If the caster of the Bane spell uses an action to increase the emanation's radius, does a creature that passes the saving throw have to repeat it?
There seem to be arguments for both and really would like an errata to help make it more clear....
So... an enemy was affected by the Bane spell and passed their saving throw against it. Then they moved outside of the area for whatever reason. Then the caster expanded the area of Bane to cover that enemy again.
Yes?
What is the reasoning for not considering that enemy to be in the set of "enemies in the area that weren't yet affected"?
That enemy was already affected by the spell.
If you fail, you have the penalty as long as you're in the area of the spell. This lasts until the spell ends. If you leave and return, you would still have the penalty since you already failed the save.
If you passed, you can leave and return as much as you want without having to make the save again. However, if you passed and are still in the area, and the enemy uses an action to increase the area of bane, all unaffected targets must make another saving throw.
Bane wrote: You fill the minds of your enemies with doubt. Enemies in the area must succeed at a Will save or take a –1 status penalty to attack rolls as long as they are in the area. Once per turn, starting the turn after you cast bane, you can use a single action, which has the concentrate trait, to increase the emanation's radius by 5 feet and force enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throw. Bane can counteract bless. The word "another" is key here, implying more than one. This is actually quite good, as I always assumed it was a one and done spell. This might make it actually useful for my PCs to use. However, saves only occur when the spell is cast and when the area is expanded, not when a creature enters the area.
Cordell Kintner wrote: Bane wrote: You fill the minds of your enemies with doubt. Enemies in the area must succeed at a Will save or take a –1 status penalty to attack rolls as long as they are in the area. Once per turn, starting the turn after you cast bane, you can use a single action, which has the concentrate trait, to increase the emanation's radius by 5 feet and force enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throw. Bane can counteract bless. The word "another" is key here, implying more than one. This is actually quite good, as I always assumed it was a one and done spell. This might make it actually useful for my PCs to use. However, saves only occur when the spell is cast and when the area is expanded, not when a creature enters the area.
Congratulations. You have interpreted the literal wording in such a way that the conclusion is absolute nonsense.
So what you are saying is that if I cast Bane and an enemy succeeds at the save and then leaves, then I increase the radius to cover them again that they have to use their previous save result.
But if they succeed at the save and stay in the area and I increase the radius, they have to roll another save against the effect.
I explained it correctly. You increase the area first, then anyone in the area who has not saved makes a save, or "another" save if they passed already.
Why are you so hostile while being so wrong?
Not really trying to be hostile. But I am definitely not understanding the reasoning you are giving. It seems overly literal and focuses on one word in preference to the others. Focusing on the word 'another' instead of the words 'not yet affected'.
And it results in a case that doesn't make any narrative sense. Or any game balance sense.
Care to address either of those that I mentioned?
I also agree that if you completely avoid the effects of a thing, you are not affected by it. Regardless if the reason is that you made the save or something different.
Usually effects that if you save you no longer have to save against directly say so. And bane makes no such mention.
So, the way I read it, when you sustain Bane, all creatures in the area that "aren't yet affected" covers both the creatures that made the initial save, as well as the creatures that didn't even have to make a save because they weren't previously in the area.
Narratively, as long as you keep pouring energy on the spell, you force everyone in it that's not yet affected to once more try to resist it.
breithauptclan wrote: And it results in a case that doesn't make any narrative sense. Or any game balance sense. Cordell can give you his own, but it's not hard to invent/see it yourself. Narratively spell changes each time you sustain it, and therefore new enemies could be affected, as is the case for other sustained spells. Game balance-wise it's ok for enemies to be affected by Bane, and you do spend actions to sustain-increase radius, so it's ok to get additional effects. Precise measure of this additional power is hard to determine, but it definitely doesn't look too much.
And none of that addresses the fundamental balance problems that I am noticing. Edit: "inconsistency problems" may be a better term for this. It isn't a numerical problem with the game math that I am noticing, it is an unfairness in having the spell affect creatures differently based on rather arbitrary circumstances that really shouldn't make a difference.
Assuming two sets of enemies - both were affected by the spell when it was initially cast and both succeeded at the save: Why do the enemies that are inside the radius not have to make an additional save against the effect, but the ones engulfed by the expanding radius do?
Or are you saying that when the radius expands that all enemies inside the new radius have to make new saves?
In that case, why do they need to make new saves when the radius expands, but not when the radius remains at its current value but they are still in the area?
------
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that being affected by a spell and succeeding or critically succeeding (and therefore completely resisting the effects of the spell) is equivalent to not being affected by the spell in the first place.
Yes, it is unfortunate that there is not a general rule regarding making repeated saves against the same spell. Some spells override the unstated general rule one way (such as Circle of Protection) and other spells override the unstated general rule the other way (such as Invoke Spirits), and some spells do both based on the results of the initial save (such as Confusion).
------
Also, @shroudb remember that you don't actually need to put any additional effort or energy into sustaining Bane. The duration is not 'sustained'. It is a 1 minute duration whether you expand the radius or not.
>Or are you saying that when the radius expands that all enemies inside the new radius have to make new saves?
Yes, this is what the spell's description means by, "enemies in the area that weren't yet affected"
>I fundamentally disagree with the idea that being affected by a spell and succeeding or critically succeeding (and therefore completely resisting the effects of the spell) is equivalent to not being affected by the spell in the first place
They weren't affected, because they succeeded at their saving throw. And the spell's description doubly indicates that even if they succeeded, they need to save again with the phrase "another saving throw"
>Also, @shroudb remember that you don't actually need to put any additional effort or energy into sustaining Bane. The duration is not 'sustained'. It is a 1 minute duration whether you expand the radius or not.
Quote: Once per turn, starting the turn after you cast bane, you can use a single action, which has the concentrate trait, to increase the emanation's radius by 5 feet and force enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throw. It is a 1 minute duration whether you expand the radius or not, but you don't get to force any more saves unless you use that action to expand it
breithauptclan wrote: And none of that addresses the fundamental balance problems that I am noticing. Edit: "inconsistency problems" may be a better term for this. It isn't a numerical problem with the game math that I am noticing, it is an unfairness in having the spell affect creatures differently based on rather arbitrary circumstances that really shouldn't make a difference.
Assuming two sets of enemies - both were affected by the spell when it was initially cast and both succeeded at the save: Why do the enemies that are inside the radius not have to make an additional save against the effect, but the ones engulfed by the expanding radius do?
Or are you saying that when the radius expands that all enemies inside the new radius have to make new saves?
In that case, why do they need to make new saves when the radius expands, but not when the radius remains at its current value but they are still in the area?
------
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that being affected by a spell and succeeding or critically succeeding (and therefore completely resisting the effects of the spell) is equivalent to not being affected by the spell in the first place.
Yes, it is unfortunate that there is not a general rule regarding making repeated saves against the same spell. Some spells override the unstated general rule one way (such as Circle of Protection) and other spells override the unstated general rule the other way (such as Invoke Spirits), and some spells do both based on the results of the initial save (such as Confusion).
------
Also, @shroudb remember that you don't actually need to put any additional effort or energy into sustaining Bane. The duration is not 'sustained'. It is a 1 minute duration whether you expand the radius or not.
Affected is not a keyword. It is never capitalised anywhere. It simply means that something is affecting you. Or, elsewise, that there's an Effect (which is an actual rule term) on you.
What's the Effect you have from Bane if you saved against it?
If you save vs Bane, you aren't being affected by it.
You said "when you are affected and have to roll a save" which is 100% wrong.
When YOU ARE TARGETED you have to roll a save, or when you are in the Area.
"affected" is speaking 100% of the outcome of something, not on the targeting of something.
RAW everyone that hasn't an active effect from Bane rerolls his SAVE when the caster spends an action sustaining.
That's straight up RAW.
Everything else is just your houserules.
Baarogue wrote: >I fundamentally disagree with the idea that being affected by a spell and succeeding or critically succeeding (and therefore completely resisting the effects of the spell) is equivalent to not being affected by the spell in the first place
They weren't affected, because they succeeded at their saving throw. And the spell's description doubly indicates that even if they succeeded, they need to save again with the phrase "another saving throw"
It is a fundamental disagreement on the basic rules of spells. I don't think we are going to come to a consensus on it.
Though I am now curious if you think that idea applies to other spells.
If a spell has an area and a duration - and a creature in the area succeeds at the save and takes no effect, do they always have to make a save against the spell again in the future since at that point in time they are now in the spell's area and haven't been affected yet? If so, what game mechanic event triggers that new save? The start of their turn? The start of the caster's turn?
Also, do you think it would be better to fail the initial save and keep that result, or succeed at the save and risk critical failure on the next save attempt?
And does the above change if the spell has a partial effect on a success save result and only critical success has no effect?
How about spells that have a minor effect even on a critical success? I don't think there are any spells like that, but I could be wrong. And it is a case that should be considered.
breithauptclan wrote: Baarogue wrote: >I fundamentally disagree with the idea that being affected by a spell and succeeding or critically succeeding (and therefore completely resisting the effects of the spell) is equivalent to not being affected by the spell in the first place
They weren't affected, because they succeeded at their saving throw. And the spell's description doubly indicates that even if they succeeded, they need to save again with the phrase "another saving throw"
It is a fundamental disagreement on the basic rules of spells. I don't think we are going to come to a consensus on it.
Though I am now curious if you think that idea applies to other spells.
If a spell has an area and a duration - and a creature in the area succeeds at the save and takes no effect, do they always have to make a save against the spell again in the future since at that point in time they are now in the spell's area and haven't been affected yet? If so, what game mechanic event triggers that new save? The start of their turn? The start of the caster's turn?
Also, do you think it would be better to fail the initial save and keep that result, or succeed at the save and risk critical failure on the next save attempt?
And does the above change if the spell has a partial effect on a success save result and only critical success has no effect?
How about spells that have a minor effect even on a critical success? I don't think there are any spells like that, but I could be wrong. And it is a case that should be considered. If a spell says you reroll, you reroll.
If a spell doesn't say you have to roll, then you don't.
Bane specifically says to roll again if you aren't affected.
All other effects that grant immunity on successful save say so.
breithauptclan wrote: Baarogue wrote: >I fundamentally disagree with the idea that being affected by a spell and succeeding or critically succeeding (and therefore completely resisting the effects of the spell) is equivalent to not being affected by the spell in the first place
They weren't affected, because they succeeded at their saving throw. And the spell's description doubly indicates that even if they succeeded, they need to save again with the phrase "another saving throw"
It is a fundamental disagreement on the basic rules of spells. I don't think we are going to come to a consensus on it.
Though I am now curious if you think that idea applies to other spells.
If a spell has an area and a duration - and a creature in the area succeeds at the save and takes no effect, do they always have to make a save against the spell again in the future since at that point in time they are now in the spell's area and haven't been affected yet? If so, what game mechanic event triggers that new save? The start of their turn? The start of the caster's turn?
Also, do you think it would be better to fail the initial save and keep that result, or succeed at the save and risk critical failure on the next save attempt?
And does the above change if the spell has a partial effect on a success save result and only critical success has no effect?
How about spells that have a minor effect even on a critical success? I don't think there are any spells like that, but I could be wrong. And it is a case that should be considered. I believe that in all cases you should do exactly what the spell's description says. No more or less. I would not record "initial saves" unless the spell's effects entry indicated they were important. As for those entering a spell's ongoing effects, that would again depend on the spell's effects entry
Aside from some staples like spell attack rolls and basic saving throws, spells aren't one-rule-fits-all. In all cases, refer to the spell's effects entry to determine what to do and then only do that
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
