Trying to wrap my head around how bane works. This is my current understanding.
If I cast the spell, all enemies in the area when I cast it need to pass a Will save or take the penalty until they're not in the area anymore.
If an enemy that isn't in the area ends up in the area, they need to pass the Will save or take the penalty until they're not in the area anymore.
If I Sustain the spell, the area gets bigger, and any enemy in the area that isn't already taking the penalty needs to pass the Will save or take the penalty until they're not in the area anymore.
If a bane area starts overlapping with a bless area, both spells try to kill each other. The bane caster rolls a counteract check against the bless effect and the bless caster rolls a counteract check against the bane effect. The success of each check depends on the rank of the opposing effect and the opponent's spell DC, so both spells might end early or both could stay up.
Is my understanding mistaken?
RAW on that counteract note is a bit strange. I think the one for the Light Cantrip counteracting the Darkness spell is even worse though since at least Bless/Bane are slot spells of the same Rank.
-----
My RAI rulings and ideas:
Any particular enemy only needs to make the save against Bane once (for any particular casting of the spell). It will use that result any time that it is within the spell's current area.
I don't feel like getting into any edge cases regarding forcing a re-roll for an enemy by spending an action to expand the area over the enemy instead of spending an action moving yourself so that the area moves over the enemy. I don't think that RAW there is a case there that the two are different, but I'm not going to debate it at the table. Call it a houserule if you want.
As for the counteracting, I prefer the idea that the rule wording of "Bane can counteract Bless" is a separate usage of the spell. Instead of targeting yourself and creating a 10 foot emanation with the effect of Bane, you can cast Bless as a targeted dispel magic effect specifically and only able to target an active instance of the Bless spell. It is a specific overrides general type of idea. This one probably is a houserule.
Another houserule that I like is that instead of counteracting, when Bless and Bane have overlapping areas, the two spells negate each other only in those areas. Both spells remain active and effective in their non-overlapping areas. This one is definitely a houserule.
So once an enemy makes a save against bane, that's the result they use for the rest of the casting?
No, you had it right the first time, expanding the Bane forces repeat saves.
.
"Once per round on subsequent turns, you can Sustain the spell to increase the emanation's radius by 10 feet and force enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throw. Bane can counteract bless."
Ah, I think I understand how that other "only save once" interpretation happened.
"enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throw."
is being read incorrectly by Finoan to mean that once a foe passes a save, they "have been affected" in that they were already exposed to the magic once, it just did not stick, and therefore don't need to save again.
.
However, that reading misses one key word.
"attempt another saving throw"
One can only attempt another save if they already made one before.
So I'm willing to confidently say that if you expand Bane via sustaining it, even if foes did pass the first time, they must roll again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can disagree. That is fine.
But please don't assume that I have my interpretation because I didn't read a word.
I deliberately decide to read that sentence such that the word 'another' is the incorrect and contradictory word in the sentence rather than 'affected' having a different meaning for some unexplained reason.
You can disagree. That is fine.
But please don't assume that I have my interpretation because I didn't read a word.
I deliberately decide to read that sentence such that the word 'another' is the incorrect and contradictory word in the sentence rather than 'affected' having a different meaning for some unexplained reason.
Apologies if I assumed incorrectly.
Choosing to delete/ignore a word is kinda declaring that you are going against the text? Not really hard to understand why someone might assume a word got blanked out in the reading, instead of deliberately ignored. I've misread plenty of important words and needed to have that pointed out.
.
IMO, it's pretty clear that in the case of Bane, "affected" means "subject to the effects of"
.
Searching around, I'm pretty sure that's a normal use of "affected" in pf2e?
There's loads of quotes to throw out:
[...]
Creatures in the area that fail a DC 20 Reflex save become affected by stink sap.
It does seem normal that "affect" is not talking about the exposure. If you save, you are "not affected" and it's those actual maladies of a hostile spell/hazard/etc that are what "affects" you.
@Finoan:
Do you do the same thing for Bless? If an ally starts in the aura of the Bless, leaves it (and loses the bonus), and then is back in it again, due to it growing or via the casters movement, does the ally still not have the bonus, or does he regain it?
This is just a curiosity question, it's not a criticism or anything like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For whatever it's worth, I read Bane the same as Finoan.
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 round on subsequent turns, you can Sustain the spell to increase the emanation's radius by 10 feet and force enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throw. Bane can counteract bless.
When I read this I parse it as follow, using an example:
Caster A and enemies B & C are fighting.Caster A casts Bane. B is within 10ft of A, but C is 20ft away. When Bane is cast, C does nothing as they aren't in the radius. B makes a save against the effect. If B fails, they have failed for the instance/casting of Bane and whether the exit the area and re-enter, or whether or the caster moves away and back again, B will always suffer the penalty if they are within the area that Bane currently covers. It is a similar result if they succeeded. If B succeeds they have already succeeded against this instance of Bane, and regardless of area growing or the movement of the caster they will continue to be unaffected by this instance of Bane. Ignoring B's success or failure against Bane, A on their next turn chooses to expand the area which then encompasses C, who now must make the save per the line "force enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throw".
The whole thing depends on how you interpret the word affected. You could interpret it to mean "had to make a save against the spell" or as "hasn't suffered the penalties from Bane". In my personal opinion, an interpretation that forces enemies to constantly make new saves against the same spell is "too good to be true" and would slow the game down with additional rolls. So my interpretation is that when they said "affected" they meant "has interacted with the spell by making a save".
Edit: Further, if the intent of the developers was to force additional rolls from those who had already saved they could have written it as:
"Once per round on subsequent turns, you can Sustain the spell to increase the emanation's radius by 10 feet and force enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throw" and reach that conclusion with much more clarity.
Captivating Adoration is an example of a spell that uses the results of the initial save for the duration. It seems if the developers wanted bane to only force one saving throw per target and use the results for the rest of theat casting, they would have spelled it out.
And the Claxon explanation also has to ignore the "another" word for that "only save once" reading to work. It is a big chonky sentence, but that unbroken nature makes it unambiguous that [if you sustain] --> the spell [A: expands AoE] "and" [B: forces "another" save].
One yet further detail is that the Claxon/Finoan reading would mean there's no reason to include the B: "and force enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throw"
In that version, expanding the AoE would always mean that newly reached foes would have to save against it.
Which is a great indication that the sentence is indeed in the form of [if sustain] then [A:] & [B:] instead of B being an additional explanation for A
.
.
It's great that it's acknowledged that this "only one save" ruling is mostly derived from a too good to be true feeling. That kind of honesty helps a lot.
While I can believe that once upon a time that maybe the spell seemed potent in the "another saving throw" reading, as a relative newcomer, I've never witnessed Bane be cast in-game due to how poorly it performs, especially compared against Bless.
One key note is that as a status penalty, Bane does not stack with most of the conditions that PCs will be attempting to inflict, like Frightened, which affect a whole lot more than Bane's -1 to attack rolls.
Ok, I think the Sustain issue is settled.
I wonder about the entering and leaving, though. Auras typically say when the saving throw is made. When the creature first enters. If a creature starts its turn in the aura. Stuff like that. But bane just says:
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.
Since it doesn't say when the save happens, maybe it only happens when you cast the spell, just like with other spells. And then if you Sustain the spell later, you can force enemies in the new area at the time you Sustain to make another saving throw.
By this interpretation, an enemy outside the area that enters wouldn't make a save until the spell is Sustained. But leaving would cause the penalty to go away because it only lasts as long as the enemy is in the area. Maybe that's too bad to be true though? It could encourage enemies to run away and come right back within a single Stride, though once the aura gets too big they might not bother.
I remember a card game that had an inherent contradiction in the rules for ending the game. I don't remember the game and I don't think I have it any more - it was a rather strange and somewhat boring game.
Anyway, the rules for ending the game were (paraphrased because I can't remember them exactly): "If the draw pile is exhausted, shuffle the discard pile into the draw pile. There is no time limit or point limit. The player who earns the most points first wins."
At any point, the players could stop the game and determine who has the most points.
During the game the players could determine who reached a specific number of points first.
But it is inherently contradictory to have both of those as the end conditions of the game.
-----
Characters make saving throws because they are affected by a spell effect that allows a saving throw.
If you have not been affected by the spell, then you haven't made your first saving throw and it is incorrect to say that you make 'another' saving throw.
If you have made a saving throw against the spell, then that is because you have already been affected by the spell.
So this part of the rules for the spell:
force enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throw
is inherently contradictory. That contradiction has to be resolved one way or the other in order to actually play the game.
I choose the option that saying you make 'another' saving throw is incorrect. If the spell's area expands to include you and you have not been affected by the spell, then you make your first saving throw against it. If you have already been affected by the spell and have already made a saving throw against it and the area expands to include you, then you don't make another saving throw - you use the existing result because by RAW you only get 'another' saving throw if you 'haven't been affected yet'.
And then if you Sustain the spell later, you can force enemies in the new area at the time you Sustain to make another saving throw.
By this interpretation, an enemy outside the area that enters wouldn't make a save until the spell is Sustained.
Bless and Bane are not Sustained.
They have a special - and optional - action that can expand the area.
But it is perfectly fine to just cast the spell and leave it at its default area size. And I would expect the spell to function normally in that case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The use of the word "another" is only a contradiction if having to make a saving throw at all counts as being affected. And since the most common result of critical successes on saving throws is "the target is unaffected," that is clearly untrue.
Bless/bane don't have a "sustained" duration, but that "special and optional action" is Sustain
*checks spell again*
That is correct.
Looks like that was changed in Remaster update.
The use of the word "another" is only a contradiction if having to make a saving throw at all counts as being affected. And since the most common result of critical successes on saving throws is "the target is unaffected," that is clearly untrue.
That looks like a wording collision. Two concepts using the same word.
Unaffected by the spell at all.
and
Unaffected by the spells listed effects.
You don't make a save against the spell if you are unaffected by the spell at all.
If you make a save against the spell, then you have been affected by the spell even if the result of your save is to be unaffected by the spell's listed effects.
You don't make a save against the spell if you are unaffected by the spell at all.
If you make a save against the spell, then you have been affected by the spell even if the result of your save is to be unaffected by the spell's listed effects.
Words can have different meanings in different contexts, and in this case "unaffected" is changed by the nature of Bane being an ongoing spell, not a "one and done" type spell. It's more specific.
It does not make sense to consider someone well outside the range the Bane to be "unaffected" because that implies that they have interacted with the spell.
For "until they exit the range" type spells like Bane, this same notion means that one looses their "unaffected" status once they exit the spell, with any previous possible saves/fails having 0 relevance.
Once one is outside the range, they are no longer interacting w/ the spell at all. It takes a specific override inside a spell's text to give lasting immunity to an aura upon save, that's not the normal behavior.
As such, you can only be "unaffected" by Bane if you have saved and are presently inside the aura. There is no contradiction with this version of "unaffected."
.
This is why the "again" word is so helpful in the sustain effect. That ability of the sustain can *only* be invoked as a 2nd+ save, never a first. The basic rules around emanation/aura targeting is how the 1st save happens.
After that 1st exposure, if a foe is inside the Bane and "unaffected," then you can Sustain to force "another" save.
If a foe leaves the zone, this interaction fully resets.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That looks like a wording collision. Two concepts using the same word.
Unaffected by the spell at all.
and
Unaffected by the spells listed effects.
You don't make a save against the spell if you are unaffected by the spell at all.
If you make a save against the spell, then you have been affected by the spell even if the result of your save is to be unaffected by the spell's listed effects.
If there are two definitions of unaffected to consider, why are you using the one that contradicts the text instead of the one that doesn't?
This is why the "again" word is so helpful in the sustain effect. That ability of the sustain can *only* be invoked as a 2nd+ save, never a first. The basic rules around emanation/aura targeting is how the 1st save happens.
What basic rules for emanation/aura targeting are you referring to? The aura trait?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh if a player or creature is using the action to sustain bane anyone in that aura is going to roll saves unless they are already getting the -1.
I really like that it forces a save every time because that really makes the spell worth while.
This is why the "again" word is so helpful in the sustain effect. That ability of the sustain can *only* be invoked as a 2nd+ save, never a first. The basic rules around emanation/aura targeting is how the 1st save happens.What basic rules for emanation/aura targeting are you referring to? The aura trait?
Yeah, the combo of emanation + aura.
Aura is one subtype of emanation that is continuously showering the area in the magics. If you're in the shower, ya need to resolve the spell.
Being an aura changes the context a significant amount.
Some example spell like Super Stink may be a regular "one and done" style emanation that inflicts a lingering sicken when cast.
In that context, it can make sense for "unaffected" by the spell to encompass both those who crit saved for 0 effect, and those outside who were never in range.
relevant for an example "... and those unaffected by Super Stink can spend an Interact to remove the odious..." type mechanic.
.
The writer of Bane did a very good job IMO of using as few words as possible while providing as much structure/meaning as possible. The ability of the spell to force additional saves (without giving the already failed foes another chance to pass) is very cleverly compressed without sacrificing meaning.
So if an enemy inside the aura ends up outside the aura, any penalty they were suffering goes away.
And if an enemy outside the aura ends up inside the aura, they make the save, and failing incurs the penalty until they're no longer in the aura.
And when the spell is Sustained, any enemy inside the enlarged aura that doesn't already have the penalty makes the save, and failing incurs the penalty until they're no longer in the aura.
What I'm wondering now is: Could an enemy decide in the middle of a Stride to get out of the aura and back in to retry a save? I could see an enemy 15 feet away from the caster using a Stride to walk 5 feet into the aura, fail the save, then walk 5 feet back to leave the aura, then walk 5 feet forward to reenter the aura, succeed the save, then walk 5 feet forward again to reach the caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if an enemy inside the aura ends up outside the aura, any penalty they were suffering goes away.
And if an enemy outside the aura ends up inside the aura, they make the save, and failing incurs the penalty until they're no longer in the aura.
And when the spell is Sustained, any enemy inside the enlarged aura that doesn't already have the penalty makes the save, and failing incurs the penalty until they're no longer in the aura.
What I'm wondering now is: Could an enemy decide in the middle of a Stride to get out of the aura and back in to retry a save? I could see an enemy 15 feet away from the caster using a Stride to walk 5 feet into the aura, fail the save, then walk 5 feet back to leave the aura, then walk 5 feet forward to reenter the aura, succeed the save, then walk 5 feet forward again to reach the caster.
I think so, yes. The way movement is done in 5ft chunks in case of things like triggering Reactive Strike would very much support that as an emergent mechanic.
Note that the aura mechanic itself is a "you are inside or outside" affair. It's specific to Bane that if you do save, that save "sticks" until the caster forces another.
.
Something like Dread Aura is more "default" and lacks that emergent quirk. If you're in the Dread Aura, you're frightened 1, period. (and because it's a named condition and not a status penalty, the condition's mechanics mean that the frightened does not poof the instant you leave the aura)
I remember a card game that had an inherent contradiction in the rules for ending the game. I don't remember the game and I don't think I have it any more - it was a rather strange and somewhat boring game.
Anyway, the rules for ending the game were (paraphrased because I can't remember them exactly): "If the draw pile is exhausted, shuffle the discard pile into the draw pile. There is no time limit or point limit. The player who earns the most points first wins."
At any point, the players could stop the game and determine who has the most points.
During the game the players could determine who reached a specific number of points first.
But it is inherently contradictory to have both of those as the end conditions of the game.
-----
Characters make saving throws because they are affected by a spell effect that allows a saving throw.
If you have not been affected by the spell, then you haven't made your first saving throw and it is incorrect to say that you make 'another' saving throw.
If you have made a saving throw against the spell, then that is because you have already been affected by the spell.
So this part of the rules for the spell:
force enemies in the area that weren't yet affected to attempt another saving throwis inherently contradictory. That contradiction has to be resolved one way or the other in order to actually play the game.
I choose the option that saying you make 'another' saving throw is incorrect. If the spell's area expands to include you and you have not been affected by the spell, then you make your first saving throw against it. If you have already been affected by the spell and have already made a saving throw against it and the area expands to include you, then you don't make another saving throw - you use the existing result because by RAW you only get 'another' saving throw if you 'haven't been affected yet'.
Sounds an awful lot like the first Digimon TCG.