed Spell makes no sense because it allows you to "ignore the target's concealed condition and any cover"? Or Through Spell ignoring "cover provided by living or undead creatures"? We're talking about magic here not a mundane effect like a firecracker, so I'm not sure why treating it like a mundane projectile factors into how the magic is activated. IMO, it makes as much sense as anything else does: you're making all the other choices for the spell, why is origin square an issue? We don't have facing in the game and can attack in any direction so why is it unimaginable that an attack could hit any part of the target and activate? You aren't talking a static unmoving target after all. IMO it breaks immersion more if someone starts trying to reason why magic can't do something... magical and must conform to the mundane. It can create a meteor out of thin air but somehow it is too good to be true if it can pick the square it begins from on a target? Not IMO.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I would not expect a GM to let me pick an effect that I could both not see as an origin point for the spell (because it's obstructed by a wall or cover), nor would I expect them to let me pick a spot that wasn't on the projectile's intended trajectory, or a spot further from the weapon's reach.
Not only would I, I have. Without it, I might just pick another character as leaving it out really makes a lot interesting as a lot of tactics are lost without it.

It factors because, at the end of the day, it's just a class-baked-in Spellstrike Ammunition effect with a bit more freedom in terms of its application, where area spells and target effects are a bit more useful (thanks to actually scaling DCs). The other weird thing about those two feats is that Through Spell apparently doesn't work on Constructs, since they are neither living nor dead, even if the spell in question actually works on the Construct, and Wind-Tossed Spell works because it enhances previously existing magic that isn't tied to mundane effects whatsoever.

If it wasn't directly tied to your weapon or projectile, it would totally work as you describe. Or, if it took a free hand to guide the spell effect separate from the projectile, for example. But you literally cast the spell into your weapon and attack with the weapon, gaining the enhanced effects of a spell. The magical is forcibly tied to the mundane not previously done before. It's a big reason why I understand the critical effect of a Shocking weapon making sense compared to a projectile infused with Lightning Bolt or Shocking Grasp, for example.

Liberty's Edge

I think they used this wording because it is more simple than trying to describe distance directionality in a more limited way, such as that proposed above.

If a GM wants to change that RAW as a houserule they should warn players before PC creation though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You basically treat the source as if you were standing in the square that you chose. You decide the direction of the spell before you strike and then move the source with your ammunition. From a fantasy standpoint, this makes enough sense to me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Even if RAW, you could pick any other square adjacent to the target, it falls under both the Too Good To Be True clause, but also breaks immersion IMO.

I mean, what do you think "choose any square adjacent to the target as the source" means then?

"Too good to be true" feels really off base to invoke here because it's something you invoke to resolve ambiguities or errors. The language here seems really straight forward though, to the point where I genuinely can't see any other way to parse that line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If it wasn't directly tied to your weapon or projectile, it would totally work as you describe.

The only thing that's tied to the weapon/projectile is the target: nothing else. You get to make all the choices you always could without it, as long as the target is the creature you hit. IMO, this makes total sense as it's basically saying that you can start the spell at the target and you work your way out from there: while you may have to pick an adjacent square, you are in essence starting a line or cone from the target that was hit by the projectile/weapon and that doesn't seem out of place to me. I find it wonky to try and attribute facing determined spell casting in this situation when we have abilities like I meant to do that that allow you to actively cause an unintended reaction that allows a stray bullet to Shove, Trip, or Disarm the foe you missed... Presetting spell parameters seems much less harmful to immersion that being intentionally cause an unintended accident. :P

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Best would have been to have the source be at the target's square, but I guess lines and cones do not include their source in their area of effect.


Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Even if RAW, you could pick any other square adjacent to the target, it falls under both the Too Good To Be True clause, but also breaks immersion IMO.

I mean, what do you think "choose any square adjacent to the target as the source" means then?

"Too good to be true" feels really off base to invoke here because it's something you invoke to resolve ambiguities or errors. The language here seems really straight forward though, to the point where I genuinely can't see any other way to parse that line.

I know what the RAW says, but it's akin to allowing Battle Medicine to work without justification, because it otherwise doesn't. I can't use "because magic" as an excuse when the effect is equal parts magic and mundane. They are intrinsically bound to one another.

And TGTBT is more for going against unintended cheese. Which I guess is still wrong to invoke in this case. This is more of a table variation thing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I know what the RAW says, but it's akin to allowing Battle Medicine to work without justification, because it otherwise doesn't.

Sorry, unclear what you mean about Battle Medicine?


CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I know what the RAW says, but it's akin to allowing Battle Medicine to work without justification, because it otherwise doesn't.
Sorry, unclear what you mean about Battle Medicine?

Setting-wise, Battle Medicine as a feat just does not actually follow any sort of realism set by the physics of either IRL or Golarion itself.

In short, it's physically impossible for someone to use a healer's tools with any sort of effectiveness in the approximate time-table given to us by the game (where a single round of combat is 6 seconds of simultaneous combat, of which Battle Medicine only takes 1/3 of the allotted "time" given for the round). Show me a doctor that can patch a patient up in 2 seconds, and I'll show you someone whose can benchpress a rhinoceros and wrestle it to submission. Both are equally ridiculous, but one is actually physically possible and permissible by the fantasy. The other, not so much.

But we let it work because A. we asked for it, and B. it creates dead rules space that would otherwise fill a really important niche in combat (which is non-magical in-combat healing).

This is particularly no different, especially if the attack is a hit. I can't justify the projectile's magical energies spewing in a non-conformed direction unless there is leeway for it to work (such as in the case of a missed attack, it can be argued that the projectile landed in the appropriate square and spun out as much).

It's almost as bad as being able to benefit from Evasion in an inescapable damaging effect that encompasses every open space for the PC to actively avoid the effect. But we let it work because it otherwise extremely nerfs options into uselessness in an area where we want a niche to work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, you can spray a Cone of Cold from basically any direction from yourself, right? So when that spell is put into the arrow, doesn't it stand to reason that the spell can be "set" to issue forth from any angle of the arrow/bolt/other projectile?


beowulf99 wrote:
I mean, you can spray a Cone of Cold from basically any direction from yourself, right? So when that spell is put into the arrow, doesn't it stand to reason that the spell can be "set" to issue forth from any angle of the arrow/bolt/other projectile?

Depends. If the direction is "away from you", then it makes no sense. If the direction is not "always away from you", then sure.

I think that is the heart of the matter. Does Expansive Spellstrike eliminate the other rules for picking an AoE's area of effect?

As far as I can tell what the feats does is let you move around the effect origin point. Not change its direction. So a burst would get shifted and not be affected. A line would always start before the target. A cone can start on any square before the target. Etc.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
I mean, you can spray a Cone of Cold from basically any direction from yourself, right? So when that spell is put into the arrow, doesn't it stand to reason that the spell can be "set" to issue forth from any angle of the arrow/bolt/other projectile?

Depends. If the direction is "away from you", then it makes no sense. If the direction is not "always away from you", then sure.

I think that is the heart of the matter. Does Expansive Spellstrike eliminate the other rules for picking an AoE's area of effect?

As far as I can tell what the feats does is let you move around the effect origin point. Not change its direction. So a burst would get shifted and not be affected. A line would always start before the target. A cone can start on any square before the target. Etc.

Not possible if you want to both start from any square adjacent to the target AND include the target, which are both RAW here.


The Raven Black wrote:
Temperans wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
I mean, you can spray a Cone of Cold from basically any direction from yourself, right? So when that spell is put into the arrow, doesn't it stand to reason that the spell can be "set" to issue forth from any angle of the arrow/bolt/other projectile?

Depends. If the direction is "away from you", then it makes no sense. If the direction is not "always away from you", then sure.

I think that is the heart of the matter. Does Expansive Spellstrike eliminate the other rules for picking an AoE's area of effect?

As far as I can tell what the feats does is let you move around the effect origin point. Not change its direction. So a burst would get shifted and not be affected. A line would always start before the target. A cone can start on any square before the target. Etc.

Not possible if you want to both start from any square adjacent to the target AND include the target, which are both RAW here.

I believe that is the debate people are having. Either:

* You can target any square and aim it in any direction with regards to that square (even aiming it at you).

Or,

* You can aim it in any square and aiming it only an angle away from you.

Grand Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SoM wrote:

You've adapted a wider array of spells to work with your attacks. Rather than needing to use a spell that has a spell attack roll for a Spellstrike, you can use a harmful spell that can target a creature or that has an area of a burst, cone, or line (abiding by any other restrictions of Spellstrike). When you Cast a Spell that doesn't have a spell attack roll as part of a Spellstrike, it works in the following ways.

*If your Strike critically fails, the spell is lost with no effect.
Creatures use their normal defenses against the spell, such as saving throws.
*If the spell lets you select a number of targets, it instead targets only the creature you attacked with your Strike.
*If the spell has an area, the target must be in that area. A burst is centered on a corner of the target's square, or the square corner closest to the center of the target, if the target is Large or larger; you choose the corner if more than one is eligible. A cone or line emits from you and must include the target; if you're not adjacent to the target (using a reach weapon or starlit span, for example), choose any square adjacent to the target as the source. The spell affects all creatures in the area as normal, but the Strike still targets only one creature.

RAW allows you to choose any square. I'm not understanding where the room for debate is. I can understand a tgtbt argument, but the argument is in opposition to the clearly stated RAW, not due to any sort of written ambiguity.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Temperans wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
I mean, you can spray a Cone of Cold from basically any direction from yourself, right? So when that spell is put into the arrow, doesn't it stand to reason that the spell can be "set" to issue forth from any angle of the arrow/bolt/other projectile?

Depends. If the direction is "away from you", then it makes no sense. If the direction is not "always away from you", then sure.

I think that is the heart of the matter. Does Expansive Spellstrike eliminate the other rules for picking an AoE's area of effect?

As far as I can tell what the feats does is let you move around the effect origin point. Not change its direction. So a burst would get shifted and not be affected. A line would always start before the target. A cone can start on any square before the target. Etc.

Not possible if you want to both start from any square adjacent to the target AND include the target, which are both RAW here.

I believe that is the debate people are having. Either:

* You can target any square and aim it in any direction with regards to that square (even aiming it at you).

Or,

* You can aim it in any square and aiming it only an angle away from you.

There is nothing in the RAW that supports the second part when using reach or ranged weapons.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
RAW allows you to choose any square. I'm not understanding where the room for debate is. I can understand a tgtbt argument, but the argument is in opposition to the clearly stated RAW, not due to any sort of written ambiguity.

Agreed. There is no directionality requirement. There are two requirements. The spell must originate in a square adjacent to the target, and the target must be in the area of the spell.

That is literally it. If people want to change the rule for their games because they don't like it that is fine, to each their own. But the rules are pretty clear here.


beowulf99 wrote:
I mean, you can spray a Cone of Cold from basically any direction from yourself, right? So when that spell is put into the arrow, doesn't it stand to reason that the spell can be "set" to issue forth from any angle of the arrow/bolt/other projectile?

To a point. There can be setting arguments as to how you can cast a spell from any direction, simply because you are turning or aiming in the direction you are wanting to cast the spell. Being able to rotate facing (even if mechanically, facing does not exist) within your square makes it sensible to allow the mechanic.

You can't make that argument when the projectile isn't rotating in the midst of a shot, like some Looney Tunes shenanigans. If I fire an arrow at an enemy, and I hit, I do not expect the spell to retroactively shoot behind it and expect to doubly affect my target, even if RAW says I can or that I have to. It kills immersion that Pathfinder is more Looney Tunes than realistic fantasy in that case. It's a similar argument to how Gunslingers taking a feat to explode themselves toward a direction makes them feel more like Yosemite Sam instead of Sparkster the Rocket Knight.

It's just absolutely silly from a setting standpoint, even if RAW is quite clear what is supposed to happen. It's one of the reasons why I like the Cascading Ray feat compared to...this. Even if mechanically, Expansive Spellstrike is quite liberating in spell options.


Generally, a Magus will suffer in the DC department due to training and not having their casting stat be their key stat. So I think it's a fair "bonus" to give them to incentivize using Expansive Spellstrike with areas.

Targeted spells just tend to be less useful this way. Though I suppose there is some use for extending the range of spells like Fear to Longbow Range. But the lower relative DC still hurts those spells effectiveness.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It kills immersion that Pathfinder is more Looney Tunes than realistic fantasy in that case.

I mean, fair enough I guess but "magic spell can go off at a different angle" seems like a really strange line in the sand to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my case I just wasn't sure of the rules and was hoping someone would say if there was any directionality rules I might have missed. By the sound of it there is none, so yeah Magus can aim it anyway they want.

Now yeah, if someone doesn't like it, like everything else, they can change it.


Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It kills immersion that Pathfinder is more Looney Tunes than realistic fantasy in that case.
I mean, fair enough I guess but "magic spell can go off at a different angle" seems like a really strange line in the sand to me.

"Magic spell tied to a mundane object can go off at an angle different from the expected trajectory of the projectile it's attached to" would be a more accurate line in the sand for me. I'm totally fine with pure magic doing whatever it wants. Magic tied to an object still has limits it needs to obey in terms of immersive realism, especially when its impact is directly tied to the results of the object.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It kills immersion that Pathfinder is more Looney Tunes than realistic fantasy in that case.
I mean, fair enough I guess but "magic spell can go off at a different angle" seems like a really strange line in the sand to me.
"Magic spell tied to a mundane object can go off at an angle different from the expected trajectory of the projectile it's attached to" would be a more accurate line in the sand for me. I'm totally fine with pure magic doing whatever it wants. Magic tied to an object still has limits it needs to obey in terms of immersive realism, especially when its impact is directly tied to the results of the object.

I personally can't understand why it's against theme for the magic in the projectile to be programed with all the parameters it needs before it even leaves the weapon. In essence, why does the magic care one bit what direction the projectile hit from and not caring about the direction referenced from the target instead? I can't see why the magic can only be 'away' for it to make sense to you: I don't see anything in the magic that necessitates this to be the case. After all, the magic isn't getting 'pushed' by the projectile and had no reason to be restricted by physics.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It kills immersion that Pathfinder is more Looney Tunes than realistic fantasy in that case.
I mean, fair enough I guess but "magic spell can go off at a different angle" seems like a really strange line in the sand to me.
"Magic spell tied to a mundane object can go off at an angle different from the expected trajectory of the projectile it's attached to" would be a more accurate line in the sand for me. I'm totally fine with pure magic doing whatever it wants. Magic tied to an object still has limits it needs to obey in terms of immersive realism, especially when its impact is directly tied to the results of the object.
I personally can't understand why it's against theme for the magic in the projectile to be programed with all the parameters it needs before it even leaves the weapon. In essence, why does the magic care one bit what direction the projectile hit from and not caring about the direction referenced from the target instead? I can't see why the magic can only be 'away' for it to make sense to you: I don't see anything in the magic that necessitates this to be the case. After all, the magic isn't getting 'pushed' by the projectile and had no reason to be restricted by physics.

If you can point out the difference between Elmer Fudd's shotgun and a PF2 Magus using Expansive Spellstrike, in an immersion sense, I'd be inclined to hear it. Because as far as I'm concerned, they are both pretty equal in terms of ridiculousness.

Grand Archive

Delantris draws another arrow as she begins chanting. When she knocks the arrow she taps a finger onto the right side of the shaft of the arrow as she finishes her chant and a small red symbol glows in that spot. She takes in a deep breath of air and steadily draws the bow string back to her pointed elven ear. Flashes of her training, traditional to her people, that mix weapons and magic with grace and finesse race through her mind. With an even exhale she releases the arrow.

The arrow arcs just over the front line of enemies to the archers they are protecting in the back. It collides into an archer's chest with a sickening thunk and then the symbol that was planted on the arrow glows bright red. A second later the arrow explodes in a gout of flame into the backs of the front line and charring the archer hit.

#immersion


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If you can point out the difference between Elmer Fudd's shotgun and a PF2 Magus using Expansive Spellstrike, in an immersion sense, I'd be inclined to hear it. Because as far as I'm concerned, they are both pretty equal in terms of ridiculousness.

I mean, if YOU can point out where Elmer Fudd's shotgun and pathfinder magic exist in the same universe, I might think you have a point... Once you decouple rays and lines from having to start from your space, there is NOTHING to indicate what direction they should go other than what allows you to bypass the normal restrictions. As such, it makes just as much sense for it to go the same direction as the attack as it does to go 180 degrees from it as NOTHING about the magic has any relation to the missile other than the target.

I still can't understand where the direction of the magic gets tied to the direction of the ammo: this is never expressed anywhere and I don't see a reason to assume it's there. Can you explain why you think the magic should be required to go in the same direction without being specifically told it must? Why do you think there is a reason you can't decide spell parameters but instead have to rely on the missile for them instead: ie, why does the missile pick the direction of the spell and not the caster?


.....Ummm everything is in the same multiverse, by virtue of it being a multiverse. Just keep that in mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
.....Ummm everything is in the same multiverse, by virtue of it being a multiverse. Just keep that in mind.

I'd have to disagree. Looney toons universe an pathfinder in no way exist in the same multiverse. I've never seen pathfinder adventure where you meet foghorn leghorn or a looney toon cartoon with pathfinder characters in it, hence them not existing in the same multiverse: ie, their realities never mix and do not exist side by side but exist as independent fictional realities. They are as connected as harry potter and dragon lance and I'm not looking to harry potter to figure out how 5e magic works.

The existence of a multiverse doesn't in any way mean every setting is in that particular subset or universes that constitute an individual multiverse.


graystone wrote:
Temperans wrote:
.....Ummm everything is in the same multiverse, by virtue of it being a multiverse. Just keep that in mind.

I'd have to disagree. Looney toons universe an pathfinder in no way exist in the same multiverse. I've never seen pathfinder adventure where you meet foghorn leghorn or a looney toon cartoon with pathfinder characters in it, hence them not existing in the same multiverse: ie, their realities never mix and do not exist side by side but exist as independent fictional realities. They are as connected as harry potter and dragon lance and I'm not looking to harry potter to figure out how 5e magic works.

The existence of a multiverse doesn't in any way mean every setting is in that particular subset or universes that constitute an individual multiverse.

I didn't mean that every setting is in every universe, but that home games can be weird and that fan-fiction is a thing. I was not arguing about the rest of the post, just saying "GMs can do crazy things, them including Looney Tunes isn't that crazy."

Liberty's Edge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It kills immersion that Pathfinder is more Looney Tunes than realistic fantasy in that case.
I mean, fair enough I guess but "magic spell can go off at a different angle" seems like a really strange line in the sand to me.
"Magic spell tied to a mundane object can go off at an angle different from the expected trajectory of the projectile it's attached to" would be a more accurate line in the sand for me. I'm totally fine with pure magic doing whatever it wants. Magic tied to an object still has limits it needs to obey in terms of immersive realism, especially when its impact is directly tied to the results of the object.

What would be too much for me would be the spell going wherever from the point of impact without including the target. No such thing here.

The object hits the target and the spell tied to the object goes off, hitting the target. Logically, the source should be the square that the object hit, ie the target's square. But since the source of line or cone is not affected by the spell in PFS RAW, it has to be another square close by and still contain the target.

What actually happens is that the object hits the target and then the spell is released and affects the target and all the squares behind, in a direction that actually goes with where the object hit the target. The last point is not precisely covered by the RAW and is approximated by the any adjacent square thing.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I would houserule though is that the any square adjacent rule applies to any Strike, and not only reach or ranged ones.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Expansive Spellstrike and Directionality All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.