Hiya!
If our party kineticist uses Tree Sentinel to put down a level-three Protector Tree, and then everyone in the party hurdles around it, and then the evil baddie casts Fireball on all of us - what happens to the Tree?
It doesn't reduce people's incoming damage, of course, but is it damaged by the fireball? Why, and how?
|
Hiya!
If our party kineticist uses Tree Sentinel to put down a level-three Protector Tree, and then everyone in the party hurdles around it, and then the evil baddie casts Fireball on all of us - what happens to the Tree?
It doesn't reduce people's incoming damage, of course, but is it damaged by the fireball? Why, and how?
I believe fireballs do not set trees on fire so, no.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It falls back on the general AoE rules from page 456. Specifically "Many area effects describe only the effects on creatures in the area. The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."
It's no safer from collateral damage of AoE explosions than everything else in the environment.
The tree has got a size, an AC and a number of HP; it's clearly intended to be possible to attack, but no saves are given for it.
I'd definitely have the tree be hit by the fireball, and if I had to roll a save, that would be the caster's one. It doesn't make much sense to roll reflex for a tree, but it's still better than letting a tree simply ignore fire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically the tree is a spell effect until the spell duration ends and it becomes a regular tree. So as the spell mentions, it doesn't take up the space that it is in and doesn't impede movement. It also can't be targeted directly. Not even by AoE effects.
Once it becomes a mundane tree, then it is subject to the normal rules for unattended items and terrain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically the tree is a spell effect until the spell duration ends and it becomes a regular tree. So as the spell mentions, it doesn't take up the space that it is in and doesn't impede movement. It also can't be targeted directly. Not even by AoE effects.
Once it becomes a mundane tree, then it is subject to the normal rules for unattended items and terrain.
Being a spell effect doesn't make it untargetable. See also Wall of Ice and Illusory creature.
The tree has got a size, an AC and a number of HP; it's clearly intended to be possible to attack, but no saves are given for it.
I'd definitely have the tree be hit by the fireball, and if I had to roll a save, that would be the caster's one. It doesn't make much sense to roll reflex for a tree, but it's still better than letting a tree simply ignore fire.
I would treat it no different than using an attack/offensive spell on an object in this case. Most objects do not get a save (unless they are attended or have special rules, which the tree does not have), and take whatever relevant damage you deem fit, subject to hardness of course. If it takes enough HP to put it to 0, it's destroyed. Seems pretty simple to run it IMO, though I can understand some guidance being required.
We've almost always ran stuff that way. Some tables don't, though.
YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've absolutely run big, indiscriminate AoEs as having some impact on the environment. I don't understand why you wouldn't ever do that. And I've been a player and seen someone totally ruin our whole goal by throwing a fireball into the study full of loose papers that we were even there to acquire instead of using an appropriate spell.
I've had it come up in PFS a few times, too. There isn't any campaign rule that modifies the impact of AoEs on environment/unattended objects being at GM discretion.
An example not unlike that is even used in the PFS Guide:
But what if your players accidentally or intentionally kill an important NPC who was supposed to give them a crucial piece of information that’s needed for the scenario to progress? This is a tough problem for the GM and requires improvisation. Don’t decide the scenario is over just because the old man with the letter was caught in a magical crossfire and roasted alive, destroying both him and the important letter. Reveal that the letter survived by some twist of fate (it was in a fire-proof pouch in his pocket) or perhaps that the old man had a lackey who was watching from a nearby alley and knows everything the old man did, or another similar explanation. Improvisation will keep your scenario moving forward and help you work around unforeseen obstacles. For more guidance on handling the PCs’ treasure and rewards when they use creative solutions, see the Treasure Bundles section.
Being a spell effect doesn't make it untargetable. See also Wall of Ice and Illusory creature.Mechanically the tree is a spell effect until the spell duration ends and it becomes a regular tree. So as the spell mentions, it doesn't take up the space that it is in and doesn't impede movement. It also can't be targeted directly. Not even by AoE effects.
Once it becomes a mundane tree, then it is subject to the normal rules for unattended items and terrain.
While that's true, having an AC doesn't necessarily mean that it is targetable. There are plenty of spell effects that are very tangible, but are not targetable - Spiritual Weapon, Flaming Sphere. Most don't have an AC listed, but that isn't specified as a requirement.
There are other spells that do specify that they have defenses and can be targeted - such as Illusory Creature, Phantom Steed, and summoning spells.
Similarly to Protector Tree, could you target Wall of Ice with Fireball? If so, what save bonus does it have?
Protector Tree seems to be in a strange half-way place in the rules. It only has AC and doesn't mention saves. It doesn't actually count as a summoned creature, so I guess it isn't limited by the 'one reaction' action like creatures are. So if it has the HP for it, it could block multiple hits per round.
But since it doesn't follow the rules for a creature, I tend to think of it as a spell effect - or maybe terrain like the wall spells.
First, thanks for everyone's inputs!
But at the risk of being pedantic, if it is an object, then it has hardness - and if it has hardness, then reduces the incoming damage to itself by its hardness? And then it should have a BT too? That sounds a little out of scope for the spell, no?
I completely get that what treating it like an object really does is offer a comparable and borrowable framework for rules adjudication, but at this point one could also point to Hazards and mention how hazards without saves are simply immune to effects that target the specific defense.
It obviously isn't a hazard, of course! But both rules offer a similar framework to contemplate. I dunno, it's all very weird. Seems like the most RAW answer really is the quote that Hammerjack mentioned, with the tree being treated as part of the catch-all word environment.
Being a spell effect doesn't make it untargetable. See also Wall of Ice and Illusory creature.Mechanically the tree is a spell effect until the spell duration ends and it becomes a regular tree. So as the spell mentions, it doesn't take up the space that it is in and doesn't impede movement. It also can't be targeted directly. Not even by AoE effects.
Once it becomes a mundane tree, then it is subject to the normal rules for unattended items and terrain.
While that's true, having an AC doesn't necessarily mean that it is targetable. There are plenty of spell effects that are very tangible, but are not targetable - Spiritual Weapon, Flaming Sphere. Most don't have an AC listed, but that isn't specified as a requirement.
There are other spells that do specify that they have defenses and can be targeted - such as Illusory Creature, Phantom Steed, and summoning spells.
Similarly to Protector Tree, could you target Wall of Ice with Fireball? If so, what save bonus does it have?
Protector Tree seems to be in a strange half-way place in the rules. It only has AC and doesn't mention saves. It doesn't actually count as a summoned creature, so I guess it isn't limited by the 'one reaction' action like creatures are. So if it has the HP for it, it could block multiple hits per round.
But since it doesn't follow the rules for a creature, I tend to think of it as a spell effect - or maybe terrain like the wall spells.
Sure, in all of those cases, the GM needs to determine what they want to do about the save, just like for any object or structure without a statblock. Those answers will vary from table to table.
First, thanks for everyone's inputs!
But at the risk of being pedantic, if it is an object, then it has hardness - and if it has hardness, then reduces the incoming damage to itself by its hardness? And then it should have a BT too? That sounds a little out of scope for the spell, no?
I completely get that what treating it like an object really does is offer a comparable and borrowable framework for rules adjudication, but at this point one could also point to Hazards and mention how hazards without saves are simply immune to effects that target the specific defense.
It obviously isn't a hazard, of course! But both rules offer a similar framework to contemplate. I dunno, it's all very weird. Seems like the most RAW answer really is the quote that Hammerjack mentioned, with the tree being treated as part of the catch-all word environment.
BT does apply to a lot of objects, but for the tree, it can either not exist (since it has a listed HP before it goes down), or the HP is the BT, at which point it is broken, and by definition of the spell, once that HP is lost, the spell ends anyway, leaving a broken tree that cannot reasonably be repaired.
I suppose you could cut out hardness entirely (since the spell wasn't designed to have a hardness value factor into its effect to begin with), but given that the tree isn't supposed to be affected by non-AC effects, applying hardness makes sense since it's effectively an object anyway, and if I were using this against a non-Protector Tree tree, it would obviously have a hardness, being a non-spell-related object.
To be clear, I would not apply hardness to an AC-based effect because the tree is purposefully interposing itself between the creatures to soften the strike, and because the spell wasn't designed to apply hardness to a Strike, similar to effects which allow you to take damage for another creature bypassing any resistances/immunities you would have.
As for it being "out of the scope of the spell," throwing a Fireball at it likewise is out of the scope of the spell, since it's not an effect designed to be subject to save-based abilities. A similar issue comes if you decide to grab, trip, feint, or disarm the tree, use Grim Tendrils at it, etc. In short, we're asking a question about an out-of-the-scope scenario, meaning an out-of-the-scope answer needs to be provided, since anything within the scope is either already answered or silent on the matter, so GM FIAT comes into play here.
Having trees be immune to effects because they don't have relevant attributes is more absurd than giving it full damage with a hardness reduction, since it's not an attended object, and tossing Fireballs into forests should cause fires to erupt depending on the situation. Though, the average damage of a Fireball will outpace the hardness+HP of a Protector Tree, so it might not even be relevant to consider Hardness in the first place.
Maybe I just didn't sleep enough last night, but why would it be given an AC if it's not meant to be attacked? Am I missing some other possible use for that AC?
It looks to me that it's definitely intended to be choppable, at the very least by physical attacks.
|
|
Maybe I just didn't sleep enough last night, but why would it be given an AC if it's not meant to be attacked? Am I missing some other possible use for that AC?
It looks to me that it's definitely intended to be choppable, at the very least by physical attacks.
It definitely seems so. I would give it the saves of the caster.
Maybe I just didn't sleep enough last night, but why would it be given an AC if it's not meant to be attacked? Am I missing some other possible use for that AC?
It looks to me that it's definitely intended to be choppable, at the very least by physical attacks.
Nobody is saying that, this is a strawman.
What is being said is why a Protector Tree shouldn't just take full damage by nature of being like an object and just dying like normal.
It definitely seems so. I would give it the saves of the caster.Maybe I just didn't sleep enough last night, but why would it be given an AC if it's not meant to be attacked? Am I missing some other possible use for that AC?
It looks to me that it's definitely intended to be choppable, at the very least by physical attacks.
Objects usually don't get a save, and the Protector Tree isn't a creature, so I don't see why it should get a save value.
|
|
Objects usually don't get a save, and the Protector Tree isn't a creature, so I don't see why it should get a save value.It definitely seems so. I would give it the saves of the caster.Maybe I just didn't sleep enough last night, but why would it be given an AC if it's not meant to be attacked? Am I missing some other possible use for that AC?
It looks to me that it's definitely intended to be choppable, at the very least by physical attacks.
"Whenever an ally adjacent to the tree is hit by a Strike, the tree interposes its branches and takes the damage first."
That's close enough to a creature for me.
Objects usually don't get a save, and the Protector Tree isn't a creature, so I don't see why it should get a save value.It definitely seems so. I would give it the saves of the caster.Maybe I just didn't sleep enough last night, but why would it be given an AC if it's not meant to be attacked? Am I missing some other possible use for that AC?
It looks to me that it's definitely intended to be choppable, at the very least by physical attacks."Whenever an ally adjacent to the tree is hit by a Strike, the tree interposes its branches and takes the damage first."
That's close enough to a creature for me.
But it doesn't have actions of its own (or reactions). It's not a Minion or Summoned. It doesn't have an initiative of its own. It also says at the end of the description that if it remains up when the spell ends, it reverts to being a normal tree, which, while living, isn't any more a creature than a rose bush or a piece of paper. (Surprisingly, there aren't Mimic Trees; quite some untapped real estate here.)
IMO, that line you presented is more "specific trumps general," and not "this is how it is a creature of its own," since, in any other case, we don't treat it as any different from any other trees in the game world, and the spell description hints as such.
Maybe I just didn't sleep enough last night, but why would it be given an AC if it's not meant to be attacked? Am I missing some other possible use for that AC?
It looks to me that it's definitely intended to be choppable, at the very least by physical attacks.Nobody is saying that, this is a strawman.
What is being said is why a Protector Tree shouldn't just take full damage by nature of being like an object and just dying like normal.
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I wasn't replying to you. My comment was mostly about breithauptclan's "can't be targeted directly" claim.