| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wording of the spell has the following:
Targets: 1 creature adjacent to a flat surface
And then says:
ou summon a slithering, thorny vine that attempts to constrict and crush a foe against a wall or other surface. Make a spell attack roll against the target's Fortitude DC. On a success, the creature is grabbed and takes 3d6 bludgeoning damage and 2d8 piercing damage. At the end of that creature's turn, if it's still grabbed by the vine, it takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage.
It doesn't even say flat surface, it just says surface.
I can't think of a reason why the ground wouldn't qualify.
If they intended for it only to be walls or vertical surfaces, they should have said that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ground or floor is fine. They are incontrovertibly a surface and usually flat. A vine could come out of them just as easily as a wall, and if history has proved anything, you can crush people against the ground just fine.
It's a primal spell. I wouldn't even care if the ground weren't flat. There's no point trying to limit this spell except to be antagonistic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't even say flat surface, it just says surface.
It does say 'flat surface' in the targeting line. So if the surface isn't flat, then the creature would not be a valid target and the spell would be disrupted.
And while the targeting line doesn't specify that the ground would not qualify, the first line of the spell heavily implies it.
You summon a slithering, thorny vine that attempts to constrict and crush a foe against a wall or other surface.
It doesn't technically say 'a wall or other similar vertical surface'. But if it was meant to include the floor, it probably should have specified that.
All that said...
There's no point trying to limit this spell except to be antagonistic.
I agree. The spell should be usable more often than not. If that means allowing it to work with flat sections of ground, then do it.
Fioan, you're right that the targeting line calls out "flat surface" but the spell description doesn't.
In my haste to respond, I fixated on the spell description.
I would say that the targeting line and description are a bit at odds (more like if they wanted flat to be a requirement it would have been nice to word it that way in both places).
But even going to with flat as a requirement, nothing in the description remotely implies (to me) that the ground wouldn't count.
Ultimately what I imagine is that vines pop out of surface and start constricting the target trying to squeeze them against the ground.
To me, as long as they're on a surface, vines should be able to pop out and squeeze them against that surface.
The idea that you could use this spell to pop vines out of castle's stone wall, but somehow couldn't do it in the manicured parade yard of the castle seems crazy to me.
Like I mentioned, I think the spell should work more often than not.
The only balance problem I have with allowing the spell to work from the ground is taking this:
To me, as long as they're on a surface, vines should be able to pop out and squeeze them against that surface.
And slippery slope arguing that it should also cause the prone condition since the creature is being pulled against the ground.
I mean, the spell doesn't mention anything about causing prone, so it doesn't.
I agree that the description somewhat implies that since it's "crushing against a surface" you could think that it would lead to prone, if that surface were the ground.
But it's also possible to imagine the vines doing it in a way that doesn't cause prone.
What interesting is grabbed and prone have some similarities, they both cause off-guard. But prone additionally imposes a -2 to attacks, and you have to spend an action to clear prone (by standing).
In any event, there's nothing within the spell that would support a conclusion of causing prone, even if you allow vines to come from the ground, and I don't find it to problematic.
I mean, the spell doesn't mention anything about causing prone, so it doesn't.
The spell also doesn't mention anything about being used from the floor. The text is 'wall or other surface'.
If 'wall' is the only example given of a surface that qualifies, why would you conclude that the floor also counts? Explain that reasoning clearly.
It is a weak argument. Not an invalid one, but weak.
The rules text for this spell is ambiguous. And possibly contradictory between 'surface' and 'flat surface'. So you are going to run into problems when trying to argue that your interpretation of the rule (no matter what your ruling is) is the only valid and correct ruling of the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the spell doesn't mention anything about causing prone, so it doesn't.The spell also doesn't mention anything about being used from the floor. The text is 'wall or other surface'.
If 'wall' is the only example given of a surface that qualifies, why would you conclude that the floor also counts? Explain that reasoning clearly.
It is a weak argument. Not an invalid one, but weak.
Weak my ass.
The ground is a surface!
The definition of surface (and i hate to have to resort to this) is (according to Webster's dictionary):
the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body
And the examples they give are:
on the surface of the water
the earth's surface
A dictionary's definition of a surface is using the ground as an example.
If they didn't want people to think ground, they needed to use a different word. Or add the word vertical.
(and i hate to have to resort to this)
Good. Because you should be using game term definitions to argue game rules. Using 'IRL' as justification for game rulings is problematic more often than not.
-----
So you are only using what the rule doesn't say as evidence. That isn't proof of one ruling or the other. Absence of evidence only proves ambiguity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The word surface isn't defined by game terms.
The defv team has repeatedly stated that we're not intended to use some tortuous interpretation of the English language to try to understand the rules.
When someone writes the word surface, and it's not a game term, they expect you to interpret it the way an average person understanding what "surfaces" would.
The ground is a surface. And lacking any specific game term that would define it otherwise, we can only take it at face value.
This whole argument from you....it's just crazy to me. Usually I feel you're well reasoned and I agree with many of your ideas and approaches. But to argue that the ground isn't a surface and say we need to go use game terms and definitions....I feel like your gaslighting me or being intentionally obtuse. And I don't say this to attack, but I'm just very confused at the stance you're taking on this.
It feels a bit like the question being asked is "What is two plus two?" And I said four, and you responded "Justify that 4 is number".
And like, that is technically a thing, there are bodies of work out there trying to determine whether numbers are even "real" like a thing inherent to the universe or some artificial construct of humanity. But like...that's way too deep a level for an RPG game to try to go to.
When the writer's used the word "surface" they expected people to go with a common understanding of what surface meant. And if they in fact didn't intend for it to include the ground, they needed to write something else.
Sorry Finoan, but I agree with Claxon, saying that terms like "surface" need to be defined by the game or are ambiguous is a bit of a stretch. I even understand that "flat" is questionable, although in the context of the spell, "flat" is relative, and it doesn't make sense to need a completely flat artificial surface, especially for a primal spell. Flat is probably there to indicate that it's not just any loose piece of stone, but rather something larger and more solid like the ground, a wall, or something similar that allows the vines to attach themselves properly.
In PF2e, the correct interpretation of natural English is important at times like these.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'd even be willing to concede that they did intend for the area to have a "flat" requirement (but we'd have to talk about exactly how flat they really intended it to be, and they should update the description to match if that's the intention).
But the surface part isn't up for debate IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I already really dislike surface-only spells in this game full of flying enemies. Then people start saying ground isn't a surface...
LOL
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "flat" in this context is to prevent someone from sprouting a vine from a spiked wall surface to add damage from the hazard to the spell's damage.