Mettle, and orb spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Mettle, and orb spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Winnipegger
02-13-06, 08:14 PM Since this is a permanent place for rules discussion, and this is more likely to be read by WotC than at the infinite monkeys yahoo group, I might as well bring up this past controversial topic.

The ability Mettle, as per the Pious Templar ability in the Complete Warrior, works as follows:

Complete Warrior, page 50:
===
Mettle (Su): A pious templar's special blessing allows her to shrug off magical effects that would otherwise harm her. If a pious templar makes a successful Will or Fortitude saving throw that would normally reduce the spell's effect, she suffers no effect from the spell at all. Only those spells with a Saving Throw entry of "Will partial," "Fortitude half," or similar entries can be negated through this ability.
===

The Orb spells in the Complete Arcane (more specifically, Orb of Sound, Orb of Cold, Orb of Fire, Orb of Acid) all have a saving throw of Fortitude partial. Note that this isn't to be mistaken with the Lesser Orb spells, which have no saving throw. If a Pious Templar were to be struck by one of the above Orb spells, not only would she negate the effect (as usual from a successful saving throw), but would take no damage, since as stated above, "she suffers no effect from the spell at all."

It is for this reason that the letter of the rule fully supports this. But this poses a problem; this shows that Orb spells have a significant disadvantage against Pious Templars with Mettle in comparison to their lesser versions, which have no saving throw. This is in my opinion contrary to the spirit of the rules. The letter of the rules fully supports Mettle, on a successful saving throw, negating all aspects of 3rd level Orb spells including damage.

As a judge it would be unacceptable to rule in favor of the spirit of the rules in this particular case, because as per page 60 of the LGCS, "Judges are to follow both the letter and spirit of the rules" and "judges should not be making arbitrary changes to the rules because they don't 'like' them." It also continues to state that "changes/tweaks should occur because the situation in a given session is not well modeled by the rules in the Core books." My problem is that I can't see this being in the "not well modeled" category, because 3rd level Orb spells are clearly fortitude partial, and Mettle clearly stops fortitude partial spells.

Had the Orb spells instead said "Fortitude negates (blinding only)" (for Orb of Cold), "Fortitude negates (sickening only)" (for Orb of Acid), this would be a non-issue.

But I'll ask the same question I asked before; is this enough of a gray area in the rules to rule either way? Why or why not? I personally believe it's not but would like to be convinced it is enough of a gray area.

Thank you in advance,

---
Chris Tiodin
RanielK
02-13-06, 08:39 PM There was a raging debate in the Infinite Monkeys yahoo group over this ability in line with these spells. It ended as many do there, two sides both convinced they were right.

Side one stated pretty much how you line it up in your post, i.e. Mettle stops the damage from the Orbs because of the line about similar saving throw types.

The other side pointed out two things.

1)Of the three versions of mettle, the first and last version printed stated Will Partial or Fortitude half (the one printed in the book in the middle stated Will half or Fortitude partial) and that half and partial saves aren't similar. They are not thematically the same as partial negates some piece of the effect without dealing with other parts of the effect (ie primary effect that is UNsavable, it happens; and secondary, tertiary, etc effect that IS savable but comes after everything else is over and done with). We in LG use the latest version of a rule as printed.

2)The orb spells had be printed before the words Fortitude partial (see text) became the standard phrase for such effects that did a primary unsavable effect and a secondary savable effect (i.e. nothing short of energy resistance is stopping the damage). The wording of the spell made it evident that the damage was done, then you saved against the secondary effect. Any reading of Mettle being allowed to stop the damage, in effect backed up time and wipped out something that was already done.

This is all moot now. The Spell Compendium is the source for the Orb spells for LG. It has been rewritten to say "Fortitude partial (see text)" and "A successful Fortitude save negates the (fill in blank) effect but does not reduce the damage." So with that wording, Mettle won't work on Orb spells again and WOTC has learned there lesson here. If you want a primary unstoppable effect and secondary effects that can be stopped, the save entry is "X partial (see text), Primary effect can't be stopped, secondary can."

Miles
redgamer
02-13-06, 09:11 PM Unfortunatly they did not apply that lesson everywhere. There are still SC spells that should have see text but don't. Personally I wish they hadn't made the change but at least people won't argue anymore. Hmm well at least this argument will have an end.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Winnipegger 02-13-06, 08:14 PM	Since this is a permanent place for rules discussion, and this is more likely to be read by WotC than at the infinite monkeys yahoo group, I might as well bring up this past controversial topic. The ability Mettle, as per the Pious Templar ability in the Complete Warrior, works as follows: Complete Warrior, page 50: === Mettle (Su): A pious templar's special blessing allows her to shrug off magical effects that would otherwise harm her. If a pious templar makes a successful Will or Fortitude saving throw that would normally reduce the spell's effect, she suffers no effect from the spell at all. Only those spells with a Saving Throw entry of "Will partial," "Fortitude half," or similar entries can be negated through this ability. === The Orb spells in the Complete Arcane (more specifically, Orb of Sound, Orb of Cold, Orb of Fire, Orb of Acid) all have a saving throw of Fortitude partial. Note that this isn't to be mistaken with the Lesser Orb spells, which have no saving throw. If a Pious Templar were to be struck by one of the above Orb spells, not only would she negate the effect (as usual from a successful saving throw), but would take no damage, since as stated above, "she suffers no effect from the spell at all." It is for this reason that the letter of the rule fully supports this. But this poses a problem; this shows that Orb spells have a significant disadvantage against Pious Templars with Mettle in comparison to their lesser versions, which have no saving throw. This is in my opinion contrary to the spirit of the rules. The letter of the rules fully supports Mettle, on a successful saving throw, negating all aspects of 3rd level Orb spells including damage. As a judge it would be unacceptable to rule in favor of the spirit of the rules in this particular case, because as per page 60 of the LGCS, "Judges are to follow both the letter and spirit of the rules" and "judges should not be making arbitrary changes to the rules because they don't 'like' them." It also continues to state that "changes/tweaks should occur because the situation in a given session is not well modeled by the rules in the Core books." My problem is that I can't see this being in the "not well modeled" category, because 3rd level Orb spells are clearly fortitude partial, and Mettle clearly stops fortitude partial spells. Had the Orb spells instead said "Fortitude negates (blinding only)" (for Orb of Cold), "Fortitude negates (sickening only)" (for Orb of Acid), this would be a non-issue. But I'll ask the same question I asked before; is this enough of a gray area in the rules to rule either way? Why or why not? I personally believe it's not but would like to be convinced it is enough of a gray area. Thank you in advance, --- Chris Tiodin
RanielK 02-13-06, 08:39 PM	There was a raging debate in the Infinite Monkeys yahoo group over this ability in line with these spells. It ended as many do there, two sides both convinced they were right. Side one stated pretty much how you line it up in your post, i.e. Mettle stops the damage from the Orbs because of the line about similar saving throw types. The other side pointed out two things. 1)Of the three versions of mettle, the first and last version printed stated Will Partial or Fortitude half (the one printed in the book in the middle stated Will half or Fortitude partial) and that half and partial saves aren't similar. They are not thematically the same as partial negates some piece of the effect without dealing with other parts of the effect (ie primary effect that is UNsavable, it happens; and secondary, tertiary, etc effect that IS savable but comes after everything else is over and done with). We in LG use the latest version of a rule as printed. 2)The orb spells had be printed before the words Fortitude partial (see text) became the standard phrase for such effects that did a primary unsavable effect and a secondary savable effect (i.e. nothing short of energy resistance is stopping the damage). The wording of the spell made it evident that the damage was done, then you saved against the secondary effect. Any reading of Mettle being allowed to stop the damage, in effect backed up time and wipped out something that was already done. This is all moot now. The Spell Compendium is the source for the Orb spells for LG. It has been rewritten to say "Fortitude partial (see text)" and "A successful Fortitude save negates the (fill in blank) effect but does not reduce the damage." So with that wording, Mettle won't work on Orb spells again and WOTC has learned there lesson here. If you want a primary unstoppable effect and secondary effects that can be stopped, the save entry is "X partial (see text), Primary effect can't be stopped, secondary can." Miles
redgamer 02-13-06, 09:11 PM	Unfortunatly they did not apply that lesson everywhere. There are still SC spells that should have see text but don't. Personally I wish they hadn't made the change but at least people won't argue anymore. Hmm well at least this argument will have an end.