Vitriolic Sphere (Complete Arcane) Question

[Shin Okada]

Here is the bulk of the text for the spell:

After re-reading the entire text carefully, I found that spell is really vaguely written. Now I agree with others that it is somewhat hard to say what does "Reflex negates" exactly mean.

Still, I think the success on initial save entirely negates all the damages from the spell. Because if the initial save only deny damages after the 2nd round, it should not be "reflex negates", but "reflex partial". So maybe there are 4 possible saves?

Round 1: to negate entire damages
Round 1-2: to negate the damages on the 2nd round or later
Round 2: to halve the damages on the 2nd round and prevent damages on 3rd round
Round 3: to halve the damages on the 3rd round.

 

[Ayrk]

After re-reading the entire text carefully, I found that spell is really vaguely written. Now I agree with others that it is somewhat hard to say what does "Reflex negates" exactly mean.

Still, I think the success on initial save entirely negates all the damages from the spell. Because if the initial save only deny damages after the 2nd round, it should not be "reflex negates", but "reflex partial". So maybe there are 4 possible saves?

Round 1: to negate entire damages
Round 1-2: to negate the damages on the 2nd round or later
Round 2: to halve the damages on the 2nd round and prevent damages on 3rd round
Round 3: to halve the damages on the 3rd round.

That was how I originally read it, but everytime I re-read it, it seemed that all of the Saves dealt with the future round damage, not the initial damage.

Of course, you know how it is when your are sitting at the game table and re-read the stupid spell description over and over. Each time you read it, more questions pop up.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, this is worded badly.

But, the wording in the text takes precedence over the Saving Throw line.

Since it is only D4, this indicates that:

1) Everyone takes full damage on round one.
2) If you make a Reflex save on round one, that is the only damage you take.
3) If you fail a Reflex save on round one, you take damage in round two and three.
4) If you make a Reflex save on round two, you take half damage that round.
5) If you make a Reflex save on round three, you take half damage that round.


This spell has cool pros and cons.

Pro: It gets past Evasion. It has no Spell Resistance.
Con: Some of the damage can be avoided. The damage is spread over multiple rounds, giving some opponents opportunities to counter it (e.g. healing, Acid Resistance, etc.). It has a small radius.

Although 22 points of damage (in round one) at 9th level is solid, it is not huge. Fireball does that or more as a third level spell with a greater radius to anyone without Evasion or without Spell Resistance.

If you are allowed to save for no damage at all, the spell is basically worth very little.

 

[ARandomGod]

After re-reading the entire text carefully, I found that spell is really vaguely written. Now I agree with others that it is somewhat hard to say what does "Reflex negates" exactly mean.

Still, I think the success on initial save entirely negates all the damages from the spell. Because if the initial save only deny damages after the 2nd round, it should not be "reflex negates", but "reflex partial". So maybe there are 4 possible saves?

Round 1: to negate entire damages
Round 1-2: to negate the damages on the 2nd round or later
Round 2: to halve the damages on the 2nd round and prevent damages on 3rd round
Round 3: to halve the damages on the 3rd round.

Having read the entire spell description, this (quoted) is the interpretation I vote on. It's not well worded, but I say an initial save negates any and all damage. A save on the second round (which isn't needed if there was a save on the first) give 1/2 damage on the second round and negates all damage for the third round. A save on the third round (also not needed if a save was made on round one or two) halves the damage on that third round.


Edit: And on reading it even more... well... yes, I think the above is what was intended, but I think instead the full description, the spell as worded states that everyone must take full damage on the first round, and saves only affect damage on subsequent rounds. A reflex save on round one "negates" rounds two and three of damage, a save on round two halves round two's damage but does not negate round three, a save on round three halves that damage...

Still, a very badly worded spell. At which point I say "GM call". Interpret it however you think is best, and stick with that.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Here's how I read it:

1. Cast the spell. All within the area take LevelD4 damage, and must make a Reflex save.
2. If successful, the spell no longer affects that character.
3. If failed, proceed.
4. In round Round 2, take 6d4 Acid damge, Reflex 1/2.
5. In round Round 3, take 3d4 Acid damge, Reflex 1/2.

In other words, "Reflex Negates" refers to the possibility of additional damage in rounds 2 and 3.
"Reflex Half" refers to the damage taken in rounds 2 and 3.

The spell would be better written as "Reflex partial and Reflex half (see text)."

 

[Infiniti2000]

This spell is not just poorly worded, it's stupidly worded. And it's not just the saving throw that's a problem, but also the "Target" and "Effect" lines. Shin Okada, did you write "Area" just to make me feel better? It should be area, but if Ayrk's text is correct, it's not. I say the spell be totally rewritten because it's not a possible spell. You can't have both Target and Effect and no Area.

Note that since the spell is targeted, no creature within the area is actually affected. Or, something bizarre like that.

 

[Shin Okada]

Shin Okada, did you write "Area" just to make me feel better? It should be area, but if Ayrk's text is correct, it's not.

My Complete Arcane (P.128) says "Area".

 

[Ayrk]

This spell is not just poorly worded, it's stupidly worded. And it's not just the saving throw that's a problem, but also the "Target" and "Effect" lines. Shin Okada, did you write "Area" just to make me feel better? It should be area, but if Ayrk's text is correct, it's not. I say the spell be totally rewritten because it's not a possible spell. You can't have both Target and Effect and no Area.

Note that since the spell is targeted, no creature within the area is actually affected. Or, something bizarre like that.

Mine was paraphrased from my player but the text is pretty much spot on.

We decided at the table that the target was 11d4 (in this case) damage and could save to avoid the future damage.

I believe that is how we will play it but I wanted to see if I was missing something obvious.

Thanks for all the help.

 

[Scion]

The actual spell text seems to be pretty clear. The short hand is just that, short hand, and after reading the spell text it makes sense.

Burst for damage, make a save to negate future damage. If you fail then you get more saves for half damage for some future time, if you succeed then no more damage from the spell.

Given that it is 5th level, small area, and does d4's for damage I'd have to say it is a little weak really. But then I dont think cone of cold should be 5th level either.

Although it is nice that it has long range and doesnt allow spell resistance.

Hopefully aqua regia is easy to get

Too bad it isnt on the warmage spell list though, that could be a fun one for that sort of character.

 

[Pyrex]

After reading the spell several times (and discussing it at length in a previous thread) here's the interpretation we came up with.

Round 1: Take yer damage & make a Ref save to negate continuing damage.
Round 2: If you failed your Round 1 save, 6d4, Ref 1/2. Succeeding at this save negates Round 3 damage entirely.
Round 3: If you failed both your Round 1 and Round 2 saves, take 3d4, Ref 1/2.