Rules Lawyers, Mettle, Orb of Fire

[Elves]

You have to ignore that line to pretend that the whole spell isn't negated by a successful save with mettle. Orb of fire explicitly says "Fortitude, Partial;" it qualifies for a save "completely negat[ing] the effect."

That parenthetical could be read as an example of what the ability applies to. In which case, it being wrong doesn't change the substance of the ability. Imagine something said "You get a +2 bonus against monstrous humanoids (such as ogres)". The parenthetical example is wrong, but that doesn't mean the ability also applies to giants.

[Segev]

That parenthetical be read as an example of what the ability applies to. In which case, it being wrong doesn't change the substance of the ability. Imagine something said "You get a +2 bonus against monstrous humanoids (such as ogres)". The parenthetical example is wrong, but that doesn't mean the ability also applies to giants.

No, it is clarifying what it pertains to. It is not an "incorrect example," any more than the rules saying that you can't stack two enhancement bonuses are an "incorrect example" of the same-named bonus not stacking just because somebody wants to stack enhancement bonuses.

It spells out explicitly that it fully negates spells with "Fortitude partial" saves. It can't be more clear. {Scrubbed}


At this point, you're house ruling. The RAW and the RAI are very, very clear: Mettle negates orb of fire entirely on a successful save.

[ciopo]

Are undead creatures immune to the damage from orb of X spells?

[Darg]

That parenthetical be read as an example of what the ability applies to. In which case, it being wrong doesn't change the substance of the ability. Imagine something said "You get a +2 bonus against monstrous humanoids (such as ogres)". The parenthetical example is wrong, but that doesn't mean the ability also applies to giants.

Orb of fire literally has one effect. It doesnt matter if it has parts to that effect. It is still one effect. Mettle says it negates the "effect." There is only one effect to negate. To say there are multiple effects is not how it is written.

Are undead creatures immune to the damage from orb of X spells?

Are objects immune to the effect? I don't see any rules that say an object can't be dazed.

[icefractal]

There are no "rider" effects in the Orb series. I'm going to dig up my Spell Compendium because this is getting silly.

Ok, here's Orb of Acid:

Effect: One orb of acid
...
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial; see text

An orb of acid about 3 inches across shoots from your palm at its target, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 15d6). You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target.

A creature struck by the orb takes damage and becomes sickened by the acid's noxious fumes for 1 round. A successful Fortitude save negates the sickened effect but does not reduce the damage.

Taking damage and being sickened happen together, neither is a rider on the other. Someone immune to acid (or immune to damage in general) would still potentially be sickened.

There is one effect (damage and sickened) which you are making a single Fortitude save against to reduce it to (just damaged). The fact that other abilities exist which are rider effects has no bearing on this spell, or any other spells like it.

[sreservoir]

Are objects immune to the effect? I don't see any rules that say an object can't be dazed.

Orb of fire says only creatures are dazed. Nothing in orb of acid prevents the damage from affecting creatures, though, so I'm p sure undead take the damage and have to Fort save vs the rider, because it's an effect that also works on objects. Yes, it does something different for creatures, but then does disintegrate and that's practically the canonical example.

[Nifft]

Yeah, the hexblade grits his or her teeth and just sorta tanks the heat without getting burned. The hexblade is just too tough to let something as little as a ball of fire stop them.

Agreed, but also I want to point out the missed opportunity to say, "The hexblade is just too metal".


EDIT: In my opinion the diagnosis here is that the rules needed to be more clearly written, but unfortunately when WotC tried to write clear spell and combat rules what we got was 4e.

[Particle_Man]

FWIW the FAQ says that mettle works vs. Sound Burst, negating the damage. That is probably as close to RAW as we are ever going to get.

So it looks like, yes, Mettle is awesome. Yes, it negates Orb of Fire damage. Yes, it negates damage from a monk's Stunning Fist. Yes, it negates weapon damage if the weapon is poisoned. (Well, the Hexblade needs to make the save).

I think the Tier of Hexblades may need to be reevaluated.

[Aracor]

The one msot prominent in my mind is stunning fist, because it's functionally similar to the "Orb of X" spell line. You have a damaging effect, with a rider that require a save, the save negates the rider.

You're ruling that Mettle negates stunning fist damage.

Not exactly. The difference is simple: Stunning Fist is a specific effect that is added to an attack. The attack is completely separate from the stunning effect. Stunning Fist isn't "damage plus rider effect". Stunning Fist is JUST rider effect after an attack.

Orb of Fire IS "damage plus rider effect". RAW, I agree that Mettle will stop the damage from an Orb of Fire. Don't like it? Use Orb of Force instead.

[ChudoJogurt]

I think the whole thing is about the meaning of the word "effect".

Orb of fire is certainly an attack - it has an attack roll and everything. The wording of the Mettle presumes tha the attack in question always has a singular effect - in this case, damage+daze. Since damage+daze > damage, Fortitude save allows to lessen the effect, and therefore Mettle should negate it entirely

However, the way Orb of Fire is written, implies, though does not state clearly, that the spell has two independent effects following from an attack - damage, and the daze. Of those, only the latter can be affected by the Fortitude save, and thus be subject to Mettle.

So, its not clear one way or another, but I think since the statement in the wording of the Mettle is much stronger and less ambiguous, the interpretation ofbthrules would lean toward the first one - an attack (for the purposes of Mettle, and unless specified otherwise) has just one big effect, no matter how many things are described in it, and of the total effect can be lessened by any Will or Fortitude save then the whole thing is negated.

[H_H_F_F]

FWIW the FAQ says that mettle works vs. Sound Burst, negating the damage. That is probably as close to RAW as we are ever going to get.

So it looks like, yes, Mettle is awesome. Yes, it negates Orb of Fire damage. Yes, it negates damage from a monk's Stunning Fist. Yes, it negates weapon damage if the weapon is poisoned. (Well, the Hexblade needs to make the save).

I think the Tier of Hexblades may need to be reevaluated.

If you're being serious, I think poisoned weapon is categorically different. You save against the orb spell, not the daze, and you save against the posion, not the sword. Complete opposites.

[Particle_Man]

If you're being serious, I think poisoned weapon is categorically different. You save against the orb spell, not the daze, and you save against the posion, not the sword. Complete opposites.

In that case you save vs the stunning attack, not the unarmed strike of the monk.

Which is fine. It is a good distinction and stops the “save vs. the sun with iron heart surge” worries.

FAQ only talks about mettle vs. spells like sound burst. Orb of Fire fits that bill and would be negated by mettle according to the FAQ, so no damage.

[icefractal]

Wouldn't negate the attack which causes Stunning Fist or a poisoned weapon, for the simple reason that those things only trigger if the attack does damage - not if it's negated by DR for example. So the only way you're even making the save is if the damage has already been established.

Would it block Bo9S maneuvers which have a Fortitude save regardless of damage? I guess yes. Not really an issue IMO.

[Darg]

I think the whole thing is about the meaning of the word "effect".

Orb of fire is certainly an attack - it has an attack roll and everything. The wording of the Mettle presumes tha the attack in question always has a singular effect - in this case, damage+daze. Since damage+daze > damage, Fortitude save allows to lessen the effect, and therefore Mettle should negate it entirely

However, the way Orb of Fire is written, implies, though does not state clearly, that the spell has two independent effects following from an attack - damage, and the daze. Of those, only the latter can be affected by the Fortitude save, and thus be subject to Mettle.

So, its not clear one way or another, but I think since the statement in the wording of the Mettle is much stronger and less ambiguous, the interpretation ofbthrules would lean toward the first one - an attack (for the purposes of Mettle, and unless specified otherwise) has just one big effect, no matter how many things are described in it, and of the total effect can be lessened by any Will or Fortitude save then the whole thing is negated.

A spell is a single effect. Orb of fire is a single effect as stated in the "Effect" line of the description. It's very obvious that including fortitude partials would be superfluous if Mettle didn't negate them. All evidence points to Mettle negating Orb of Fire.

[H_H_F_F]

Wouldn't negate the attack which causes Stunning Fist or a poisoned weapon, for the simple reason that those things only trigger if the attack does damage - not if it's negated by DR for example. So the only way you're even making the save is if the damage has already been established.

Would it block Bo9S maneuvers which have a Fortitude save regardless of damage? I guess yes. Not really an issue IMO.

Maneuver, I tend to say yes. Poisoned weapon? No. There is no "if damage then save for stun" for the orb spells. That would imply two different events occuring, but the spell is quite clear that there is only one event. The orb hits you - make a partial fort save against the spell.

A poisoned weapon has two distinct events. You're hit by a sword - if it cuts you, the poison gets in your system. Make a save against the posion.

I haven't looked at stunning fist in a while, so I feel less comfortable stating an opinion there.

[Particle_Man]

I just checked the feat. You only make the save vs stun if you are damaged by the unarmed strike. So mettle would not retroactively negate the damage from the unarmed attack that has stunning fist attached to it.

[rel]

You make the save, mettle negates the effect.
Spell bounces. No rider, no damage.
The mail is not delivered this day.

[Telonius]

There are no "rider" effects in the Orb series. I'm going to dig up my Spell Compendium because this is getting silly.

Ok, here's Orb of Acid:

Taking damage and being sickened happen together, neither is a rider on the other. Someone immune to acid (or immune to damage in general) would still potentially be sickened.

There is one effect (damage and sickened) which you are making a single Fortitude save against to reduce it to (just damaged). The fact that other abilities exist which are rider effects has no bearing on this spell, or any other spells like it.

The wording of the spell itself draws the distinction between the effect and the damage:

A successful Fortitude save negates the sickened effect but does not reduce the damage.

The spell results in two things, an effect and damage. The sickened effect is a rider on the damage. It doesn't activate unless the attack lands.

[Darg]

The wording of the spell itself draws the distinction between the effect and the damage:



The spell results in two things, an effect and damage. The sickened effect is a rider on the damage. It doesn't activate unless the attack lands.

Except Mettle already takes care of that:

If he makes a successful Will or Fortitude save against an attack that normally would have a lesser effect on a successful save (such as any spell with a saving throw entry of Will half or Fortitude partial), he instead completely negates the effect.

Orb of fire is the attack. It is also one single magical effect as seen in the effect line. If fire resistance reduces the damage to 0, as long as the spell hits it still rolls against the daze as energy resistance doesn't disrupt a spell. Being struck does not equate to doing damage. It just means the attack roll beats the AC.

Take a look at Ray of Exhaustion. Would you really say that Mettle wouldn't negate the entire effect. Fortitude partials are all like that and the description of Mettle specifically calls them out as completely negating the magical effect of the spell.

The lesser effect of orb of fire is doing just damage. Mettle negates that effect. The lesser effect of ray of exhaustion is causing fatigue. Mettle negates that.

[ciopo]

Except Mettle already takes care of that:



Orb of fire is the attack. It is also one single magical effect as seen in the effect line. If fire resistance reduces the damage to 0, as long as the spell hits it still rolls against the daze as energy resistance doesn't disrupt a spell. Being struck does not equate to doing damage. It just means the attack roll beats the AC.

Take a look at Ray of Exhaustion. Would you really say that Mettle wouldn't negate the entire effect. Fortitude partials are all like that and the description of Mettle specifically calls them out as completely negating the magical effect of the spell.

I re-point out that Orb of X description have two separate paragraphs, that to me denotes some measure of separation between the effects of a spell. that section is called "Descriptive text", not "effect", but much as I like arguing semantic, I understand where you're coming from here, I colloquially call that the spell effect, too.

I can do bolded quote too, specifically that the actual text of orb of X are "... fortitude save negates ...", and ray of exhaustion is the perfect use case of it indeed being completely negated by mettle as opposed to partially negated (no argument here, we agree), I don't know how to do that without sounding confrontational, so if I'm sounding confrontational, I am giving out reassurance that I am not being confrontational.

The lesser effect of orb of fire is doing just damage. Mettle negates that effect. The lesser effect of ray of exhaustion is causing fatigue. Mettle negates that.

for a moment I misread that as "lesser orb of fire" and I was confused, but this brought this thought to me : I find there to be some argumentative wiggle room that "Orb of X, lesser" have no saving throw, therefore the damage portion of "Orb of X, lesser" is behaviorally the same, and the fortitude save clearly ( to me ) refers only to the sickened/dazed/etc, and negates that.

agree to disagree, I suppose?

Are you talking about Hexblade Mettle or Pious Templar Mettle? I'm more likely to accept Pious templar Mettle to completely negate a spell, because that's what it says it does. Hexblade Mettle does not say "completely negate the spell", it says "completely negates the effect"(implied, to me : "..the effect that would otherwise (do something) on a successfull save.") ( and the implication of the implied is that the damage of Orbs have no relation to the secondary effect of causing some debuff with fort negate )

[Calthropstu]

Raw you can interpret it both ways. So I'd say rule however you like. You can infinitely argue the two sides. "But it says it negates the effect if you make the save." "But it's not a partial effect save, it only applies to the extra effect. The primary effect is the damage." "But the sace applies to the spell." "It's only part of the spell."

It could go on forever like that.

[Bayar]

If the Orb of Fire spell would be negated by Mettle, Lesser Orb of Fire would be completely unaffected because it doesn't have a rider effect. That would make no sense.

[icefractal]

If the Orb of Fire spell would be negated by Mettle, Lesser Orb of Fire would be completely unaffected because it doesn't have a rider effect. That would make no sense.

It's not a rider effect.
But more to the point - Lightning Bolt can't be foiled by Mirror Image, Chain Lightning can. There's no guarantee that a higher level spell is better 100% of the time.

And also, if you're talking about what "makes sense", an orb of "nonmagical fire" that's hotter than even the hottest parts of the Plane of Fire, stays together in a tight ball while flung through the air, and in general acts exactly like an Evocation spell and not much like Conjuration, but is the latter just to avoid SR? That makes no sense. And Orb of Electricity/Force are even worse. The Orb series lives by RAW, it can die by RAW.

[H_H_F_F]

It's not a rider effect.
But more to the point - Lightning Bolt can't be foiled by Mirror Image, Chain Lightning can. There's no guarantee that a higher level spell is better 100% of the time.

And also, if you're talking about what "makes sense", an orb of "nonmagical fire" that's hotter than even the hottest parts of the Plane of Fire, stays together in a tight ball while flung through the air, and in general acts exactly like an Evocation spell and not much like Conjuration, but is the latter just to avoid SR? That makes no sense. And Orb of Electricity/Force are even worse. The Orb series lives by RAW, it can die by RAW.

That is sort of whataboutism though. The lesser orb problem presents an internal inconsistency a DM would probably like to find a way to explain. The issue on thia front isn't RAW, it's suspension of disbelief. "You can take an orb of fire to the chest and move on, because you have supernatural grit. The lesser version, however, you're helpless against".

This is not really an arguement for why RAW mettle doesn't stop an orb spell, and more a challenge for DMs to who wish to apply RAW and keep the world believeble. Personally, if I wanted to fully preserve RAW here, I'd just give lesser orb a different expression to that of orb. For example, orb shatters on your skin and envelops you, while lesser orb is smaller and cuts through you.

RAI, I believe this is a strong arguement for orb spells being written without mettle in mind, but I don't really see that as that big of an issue.

[Thurbane]

Can I throw in a loosely related question, that I once asked in the Simple RAW thread:

How does an Orb of Electricity affect a Mechanatrix? The Mechanatrix is not harmed by electricity, and actually heals from it. However, it's entry includes this (bolding mine):

Because of a mechanatrix's electricity affinity, any electricity attack directed at it cures 1 point of damage for each 3 points of damage it would otherwise deal. The mechanatrix gets no saving throw against electricity effects.

Does this mean a Mechanatrix is automatically entangled by the spell?

[Particle_Man]

Well we could either go with the FAQ, in which case Orb of Fire is negated by the successful saving throw of the Hexblade with mettle, because Soundburst is.

The alternative is having "Some guys on the internet" say yes, and "Some other guys on the internet" say no. Which seems even less authoritative than the FAQ.

[Kitsuneymg]

I did say I did not like the overly literal reading!

I'm trying to think of circumstances other than spells to use as examples, but most of them would be classified as "fortitude negates".

Surely ToB has a number of strikes that do bonus damage and inflict a condition on a failed fort or will save?

[Darg]

If the Orb of Fire spell would be negated by Mettle, Lesser Orb of Fire would be completely unaffected because it doesn't have a rider effect. That would make no sense.

for a moment I misread that as "lesser orb of fire" and I was confused, but this brought this thought to me : I find there to be some argumentative wiggle room that "Orb of X, lesser" have no saving throw, therefore the damage portion of "Orb of X, lesser" is behaviorally the same, and the fortitude save clearly ( to me ) refers only to the sickened/dazed/etc, and negates that.

Lesser Orb of Fire has no saving throw for a lesser effect. It can't be affected by mettle, nor should it be used to infer anything because despite the similar names they are in fact completely different spells.

Are you talking about Hexblade Mettle or Pious Templar Mettle? I'm more likely to accept Pious templar Mettle to completely negate a spell, because that's what it says it does. Hexblade Mettle does not say "completely negate the spell", it says "completely negates the effect"(implied, to me : "..the effect that would otherwise (do something) on a successfull save.") ( and the implication of the implied is that the damage of Orbs have no relation to the secondary effect of causing some debuff with fort negate )

They are all the same. Going through the list, they all have the same effect if worded slightly differently each time:

Mettle (Ex): The blessing of the Silver Flame allows you to shrug off effects that would otherwise harm you. Beginning at 8th level, if you make a successful Will or Fortitude save that would normally reduce a spell's effect, you suffer no effect from the spell at all. Only those spells with a "Will partial," "Fortitude half," or similar Saving Throw entry can be negated through this ability.

Mettle (Ex): At 5th level, your devotion and single-mindedness allow you to shrug off magical effects that would otherwise harm or impede you. If you make a successful Will or Fortitude saving throw against a spell or spell-like ability that normally has partial or reduced effects on a successful save, you instead suffer no effect at all.

Mettle (Ex): Beginning at 4th level, if you make a successful Fortitude or Will save that would normally reduce (rather than negate) a spell's effect, you suffer 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.

Mettle (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, you can shrug off magical effects that could harm you. If you make a successful Will or Fortitude saving throw that would normally reduce (rather than negate) a spell or other magical effect, the magic has no effect on you at all. Any spell that is normally negated by a successful saving throw is unaffected by this ability.

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.

Mettle (Ex): Starting at 9th level, a vigilante's grim determination allows him to shrug off magical effects that would otherwise harm him. If a vigilante makes a successful Will or Fortitude saving throw that would normally reduce the spell's effect (such as any spell with a saving throw entry of Will partial or Fortitude half), he instead negates the effect. An unconscious or sleeping vigilante does not gain the benefit of mettle.

Mettle (Ex): At 3rd level and higher, a hexblade can resist magical and unusual attacks with great willpower or fortitude. If he makes a successful Will or Fortitude save against an attack that normally would have a lesser effect on a successful save (such as any spell with a saving throw entry of Will half or Fortitude partial), he instead completely negates the effect. An unconscious or sleeping hexblade does not gain the benefit of mettle.

They all say the same thing in different ways. You can read into it differently if you want, but being the only class to have a mettle that functions to a lesser degree than the rest, even though the language says it functions just the same, seems highly unlikely.

~~~~~~~~~~

Can I throw in a loosely related question, that I once asked in the Simple RAW thread:

How does an Orb of Electricity affect a Mechanatrix? The Mechanatrix is not harmed by electricity, and actually heals from it. However, it's entry includes this (bolding mine):



Does this mean a Mechanatrix is automatically entangled by the spell?

From what I could see of the monster (I don't know what book it's from but google says:) it doesn't have immunity. So I would say yes. All it does is convert damage into healing. It doesn't stop the spell effect from affecting you.

[sreservoir]

Hexblade and Vigilante Mettle are, in fact, expressly inferior to the other Mettle abilities: they don't work when unconscious.

My question, though, is, if you think Mettle shouldn't work on orbs with additional secondary effects, what does it work on? Fort/Will "partial" save effects are almost always written so that the "full" effect and the "partial" effect are both explicitly specified in the spell text, because there's just no default for what happens on a save the way there is for "half". Is Mettle just a bad ability that doesn't do what it says it's supposed to do?

[ciopo]

Surely ToB has a number of strikes that do bonus damage and inflict a condition on a failed fort or will save?

I didn't remember these, giving a quick look, I'm of the opinion the damage isn't negated when you save against the extra effect, but for the way they are worded/presented, I suppose hexblade mettle will negate the damage too for those that are of the opinion that it completely negate spells

Hexblade and Vigilante Mettle are, in fact, expressly inferior to the other Mettle abilities: they don't work when unconscious.

My question, though, is, if you think Mettle shouldn't work on orbs with additional secondary effects, what does it work on? Fort/Will "partial" save effects are almost always written so that the "full" effect and the "partial" effect are both explicitly specified in the spell text, because there's just no default for what happens on a save the way there is for "half". Is Mettle just a bad ability that doesn't do what it says it's supposed to do?

there are many spells that have will/fortitude partial that in the actual text aren't ".. negates", from the top of my mind, cloudkill, ray of exhaustion, those spell that deal half damage on a successfull fortitude save, Probably many of those that deal with Fear escalation, such as Cause fear that makes you shaken on a successfull save. In general, those effects that says "on a successfull save, THIS happens to you".
I understand where the interpretation that orb of fire has no effect, I disagree with the conclusion/school of thought that a spell only ever has one effect and so mettle make them all of nothing. To me one spell = one( or more ) effect(s).

To make a silly example on a spell that's alphabetically early when trying to search for examples, Blistering Radiance.

To me, very clearly, Mettle will reduce damage to nothing, but you're still dazzled. I can totally see the counterpoint coming that it says "none and fortitude partial", but the argument presented against my point of view is 'a spell is one effect', to that stance the fact that the dazzled has no save is immaterial, a successfull mettle will prevent the dazzle too. You're saving against something that esplictly says it has no save / don't mention having a save for that portion of the spell effectS / esplictly says the save do not impact that part of a spell.

They are all the same. Going through the list, they all have the same effect if worded slightly differently each time:

thank you for hunting them all down, I disagree with the notion that the wording does not matter. "it has no effect on you" of the Witch slayer to me is functionally different from "the effect is negated", especially if one spell=one effect.

to use a somewhat absurd example, if you tell me the spell is negated, to me that means if hexblade successfully saves against cloudkill, the whole 100 feet area of cloudkill is dispersed to nothing, as opposed to take no damage instead of half damage for himself only of the "no effect on you"