So question for everyone, the elemental sorcerer blood magic reads:
"...or a target takes 1 damage per spell level..."
Do you all play this as the intent is to be "an affected creature"? Because if not, then that Blood Magic option works literally only for Elemental Toss, as none of the Granted Spells actually target anyone (minus resist energy, but probably not casting that to *do* fire damage...).
This strikes me as a clear mistake in the rules, but curious what others thought.
EDIT: Given the rules for base blood magic, I'm assuming it's the intended way: "If the spell has an area, you must designate yourself or one target in the area when you cast the spell to be the target of the blood magic effect. All references to spell level refer to the level of the spell you cast."
tivadar27 wrote: Do you all play this as the intent is to be "an affected creature"? Yes. So any one of the affected creatures in the area of Burning Hands for instance.
But even without that, it is still better than Shadow bloodline where the initial focus spell is 1) nearly useless even if it is able to be cast, and 2) can't be cast at all until you can cast some spells with the shadow or darkness trait - which generally come available at spell level 3.
At least for Elemental bloodline you have one spell that triggers the increased damage, and there is the entire other blood magic effect to use.
tivadar27 wrote: So question for everyone, the elemental sorcerer blood magic reads:
"...or a target takes 1 damage per spell level..."
Do you all play this as the intent is to be "an affected creature"? Because if not, then that Blood Magic option works literally only for Elemental Toss, as none of the Granted Spells actually target anyone (minus resist energy, but probably not casting that to *do* fire damage...).
This strikes me as a clear mistake in the rules, but curious what others thought.
EDIT: Given the rules for base blood magic, I'm assuming it's the intended way: "If the spell has an area, you must designate yourself or one target in the area when you cast the spell to be the target of the blood magic effect. All references to spell level refer to the level of the spell you cast."
You are targeting each creature in an AOE if it says nothing else. Otherwise for example this sentence makes no sense:
Core Rulebook pg. 618 wrote:
A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. Area effects aren't subject to this flat check.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seems to me that burning hands, fireball, elemental toss, and elemental blast would all work just fine. Best to not be overly pedantic about the rules. The game will run more smoothly, play better, and be more fun for everyone involved.
Produce Flame wouldn't work because it is a cantrip. Blood Magic doesn't trigger from cantrips. It doesn't say that very clearly though. It instead says that it does trigger when you cast from spell slots.
The area spells will work though.
_benno wrote:
You are targeting each creature in an AOE if it says nothing else. Otherwise for example this sentence makes no sense:
Core Rulebook pg. 618 wrote:
A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. Area effects aren't subject to this flat check.
Completely wrong. You never 'target' anything in areas unless explicitly specified otherwise. And the quote makes perfect sense: area effects just affect you without needing check from the initiator.
Errenor wrote: _benno wrote:
You are targeting each creature in an AOE if it says nothing else. Otherwise for example this sentence makes no sense:
Core Rulebook pg. 618 wrote:
A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. Area effects aren't subject to this flat check.
Completely wrong. You never 'target' anything in areas unless explicitly specified otherwise. And the quote makes perfect sense: area effects just affect you without needing check from the initiator. Any evidence for that?
But its true that it would not be unnessesary since some area spells specifically state that they target things.
For example spells with restricted targets have target entrys have a target entry and therefore target things. But soddenly if they are not restricted they don't target anyone anymore? That sounds very strange to me.
Core Rulebook pg. 304 wrote: Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry. A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately. If we look at the spell Zone of Truth it has no effect anymore since there are no targets of the spell?
It seams way more natural to consider area spells to target everyone in the area instead. At least until you show some evidence against it.
_benno wrote: Errenor wrote:
Completely wrong. You never 'target' anything in areas unless explicitly specified otherwise. And the quote makes perfect sense: area effects just affect you without needing check from the initiator.
Any evidence for that? The evidence is a lack of any mention of targeting in the rules on Areas
That being said, I don't claim to know exactly what is meant regarding the term target, nor do I need to imo.
The way I read it is that a spell with an area and no mention of targets doesn't target anything in the area, but everything the spell affects is a target of the spell, separating who is a target from who is being targeted (I know, it sounds weird).
To your point, things like Zone of Truth clearly indicate that there are targets of the spell despite it being an area. However, the other primary things that the word "target" is used for (to my knowledge) is attempting to target creatures that are concealed, hidden, or undetected, or when one is concerned about line of sight/effect. And in those kinds of situations we know how AoE works: you need line of sight/effect to the origin of the AoE, and then the AoE needs line of effect to any targets, and you don't need to roll to target any of those creatures since you're not trying to target them, they just so happen to be caught up in the blast.
Perhaps I'm over thinking it, but I don't really think I am. It's not really come up much before, but I realized upon reading this question that that's just what I've always kind of assumed.
Aw3som3-117 wrote: _benno wrote: Errenor wrote:
Completely wrong. You never 'target' anything in areas unless explicitly specified otherwise. And the quote makes perfect sense: area effects just affect you without needing check from the initiator.
Any evidence for that? The evidence is a lack of any mention of targeting in the rules on Areas
That being said, I don't claim to know exactly what is meant regarding the term target, nor do I need to imo.
The way I read it is that a spell with an area and no mention of targets doesn't target anything in the area, but everything the spell affects is a target of the spell, separating who is a target from who is being targeted (I know, it sounds weird).
To your point, things like Zone of Truth clearly indicate that there are targets of the spell despite it being an area. However, the other primary things that the word "target" is used for (to my knowledge) is attempting to target creatures that are concealed, hidden, or undetected, or when one is concerned about line of sight/effect. And in those kinds of situations we know how AoE works: you need line of sight/effect to the origin of the AoE, and then the AoE needs line of effect to any targets, and you don't need to roll to target any of those creatures since you're not trying to target them, they just so happen to be caught up in the blast.
Perhaps I'm over thinking it, but I don't really think I am. It's not really come up much before, but I realized upon reading this question that that's just what I've always kind of assumed. Yes I guess that sounds like it would work. That would interact favorably with the blood magic as well.
Aw3som3-117 wrote: _benno wrote: Errenor wrote:
Completely wrong. You never 'target' anything in areas unless explicitly specified otherwise. And the quote makes perfect sense: area effects just affect you without needing check from the initiator.
Any evidence for that? The evidence is a lack of any mention of targeting in the rules on Areas
That being said, I don't claim to know exactly what is meant regarding the term target, nor do I need to imo.
The way I read it is that a spell with an area and no mention of targets doesn't target anything in the area, but everything the spell affects is a target of the spell, separating who is a target from who is being targeted (I know, it sounds weird).
To your point, things like Zone of Truth clearly indicate that there are targets of the spell despite it being an area. However, the other primary things that the word "target" is used for (to my knowledge) is attempting to target creatures that are concealed, hidden, or undetected, or when one is concerned about line of sight/effect. And in those kinds of situations we know how AoE works: you need line of sight/effect to the origin of the AoE, and then the AoE needs line of effect to any targets, and you don't need to roll to target any of those creatures since you're not trying to target them, they just so happen to be caught up in the blast.
Perhaps I'm over thinking it, but I don't really think I am. It's not really come up much before, but I realized upon reading this question that that's just what I've always kind of assumed. The rules support that as well.
Core Rulebook pg. 457 wrote: If there’s no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the effect doesn’t apply to that target. For example, if there’s a solid wall between the origin of a fireball and a creature that’s within the burst radius, the wall blocks the effect—that creature is unaffected by the fireball and doesn’t need to attempt a save against it. This at least implies that an affected creature is a target of a spell(in this case fireball). I guess I should have been more careful with the wording there and not say that you are targeting the creature.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I scoured the Area rules looking for the word "target." It kind of irks me that someone had to go all the way over to the unrelated Line of Effect rules to find support for something as essential as targets in an area.
It's on the same page. You just need to continue reading the same section...
Errenor wrote: _benno wrote: You are targeting each creature in an AOE if it says nothing else. Otherwise for example this sentence makes no sense:
Core Rulebook pg. 618 wrote: A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. Area effects aren't subject to this flat check.
Completely wrong. You never 'target' anything in areas unless explicitly specified otherwise. And the quote makes perfect sense: area effects just affect you without needing check from the initiator. And this idea completely ignores the Blood Magic rule for area effects.
Blood Magic wrote: If the spell has an area, you must designate yourself or one target in the area when you cast the spell to be the target of the blood magic effect. If you go with the ruling that area effects don't target anything by default, then this Blood Magic rule is almost meaningless and is a complete troll by the game devs.
Alternatively you can still use the ruling that area effects don't target anything by default, but the Blood Magic rule has a slight inaccuracy in language and it does still mean that you get to pick one of the affected creatures in the spell's area as the target for the Blood Magic effect.
breithauptclan wrote: If you go with the ruling that area effects don't target anything by default, then this Blood Magic rule is almost meaningless and is a complete troll by the game devs.
Alternatively you can still use the ruling that area effects don't target anything by default, but the Blood Magic rule has a slight inaccuracy in language and it does still mean that you get to pick one of the affected creatures in the spell's area as the target for the Blood Magic effect.
You are almost there. You know what the right answer is. Try here in bloodlines
Blood Magic ... If the spell has an area, you must designate yourself or one target in the area when you cast the spell to be the target of the blood magic effect.
But this is in the original post so I must be missing something. I don't see any problem here.
Ravingdork wrote: I scoured the Area rules looking for the word "target." It kind of irks me that someone had to go all the way over to the unrelated Line of Effect rules to find support for something as essential as targets in an area. Support? Targets in an area are posible but they are not required here, as per previous post.
_benno wrote:
Core Rulebook pg. 304 wrote: Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry. A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately. If we look at the spell Zone of Truth it has no effect anymore since there are no targets of the spell?
You provide the exact citation which tells how that spell works and then write that it shouldn't. It's bizarre.
Gortle wrote: bloodlines
Blood Magic ... If the spell has an area, you must designate yourself or one target in the area when you cast the spell to be the target of the blood magic effect.
But this is in the original post so I must be missing something. I don't see any problem here.
Yep, a spell could have no 'targets', but Blood magic effect must have a target.
Also most of the people here participated in this topic as well where we discussed all these things to the bone: Wall-of-force-v-Arcane-Living-Rune
Even if not always coming to the same conclusions. :)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RexAliquid wrote: It's on the same page. You just need to continue reading the same section... Such a distance! XD
Errenor wrote: _benno wrote:
Core Rulebook pg. 304 wrote: Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry. A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately. If we look at the spell Zone of Truth it has no effect anymore since there are no targets of the spell?
You provide the exact citation which tells how that spell works and then write that it shouldn't. It's bizarre.
Gortle wrote: bloodlines
Blood Magic ... If the spell has an area, you must designate yourself or one target in the area when you cast the spell to be the target of the blood magic effect.
But this is in the original post so I must be missing something. I don't see any problem here.
Yep, a spell could have no 'targets', but Blood magic effect must have a target.
Also most of the people here participated in this topic as well where we discussed all these things to the bone: Wall-of-force-v-Arcane-Living-Rune
Even if not always coming to the same conclusions. :) There is no target mentioned in zone of truth. It has the same wording as fireball. Affected creatures have to make a save. But the outcome of the save affects a target. So if there is no target who is effected by the save. That that is nonsense is pretty obvious. So the spell should have had targets and the affected creature is on of this targets. That was all I wanted to show with mentioning Zone of Truth.
Errenor wrote:
Yep, a spell could have no 'targets', but Blood magic effect must have a target.
And the blood magic rules tell you to select a target if you have multiple targets, OR if don't have a target to choose a target. Thats clear.
So yes you could get a situation where you are fireballing people around a corner and you can't see any of them, so you can't select a target, so the extra damage from the elemental bloodline can't be applied.
If you can't or choose not to select a Blood Magic target that part of the effect would just fail. If you have a perserve GM who insists on it, I think all the damage increasing Blood Magic effects have a second option - so you don't have to argue you take damage yourself in that circumstance.
Not sure its a big deal.
_benno wrote:
There is no target mentioned in zone of truth. It has the same wording as fireball. Affected creatures have to make a save. But the outcome of the save affects a target. So if there is no target who is effected by the save. That that is nonsense is pretty obvious. So the spell should have had targets and the affected creature is on of this targets. That was all I wanted to show with mentioning Zone of Truth.
Ah, this. You mean that the spell suddenly has 'targets' mentioned in the save results section (Success, Failure and so on). Yes, the designers are sometimes inaccurate in terms. With 'target' it happens in other places as well. You just should understand their intent and ignore mistakes, if possible. In this case it definitely doesn't mean that the spell should have had targets. It means that all 'targets' in that section should have been replaced with 'affected creatures', for example. That's all.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
