The classic example is a fireball in a wooden inn. You've decided to unload the big guns, but a GM assesses that you've chosen poorly. Property damage, excessive force, and pissed off NPCs are the result.
Here's where the weirdness comes in. "Fireball" is something of a special case. It mentions "setting fire to combustibles and damaging objects in the area" in the spell text. Do you think it's fair for GMs to tack similar effects onto other AoE spells? When does "you inadvertently blew up the setting" begin to feel punitive? We're talking stuff like "the lightning bolt deals half damage to your merfolk allies" or "the black tentacles thrash around and break the furniture." Is that kind of descriptive freedom fun and flavorful, or does it risk coming off as unfun?
Depends how much loot gets blown up. Having to fix the exploded stuff because you need it is not fun and can be costly. Like lighthouse mirrors in one game I'm in.
Yeah… I don’t think I’d cast a lightning bolt underwater. I would question the one about the black tentacles though. That might be the GM getting caught up in the “gotcha” moment.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my point of view, it is not punitive at all, it is only an approximation of RL physics.
I come from AD&D where a Fireball had a constant volume, not a spread radius, so firing a Fireball 30' down a corridor was a sure way to get burned, where a Lighting bold would bounce on an obstacle it couldn't destroy and you played with the angle to damage more opponents, so it is nothing new for me.
From my point of view, awareness of the secondary damage your spells can do is part of what makes a good spellcaster, both in the game and as a player.
Naturally, the GM should recall that energy does half the damage to items and then you apply hardness. Solid wood isn't particularly susceptible to fire. You don't use a log to start a fire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you feel that you need for flavor, then describe it, but I wouldn't make much of an actual effect out of it. It's a lot of work to do it all "by the rules" and it does not ad any fun to the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That’s all very subjective, though. You might not get much mileage from environmental effects, but other GMs and gaming groups might find they add quite a lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of this comes down to experience and a need for more variety. For some groups, the question might be “how do you make a battle you’ve essentially had before several different times more interesting?” The answer might just be taking into consideration factors that make the situation more challenging. A seasoned GM with an understanding of all those rules and a prepared battlefield might be more agile in refereeing and describing how the environment is affected by (and affects) the heroes’ actions.
That’s all very subjective, though. You might not get much mileage from environmental effects, but other GMs and gaming groups might find they add quite a lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of this comes down to experience and a need for more variety. For some groups, the question might be “how do you make a battle you’ve essentially had before several different times more interesting?” The answer might just be taking into consideration factors that make the situation more challenging. A seasoned GM with an understanding of all those rules and a prepared battlefield might be more agile in refereeing and describing how the environment is affected by (and affects) the heroes’ actions.
I've been playing this game for 40 years, and after the first 4 or 5 times of having collateral damage, it gets old, very fast....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether you've been playing for four years or forty, personal experience is just that. It's subjective. It's no fun, or gets old, very fast, to you. That's all I'm trying to say. To another GM, it could be the condition by which the battle against the BBEG and her minions also turns into, e.g., a race to escape a burning/collapsing building. Everyone's mileage will vary, depending on execution and personal tastes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether you've been playing for four years or forty, personal experience is just that. It's subjective. It's no fun, or gets old, very fast, to you. That's all I'm trying to say. To another GM, it could be the condition by which the battle against the BBEG and her minions also turns into, e.g., a race to escape a burning/collapsing building. Everyone's mileage will vary, depending on execution and personal tastes.
ok, let me expand on it, in that same 40 years, no one I have ever played with has enjoyed it either. Like I said, try it if you want, but I've never seen it gain much traction. Even the game mechanics have caught up, magic items now now are immune to damage when carried by you, when they used to have to take their own save - every time you have to make a save. now they only have to save on a critical failure.
Imagine the time it took every time a fireball was cast to go through every players inventory and make a save for every single item they carried.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether you've been playing for four years or forty, personal experience is just that. It's subjective. It's no fun, or gets old, very fast, to you. That's all I'm trying to say. To another GM, it could be the condition by which the battle against the BBEG and her minions also turns into, e.g., a race to escape a burning/collapsing building. Everyone's mileage will vary, depending on execution and personal tastes.ok, let me expand on it, in that same 40 years, no one I have ever played with has enjoyed it either. Like I said, try it if you want, but I've never seen it gain much traction. Even the game mechanics have caught up, magic items now now are immune to damage when carried by you, when they used to have to take their own save - every time you have to make a save. now they only have to save on a critical failure.
Imagine the time it took every time a fireball was cast to go through every players inventory and make a save for every single item they carried.
At least in AD&D, you had to check your items only if you failed the save. With a successful save, all your gear counted as having saved.
Not sure about D&D BECM.It is a different playing experience, but gear losses being practically impossible, for me, is a negative, not a positive, trait.
As Phoebus Alexandros said, it is a matter of personal preferences.
ok, let me expand on it, in that same 40 years, no one I have ever played with has enjoyed it either. Like I said, try it if you want, but I've never seen it gain much traction.
The point that I'm trying to make is that me telling you that I DO know people who enjoy factors like these doesn't discount your experiences or preferences--and vice versa.
Even the game mechanics have caught up, magic items now now are immune to damage when carried by you, when they used to have to take their own save - every time you have to make a save. now they only have to save on a critical failure.
Imagine the time it took every time a fireball was cast to go through every players inventory and make a save for every single item they carried.
But that's why a GM has leeway to apply those rules as they see fit. That has been the case for each and every rule in each and every book Paizo has published. They're never supposed to get in the way of your table's fun. If a GM doesn't need every player to roll a saving throw for every item their character carries, he can tell them not to. If another GM wants to literally bring down the house during a clash of spells, she can do so. They can exclude or include them with the same ease as, say, the Called Shots rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer GMing lower level games where things are more 'realistic'. The risk of losing important equipment certainly adds tension to the game, which I see as a good thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to say this: any consequence PCs receive or players are judged for outside the expectations laid out by RAW or explicitly explained to said players BEFORE their PCs complete those actions are specifically the purview of the GM punishing characters, players or both.
oes it say, in Black Tentacles, that it destroys furniture in the area? Does it say in Aquatic Terrain that Lightning Bolt will deal damage to marine life in water OUTSIDE the AoE of the spell? Well, if I, as GM, want to just SAY that those spells will do those things because science, then it's MY job to tell the players this BEFORE they cast said spells, not expect them to just know that ahead of time.
On the other hand, if a bunch of goblins say, interrupt a religious ceremony in town and set fire to a bunch of buildings and the players announce they're going to charge into raging infernos and cast Burning Hands inside of areas already affected by fire, there is a reasonable expectation that the existing environment and narrative could tell them that such actions could get them and other bystanders hurt or killed.
EVEN THEN I would still consider it my duty as a GM to pause and ask the players if they're sure, given the circumstances, they want to enter areas on fire or cast Fire spells into such areas. In that pause I'd remind them the rules for fire spread and ambient Fire damage from ending a turn in such an area.
In my opinion, judging whether or not a player is a good spellcaster player or whether or not a PC is a good spellcaster based on RL science that player may or may not understand, or frankly I may or may not understand, instead of judging them for their knowledge and understanding of the rules and mechanics of the game we're all participating in which only SIMULATES, but does not exactly recreate reality, then that judgment is not warranted.
That's my opinion anyway.
It is fun as something I said is taken as something completely different.
I think it is a problem you had with your GMs, as you sound really aggressive about it.I am not springing a surprise on the players, it is stated very clearly from the start that spells that do area damage do area damage, and the environment or the allied NCs aren't immune to it.
When a spell behaves strangely because of an environmental effect I remember the players of that (unless the environment is something unique, is meant to screw with spellcasters, and is one of the obstacles in the adventure).
After that, the job of the players and the PCs is to try to avoid collateral damage and friendly fire.
If they cast 3 fireballs in the room with the chained princess to kill the mob of enemies, they can't be surprised if they kill the princess too.
In general, this seems more of an issue with differing expectations by the GM and the players. A GM that puts some effort into presenting the appearance of a "living, breathing" campaign world will definitely take "collateral damage" or secondary effects/NPC reactions into account. A group of players more used to "kick in the door"/combat-centric activities may get "pissed off" when using "big gun" AoEs in a crowded inn (appropriately) results in damage to bystanders/property; as a real-world analogy, there are very good reasons why bouncers/security guards don't use flamethrowers and grenades to deal with problems.
This needs to be discussed between the GM and the players. Two possible solutions: 1) the GM can hand-wave "outside the dungeon" or avoid setting up combat situations where non-enemies could get hurt; 2) the players can start tailoring their spells and tactics to the situation. For 2), I normally have two or three different spell lists for prepared casters: home/urban environments (more social/utility, minimize collateral damage), dungeon adventuring (mostly short-range, constricted spaces), and possibly wilderness adventuring (extended ranges, open spaces); then again, this is a habit for an experienced gamer who started in the AD&D 1st Edition days.
|
|
I have no problem with a PC's gear potentially taking damage if they roll a 1 on a saving throw and have applied that one b/c of RAW. I also have no problem with a spell that deals damage dealing that damage as per the rules for energy damage, 1/2 damage in most cases with some exceptions and such. My issue and the reason I feel so passionately about this topic is when a spell lights things on fire when the spell doesn't say it does that, or in the OP's example if a Black Tentacles spell starts damaging furniture in the area.This spell causes a field of rubbery black tentacles to appear, burrowing up from the floor and reaching for any creature in the area.Please note that the spell specifically states it targets Creatures in the area of effect. The spell's description goes on to lay out what happens to creatures (damage, Grappling and so on). Nowhere does it say this spell damages objects in the area of effect, though it could be reasonably inferred that items worn by creatures might take damage if the creatures in the tentacles' grips died.
Several AoE spells state that they ignite combustibles or melt soft metals in the area of effect; there are also spells like Diamond Spray that are particularly effective at damaging objects. If these spells leave collateral damage in their wake this should be expected by the casters that employ them.
Assigning such collateral damage to spells that don't state that they cause those effects, whether to manufacture tension in a scene or enforce reality in a fantasy game setting seems needlessly punitive.
You make a specific example, Black tentacles, and there are no problems with that damaging only creatures, it says so.
Then you generalize in a way that seems to say that a spell that deals fire or acid damage in an area will damage only creatures unless it says that it damages objects, and with that, I disagree.Se the rules about area damage:
Area: Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects.
...
Burst, Emanation, or Spread: Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell’s point of origin and measure its effect from that point.
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can’t see.
...
An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.
A spread spell extends out like a burst but can turn corners.
There are specific exceptions:
Creatures: A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped burst, or some other shape.
Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead. Creatures in the spell’s area that are not of the appropriate type do not count against the creatures affected.
Objects: A spell with this kind of area affects objects within an area you select (as Creatures, but affecting objects instead).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm slightly surprised at Mark Hoover's take. Given the problems he's had with his players overcoming his challenges I would have thought that he would have leapt at the chance to even up the battlefield by tracking collateral damage to objects, particularly flammable items, structural items or treasure.
For my own experience, I recall one of the early PFS adventures. The setup had the party hopelessly outnumbered attempting to rescue some prisoners taken from a merchant caravan who were tied up outside, whilst the raiders were in two large tents. A couple of mundane burning arrows fired at the tents did for most of the raiders.
If you start letting things catch fire and track the spreading fire, the battlefield can become a lot more interesting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Hoover 330, the energy attack inflicts damage to the rags. As it is fire damage, one of the effects of getting fire damage is that the item can take fire. If it takes fire is dependent on the item's hardness and how long the fire last
Catching on Fire
Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 444
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash. Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character's clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out—that is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he's no longer on fire.A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those whose clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.
If the flammable items on a character can catch on fire, the flammable items in the room can catch on fire.
Spells with an instantaneous duration normally only inflict energy damage and don't start fires but there are published exceptions to that too. There are at least a couple of adventures published by Paizo where using a fire or lightning spell in a room would cause a dust explosion and a raging inferno fire.|
|
Mark Hoover 330, the energy attack inflicts damage to the rags. As it is fire damage, one of the effects of getting fire damage is that the item can take fire. If it takes fire is dependent on the item's hardness and how long the fire last
Catching on Fire
Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 444
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash. Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character's clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out—that is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he's no longer on fire.A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those whose clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.
If the flammable items on a character can catch on fire, the flammable items in the room can catch on fire. And unattended, not-magical objects automatically fail the save.
Spells with an instantaneous duration normally only inflict energy damage and don't start fires but there are published exceptions to that too. There are at least a couple of adventures published by Paizo where using a fire or lightning spell in a room would cause a dust explosion and a raging inferno fire.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my own calls that I second guess in retrospect was using "wind wall" to direct a "cloud kill" back at the players.
If you take cloud kill's advice and reference "fog cloud," you can reference text about how wind "disperses the fog in 1 round." But I thought that it would be clever play if a PC tried to do it, so why not the NPCs? The only trouble is that, since I'm the arbiter of what 'makes sense' in the world, it's awfully easy to look like you're favoring the bad guys / going for a "gotcha."
In GMing, I try to distinguish between collateral damage that's intended as fun, cinematic description but that has no meaningful game effect (the walls are scorched by searing ray or random furniture is smashed by the sheer power of a sonic attack) versus collateral damage that affects gameplay (starting a building on fire, harming NPCs, rolling a nat 1 on a Reflex save vs an area attack). I'm free-wheeling with the first type, and RAW with the second type.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My rule of thumb is if a match can quickly light it then any fire damage can also. Otherwise, only spells noted for lighting fires matter. A quick sheet of flame will not light solid wooden objects! Most solids are basically incapable of combustion--what actually is happening is that the heat of the fire heats the surface to the point that some material is vaporized and that vapor is what's actually burning. Even once you supply sufficient heat you have the problem of the environment cooling it--see how far you get with a one-log campfire. Typical "combustible" materials will burn no better than one log on your campfire.
If the flammable items on a character can catch on fire, the flammable items in the room can catch on fire.
Spells with an instantaneous duration normally only inflict energy damage and don't start fires but there are published exceptions to that too. There are at least a couple of adventures published by Paizo where using a fire or lightning spell in a room would cause a dust explosion and a raging inferno fire.
As the rules say, normally it requires a fire with a duration. Or very specific circumstances. Even gasoline doesn't take fire that easily.
Gasoline is both easy to ignite and explosive. Don’t play with gasoline, kids.
|
|
Gasoline is both easy to ignite and explosive. Don’t play with gasoline, kids.
Gasoline vapor is easy to ignite. And it can detonate if it is in an enclosed space.
Throw a lit match in a can of gasoline (from a safe distance) on a cold day; there is a good chance it will be snuffed out.Not something on which I would bet my life and limbs to be honest, but what catch fire easily are the vapors.
|
|
One thing to remember is that the fire spells tend to do way more damage than your average little campfire or even bonfire, so things that do not normally catch on fire because you stick them in a small fire for a few seconds might very well catch on fire if exposed to a Fireball.
True. Fireball description says that it can start fires. The discussion was mostly about other spells without that notation (like Flame Strike) or other secondary effects of other spells that aren't in the spell description.
In an old AD&D manual, Wilderness Survival, if I recall correctly, Flame Strike was an example of how NOT to start a fire, as casting it on an unlit campfire will reduce the wood to unlit splinters thrown around the area instead of starting a nice fire.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Hoover 330, you want a reply that always applies, but there isn't one. It is always relative.
We can return to the gasoline and a lit match example. If the gasoline is cold enough and there are no or few gasoline vapors, throwing a lit match in it will not start a fire. Throw a lit match on gasoline during a hot day and you will start a fire.
Use an instantaneous fire spell that doesn't say it starts fires on wood. The wood will not catch fire. Throw it on sawdust dispersed in the air. You get a fuel-air explosion and that will start a fire.
By RAW, whether they're oily rags or kindling or wooden logs or an alcohol-soaked wooden bar, etc, a Flame Strike spell deals DAMAGE, nothing else, to the environment and objects in it. It is an instantaneous amount of Fire damage and you have to factor in hardness and use the rules around energy damage potentially dealing half damage and such.
Fuel-air explosions, in D&D and Pathfinder, are RAW, as they were included in several adventures. Adventures arent a rule source for general rules but they are rules for specific scenarios.
I think the rule of thumb wrt to instantaneous fire should be along the lines of: If an object has hardness 0 wrt fire damage (and wood has hardness 5) and/or is noted as being particularly susceptible to fire (such as anything that could be ignited by a flint and steel) then it could be ignited by instantaneous flame.
I believe wood should have a hardness of 5 because it is possible to put a log into a fire (say to push other logs) and remove it before it catches light. But v.thin kindling burns up instantaneously.