It's unfortunately a little borderline/ fuzzy.
By default, the "targets" of a 10 ft burst is simply every creature that AoE hits.
It's up to the GM to decide if that "... to the ears of your foes" bit does then narrow down and specify that it only harms foes.
I'd wager that most GMs will rule the spell to be friend-unsafe, but the wording does leave room for the opposite ruling.
Most of the time, friend-safe AoEs will be careful and clear with their language, using phrasing like "allies/creatures/enemies in the area" instead of that unclear "the targets."
That first line cannot be ignored as irrelevant flavor text. However, it also is not phrased using game mechanics terminology. The purpose is to give a default narrative description of the spell or ability so that people can understand what it is intended to do.
So when the first line says 'foes' in the first line, that isn't the game term of 'enemy' used when talking about ally and enemy.
There are AoE spells that do target only allies or only enemies. Such as Divine Wrath targeting only enemies. But it specifies that it has limitations on the targets when discussing the game mechanics of the spell's effects, not just its narrative description in the first line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So when the first line says 'foes' in the first line, that isn't the game term of 'enemy' used when talking about ally and enemy.
What do yo think the word means, then?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's frustratingly inconsistent wording. Compare this:
You channel the fury of divinity against your foes. You deal 4d10 spirit damage to enemies in the area, depending on their Fortitude save.
To this:
You howl a lament of damned souls. Each living enemy in the area takes 8d10 void damage depending on its Fortitude save.
To this:
You whisper baleful secrets that transcend language and carry magically to the ears of your foes. The words take physical form, weakening the life force of the targets, each of which must attempt a Fortitude save.
The first two clearly say that the effect only hits enemies.
The third one is oddly worded because it doesn't say "enemies", but it also doesn't say something like "creatures in the area must attempt a Fortitude save", which is what you'd expect if it hit everything in the area. (Or not mention it at all and use the default of everything, like Fireball does.)
You effectively have to make a ruling on if you think the description is a statement of intent for what it should do (in which case your player is correct and it hits only enemies), or just narrative and doesn't mean anything based on what the rest of the text says.
In this case there at least isn't a contradiction in the text, which does happen (using another PC2 example):
Water is the source of life, and you draw upon this primordial force to heal your allies' wounds. A gentle ring ripples out from you in a 15-foot emanation, restoring 5d6 Hit Points to creatures in the area.
That says allies in the description, but then says "creatures in the area" right afterward, which includes enemies. Effects that only target allies say "allies in the area". So the first sentence is contradicted by the second sentence. This is one of those cases where people tend to go "flavour text doesn't count", though Paizo has said that isn't really true in the past (and people sometimes use the "flavour text" argument for any text that is inconvenient for the interpretation they want to use).
But for Whispers of the Void, it reads to me like its intended to only target enemies and a different writer used different wording. The text at least doesn't contradict itself, so there's that. But no one can really prove that, so the GM will have to make a ruling.
Unfortunately PC2 was a really messy book for things like this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously have to wonder why there is not a low level metamagic feat for casters to exclude 1 target that would otherwise be affected by a spell.
It would honestly help with a lot of casters, and be an actually rewarding feat to select.