flaming sphere vs. invisibility

[TYPO5478]

What does "Saving Throw: Reflex negates" mean?

The Saving Throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.

Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.

The type of saving throw the spell allows. How saving throws against the spell work. The spell has no effect on the subject.

Flaming Sphere is a spell that opponents resist with a saving throw.

There is a difference between "a spell" and "the effect of a spell." For the most part, the terms can be used interchangeably. However, there are a few cases where the distinction is important. I believe that flaming sphere is one of those cases, but to illustrate, let me refer to another spell first: wall of iron. Wall of iron allows a reflex save to negate damage from the spell's effect under certain circumstances (described in the spell's description), but not to negate the spell itself. A successful save doesn't prevent the spell's effect (the wall) from manifesting the way that, say, saving against charm person would. Likewise, flaming sphere also allows a reflex save to negate damage from the spell's effect under certain circumstances (described in the spell's description). A successful reflex save against a flaming sphere doesn't keep the sphere from being evoked (i.e. negating the spell itself); it simply negates damage from the spell's effect.

If my mage were to conjure an iron wall and then allow the party's fighter to push it over onto our enemies, would that constitute an attack on my part since I'm the one who cast the spell that created the wall which is now requiring a save?

Invisibility is the example spell used to show where this definition applies. Another example might be Sanctuary. Unlike Sanctuary, Invisibility has further qualities that might define an action as an attack, but the p171 definition must also apply, since Invisibility is the example used.

Yes, but invisibility also has language that defines certain actions as not attacks, such as causing damage indirectly. Presumably this means that an invisible character may take actions which will, without a doubt, cause damage to a foe as long as the damage is not inflicted by the character himself. Directing the sphere is a move action, just like cutting a rope bridge or intentionally springing a trap, and the effect of that action may or may not indirectly cause damage to an opponent. Nonetheless, the damage is still indirect. How could a move action cause damage that was anything other than indirect?

So in addition to the p171 definition, Invisibility also considers any spell targeting a foe or an spell whose area or effect includes a foe.

Flaming sphere already avoids these restrictions.

But the p171 definition - including "spells that opponents resist with saving throws" - must apply, and Flaming Sphere is a "spell that opponents resist with saving throws"

It mustn't, because opponents are saving to avoid the spell's effect, not the spell itself.

It has "Saving Throw: Reflex Negates", and this defines whether or not the spell has an effect on the subject.

Not having books within reach, I can't look up the definition of "subject;" however, assuming it is synonymous with "target," flaming sphere has no "subject."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wall of iron allows a reflex save to negate damage from the spell's effect under certain circumstances (described in the spell's description), but not to negate the spell itself. A successful save doesn't prevent the spell's effect (the wall) from manifesting the way that, say, saving against charm person would. Likewise, flaming sphere also allows a reflex save to negate damage from the spell's effect under certain circumstances (described in the spell's description). A successful reflex save against a flaming sphere doesn't keep the sphere from being evoked (i.e. negating the spell itself); it simply negates damage from the spell's effect.

This is why Wall of Iron does not have a saving throw of 'Reflex negates', but rather, a saving throw of 'See Text'. (Although interestingly, that saving throw becomes more difficult if the caster's Int/Cha score is higher...)

There is a saving throw that must be considered when Wall of Iron is in play, but it is not a saving throw to prevent the spell having an effect on a subject; hence, 'Reflex negates' is not the appropriate entry. Thus, 'See Text'.

As opposed to Flaming Sphere, where there is a saving throw to prevent the spell having an effect on the subject, per the definition of 'Saving Throw: X Negates'.

Not having books within reach, I can't look up the definition of "subject;" however, assuming it is synonymous with "target," flaming sphere has no "subject."

Based on the fact that there are spells that have no target which have Saving Throw entries of 'X Negates', it appears that in this context, "subject" means "person attempting a saving throw against a spell".

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

This is why Wall of Iron does not have a saving throw of 'Reflex negates', but rather, a saving throw of 'See Text'. (Although interestingly, that saving throw becomes more difficult if the caster's Int/Cha score is higher...)

I thought you might say that. I believe that flaming sphere should have "See text" as its saving throw entry instead of "Reflex negates." Granted, it isn't there, but that's neither the first nor the most significant printing error in that book. However, let us assume that it is written the way it was intended...

Saving Throw
Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The Saving Throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.

Negates
The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.

This seems to imply that after a single successful reflex check, an opponent cannot be affected by the same flaming sphere for its duration (although that seems to be contradicted by the text of flaming sphere). It doesn't even specify when the reflex check may be made, implying that the simple act of casting flaming sphere would be considered an attack before it has had a chance to do damage to anything. On the other hand, if the saving throw entry read "See text," the save would necessarily come when when the conditions were met: an opponent is actually threatened with contact by the sphere. I think this is the best reason for changing the entry.

There is a saving throw that must be considered when Wall of Iron is in play, but it is not a saving throw to prevent the spell having an effect on a subject; hence, 'Reflex negates' is not the appropriate entry. Thus, 'See Text'.

As opposed to Flaming Sphere, where there is a saving throw to prevent the spell having an effect on the subject, per the definition of 'Saving Throw: X Negates'.

Do you really see that much of a difference between those two saves? Except for the objects involved, they're exactly the same (another reason I think the save entry for flaming sphere should be changed). Plus, you're equivocating here. The save for flaming sphere is not against the spell itself. The spell's effect is already manifest (like the iron wall); the save is an attempt to physically avoid, to literally move out of the way of a threatening object (just like the iron wall). Hence the reflex save... the same save allowed to avoid the falling wall. Or an intentionally sprung trap. Or a rope bridge dropping out from underneath you. The fact that the object happens to have been created by magic is immaterial (pun slightly intended ).

However, all of this is getting away from the fact that the damage from the spell's effect is still indirect and therefore doesn't negate invisibility.

Based on the fact that there are spells that have no target which have Saving Throw entries of 'X Negates', it appears that in this context, "subject" means "person attempting a saving throw against a spell".

Considering the definition of saving throws above, this is a circular definition. Not to mention the fact that the definition appears to use "subject" and "target" synonymously.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This seems to imply that after a single successful reflex check, an opponent cannot be affected by the same flaming sphere for its duration (although that seems to be contradicted by the text of flaming sphere). It doesn't even specify when the reflex check may be made, implying that the simple act of casting flaming sphere would be considered an attack before it has had a chance to do damage to anything.

Take Call Lightning as another example.

If one creature is subject to three bolts from the spell in three different rounds, he will make three saves - one chance per bolt to halve the damage for that bolt.

However, if he has SR, his SR will be tested when the first bolt strikes, and that result will apply for all three:
Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell. Likewise, if the spell resistance succeeds the first time, it always succeeds.

SR behaves how you suggest saves might in this case.

Plus, you're equivocating here. The save for flaming sphere is not against the spell itself.

A saving throw of Reflex Negates is against the spell itself. Whether you think it should say "See text", it does not.

However, all of this is getting away from the fact that the damage from the spell's effect is still indirect and therefore doesn't negate invisibility.

The spell doesn't negate invisibility because it deals direct damage; I agree, it does not deal direct damage. It negates invisibility because it is a spell that opponents resist with saving throws, and is hence an attack per PHB p171.

Do you feel that damaging a foe with a bolt from Call Lightning would negate invisibility, by the way?

Considering the definition of saving throws above, this is a circular definition. Not to mention the fact that the definition appears to use "subject" and "target" synonymously.

There is, I think, a discrepancy in the description of the 'harmless' descriptor, which refers to a targeted creature; the Bless spell, for example, has the harmless descriptor against its saving throw, but is an Area spell, not a Targeted spell. So I agree that the term 'targeted' is misused in that definition.

But the use of 'subject' in that section isn't - can't be! - restricted to targeted spells, due to the vast number of Area and Effect spells that allow saves. Rather, the (harmless) description uses 'targeted creature' when it should use 'subject creature'.

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

So, if I used fabricate to create a masterwork longsword and then some idiot comes and lops his foot off with it, I just attacked him? With my fabricate spell??? Cite your source.

Not valid

Fabricate
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: See text
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: Up to 10 cu. ft./level; see text
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet.

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

Casting requires 1 round per 10 cubic feet (or 1 cubic foot) of material to be affected by the spell.
Material Component

The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created.

Duration instantaneous means the fabricated items are mundane, not magical effects.

 

[evilbob]

Quick aside: nothing in the definition of "reflex: negates" implies that it couldn't apply repeatedly or even round after round.

 

[Machiavelli]

I formed an amusing mental picture while reading through this thread:

Sorcerer leaves home to go adventuring. He leaves the kitchen light on. His room mate, a drow, stumbles out of his bedroom to go to the bathroom, recieving painful burns on his sensitive, girly-man skin.

Four-hundred eighteen miles away, the sorcerer, battling a terrifying foe while flying around invisible, suddenly *poof* loses his invisibility. Whoops. >.<

 

[TYPO5478]

A saving throw of Reflex Negates is against the spell itself.

Not when the spell says it isn't:

If it enters a space with a creature, it stops moving for the round and deals 2d6 points of fire damage to that creature, though a successful Reflex save negates that damage.

The save only negates the damage from the spell, not the entire spell.

Nothing in the definition of "reflex: negates" implies that it couldn't apply repeatedly or even round after round.

Sure it does: the fact that there are no extenuating circumstances that require more than a single save. To be specific, the singular phrase "a successful saving throw" is unmodified in the definition in any way to imply that more than one save might be necessary. Usually, when something is negated, it is negated entirely. That's why spells that do require repeated saves (e.g. stinking cloud) typically say so in their spell descriptions (and why they typically have "see text" appended); it's a break from the general rule. Why it was left off of flaming sphere, I can't say.

Take Call Lightning as another example.

If one creature is subject to three bolts from the spell in three different rounds, he will make three saves - one chance per bolt to halve the damage for that bolt.

Call lightning has "Reflex half," not "Reflex negates" as its save.

Half
The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).

A save for Half depends upon damage. Half implies a save every time damage would be dealt, whether it's once or several times.

Do you feel that damaging a foe with a bolt from Call Lightning would negate invisibility, by the way?

This is a tough call, tougher than flaming sphere. With call lightning, the caster is actively targeting opponents (as he would if he were, say, aiming a crossbow) whereas with flaming sphere the caster only points the ball in a direction. If the caster simply called a storm whose lightning struck randomly, it would be easier to definitely say no. But the ability to single out targets (reinforced by the save for half) makes the damage too direct (or not indirect enough).

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is a tough call, tougher than flaming sphere. With call lightning, the caster is actively targeting opponents (as he would if he were, say, aiming a crossbow)...

No, he isn't. He's targeting a square.

"Any creature in the target square or in the path of the bolt is affected."

This is essentially identical to flaming sphere, where the caster moves the ball into a certain square, and creatures in that square are subject to the spell; he directs the bolt of lightning to strike a square, and creatures in that square are subject to the spell.

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

No, he isn't. He's targeting a square.

"Any creature in the target square or in the path of the bolt is affected."

This is essentially identical to flaming sphere, where the caster moves the ball into a certain square, and creatures in that square are subject to the spell; he directs the bolt of lightning to strike a square, and creatures in that square are subject to the spell.

If that's your interpretation, then I would say the damage from call lightning is just as indirect as that from flaming sphere and therefore invisibility would remain intact. However, consider this:

The bolt of lightning flashes down in a vertical stroke at whatever target point you choose within the spell’s range.

If the "target point you choose" is a creature, then you are targeting the creature.

Call lightning still differs from flaming sphere in other significant respects. It doesn't allow for opponents to move out of the way entirely (Reflex half vs. Reflex negates). Also, with call lightning you designate a particular spot for the lightning to strike, whereas with flaming sphere, you can only designate a direction. It is entirely possible for a creature to completely avoid a flaming sphere by simply staying more than 30 ft away from it (he doesn't even have to leave the spell's range). If the caster wants to hit someone with call lightning (and makes it past their spell resistance), they're going to get hit whether they save or not.