|
This is a question from the scenario Rebels Ransom.
Evil Eye (su) Three times per day, a
sea hag can cast her dire gaze upon
any single creature within 30 feet.
The target must succeed on a DC 14
Will save or be staggered as strange
nebulous distress and a gnawing
sense of impending doom plagues
the victim. If a sea hag uses her evil
eye on someone already afflicted
by this curse, the victim must
make a DC 14 Fortitude save or be
overwhelmed with fright and collapse into
a comatose state for 3 days. Each day that
passes, the comatose victim must
make a DC 14 Fortitude save or
perish. The evil eye is a mind-affecting fear effect. The save
DCs are Charisma-based.
Evil Eye Curse: Gaze—failed
save; save Will DC 14; frequency
1/day; effect staggered (or fall comatose if already under the
effects of the evil eye).
Now I had this cast on me and I failed the first initial saving throw and obtained the "curse," I was staggered. What happened, happened after the fight on the way back from the temple/crypt of the mummy. It took us 7 days to arrive there and it took us equally long to get back. I had to make several saving throws during this time. The first one (will save) I made, the second one I failed. I am now comatose. So now I have to make a fortitude save, I made the first made the second and third. I am no longer comatose. I have to make another will save and failed. I now am comatose once again. I have to make another saving throw of the fortitude variety and fail it... now I am DEAD!
Now my question is.. the wording for the text of the evil eye is pretty benign. There is nothing in it that says that I can see through going through the adventure and the bestiary and any where else I can read and finding nothing out about it.
If I were to go comatose and then survive the initial onslaught of the saving throws for said comatose. Is it over with? Does it continue like this until we get a remove curse going? Is there any other way of getting rid of it?
All I can honestly say is that I am not pleased with this adventure at the moment. It seems like the writer has something against fighters of low will saving throw folk. It is 7 days BACK to the area where we can call civilization and it killed two of us and we easily handled the fights only to die by something that we had to roll over and over and felt like we were actually set up to fail. Being a fighter I have a low saving throw for Will Saves and unless I take some kind of feat to increase it somehow or have a buff spell cast on me before hand I am likely not going to make the save. especially when it involves several rolls at once. Now on the other hand I have a +9 on fortitude saving throws and managaed to fail it with a 5 + 9 = 14 (tier 8-9) advanced sea hag DC for the Evil Eye is a 16 DC.
This scenario killed two of us from a frustrating situation that made us feel essentially useless and virtually helpless. I am surprised I did not loose more people from our party because of this but they had better saving throws then I did.
Does this sound reasonable?
Sorry about the length and rant of it folks.. I just needed to get this out. Thanks for listening.!!
-kip
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hey buddy, I can address the curse mechanics issue, as I spent last night poring over the rules trying to find a way to say that I misunderstood and everyone was okay (unfortunately, I was unsuccessful).
In that last line (the "stat block" of the curse), the frequency line simply says "1/day". Contrast to, say, a giant spider's poison which says "1/round for X rounds". Per the affliction rules in the CRB, this means that it does not expire after a given amount of time. So you have to cure it - it never ends on its own.
Furthermore, note the lack of a "cure" entry (such the giant spider poison's "Cure - 1 save" or other ailments' "Cure - 2 consecutive saves", etc). This means it's never cured on its own.
So with no duration in the frequency line and no Cure entry, that means it lasts until you magically remove it.
After some thought, I really think the deadly part was not the curse itself, but the fact that you were a week from civilization. If this had been set in the sewers of Absalom, the curse would've been nothing more than a handful of gold out of your pocket.
I'm starting to think I should have all my characters carry multiple potions of remove curse. :P
EDIT: Here's the Rebel's Ransom product page if you want to write a review. I probably will, at lunch.
|
|
Yeah, that sounds about right unfortunately. Curses are permanent conditions until magically cured. There maybe a way to naturally cure one, but I don't know any ways off the top of my head.
Of course, this is a 5-9 scenario, and remove curse, teleport, and possible some other options are assumed to be potentially available for parties to deal with dangerous situations like this too. You can't guarantee such things in the PFS environment, but scenarios are written assuming certain abilities are available at different levels.
|
|
In the future, keep in mind that your prestige points can be spent to receive spellcasting favors. Even if you're outside of a large settlement, you can pay a +5 pp premium to have a cleric air-lifted out to meet you. It's a little pricey, but it can be better than the alternative.
That said, the scenario is a tough one.
|
This scenario killed two of us from a frustrating situation that made us feel essentially useless and virtually helpless. I am surprised I did not loose more people from our party because of this but they had better saving throws then I did.
I will say this - mechanics such as this are par for the course in mid-to-high tier modules, and Wil or die saves are quite common once you hit the 7-11 range. A high wil save for a fighter is really no different from a fort or die for a wizard or sorcerer, and both will begin to show up regularly in the higher level adventures. I am though keeping my opinion regarding this curse to myself until I've had a chance to talk to Jiggy.
Start preparing yourself though, because it gets nasty.
|
|
This is NOT the best worded power in the game but if you read it, it does make sense and is NOT and instant kill if you don't have a remove curse handy. This is how I believe that the power works and if I'm mistaken about something please let me know.
First: the hag gazes at you and you have to make a Will Save or be cursed by the Evil Eye and be staggered until you get the curse removed.
Second: Per the second sentence of the ability, IF the hag uses here Evil Eye ability AGAIN on a creature ALREADY under the effects of the hags Evil Eye the creature must make Fort Save or slip into a coma for 3 days.
Third: If you're in a coma from this ability you make one save per day for the next 3 days and if you fail even one of them you die. If you make all three saves though you wake up and go back to being staggered until you get the curse removed or the Hag casts her Evil Eye on the creature again which would require another Fort Save to avoid going into another 3 day coma.
If the hag cannot use her Evil Eye ability on the creature she has already used her Evil Eye ability (because she's not near it, dead, etc.) then the creature has to suffer with the staggered condition until the curse is removed but doesn't have to worry about going into a coma.
The part at the end of the description that says frequency 1/day is referring to the character being put into a coma and only getting one save per day or die vs 1/round, 1/hour, etc. And I agree, if you were to drop someone into a coma underwater who was not protected by Water Breathing or some other spell like that, they would start drowning on their turn.
|
As a higher level character it's a good idea to have 1-2 scrolls of lesser restoration, remove disease, and remove curse around. In another 5-9 scenario I have run it took the entire tables resources of these scrolls to save 3 party members from permanent debilitating curses so they could continue the scenario.
Part of getting to higher level play is learning these sorts of things are required to have around :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is NOT the best worded power in the game
I most definitely agree with you there.
The part at the end of the description that says frequency 1/day is referring to the character being put into a coma and only getting one save per day or die vs 1/round, 1/hour, etc.
This is where I have to disagree. The last line (the part that's formatted like every other affliction; the "statblock", if you will) says you make a Will save 1/day. The description, meanwhile, says getting afflicted by a second curse mandates a Fort save to keep you from going into the coma, and forces a daily Fort save to keep from dying.
To me, this seems to leave only two options:
1) There are two ways to get into a coma - either by failing a Fort save against a second curse, or by failing your daily Will save while staggered.
2) The curse actually contradicts itself (Fort versus Will) and needs official errata.
I plan to do additional research to see if it might be #2, in which case appropriate action will be taken.
In the meantime, feel free to rebut, as I'm very open to discussing this.
EDIT: Additionally, if the 1/day was talking about the saves vs death while you're already in a coma, then the Effect entry makes no sense at all, since it says you become either staggered or comatose. So the 1/day save in the last line has to be talking about while you're still up and about. (Or, again, the curse is actually completely borked and needs errata.)
|
|
Evil Eye Curse: Gaze—failed save; save Will DC 14; frequency 1/day; effect staggered (or fall comatose if already under the effects of the evil eye).
After re-reading the above stat block combined with the actual text of the ability I read it as follows.
1)After you've failed your safe and have been cursed you get a 1/day save to avoid being staggered for that whole day.
2)The part in parenthesis must be referring to the second sentence of the ability that says you must be effected by an Evil Eye twice before falling into a coma and reiterating that you only get a 1/day save while in the coma.
You have to look at the whole ability to get the whole picture of how the curse works, is this an auto kill curse in and of itself, no, but in this scenario though it's pretty rough if you're not prepaired. The adventures go into a completely submerged room and then have no choice but to face off against this creature/s and if they're not prepared with Water Breathing of the like they will drowned if they fail the initial Will Save to avoid the curse and the Fort Save when glared at a second time and fall into a coma.
One other thing to consider too is that the base Sea Hag is only CR 4 and that if 3rd or 4th level PC could play in this scenario most of them would die because they failed their original Will save. Also look at the ability of the CR 9 Night Hag, it causes one 1 point of Con DRAIN every night it effects a chaotic or evil creature with nightmares, so even a creature who's of the same type who's over twice the CR of the Sea Hag must spend at least 8 nights before it kills your average commoner.
Paizo has taken great steps to avoid the save or die situations a low to mid levels (there's still risks like Phantasmal Killer) but you usually have to be 9th to 10th level before you start to see those. The Sea Hag is only CR 4, technically a party of 1st or 2nd level adventures could take on one but in this scenario's situation, the way you're reading it, up to 3 of the PC would die even at the starting DC 14 Save.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Evil Eye Curse: Gaze—failed save; save Will DC 14; frequency 1/day; effect staggered (or fall comatose if already under the effects of the evil eye).
After re-reading the above stat block combined with the actual text of the ability I read it as follows.
1)After you've failed your safe and have been cursed you get a 1/day save to avoid being staggered for that whole day.
This part I agree with, and I ran it wrong at the time. I've also been dialoging with someone else, who pointed out that the statblock line starts with "Gaze-failed save". This format corresponds with things like "Slam-contact" or "curse and disease-slam", where the event after the hyphen is the condition of contracting the affliction but comes before the first "frequency save" or even the onset (for afflictions that have one).
Thus, the first save (when you get targeted) should have simply caused you to be cursed but with no ill effects yet. You'd only be staggered once you failed your 1/day saves. In that respect, I now believe that I did run it incorrectly by having you be staggered immediately. I apologize.
2)The part in parenthesis must be referring to the second sentence of the ability that says you must be effected by an Evil Eye twice before falling into a coma and reiterating that you only get a 1/day save while in the coma.
That still leaves you with the problem of one place saying Fort while the other says Will. I am not a fan of assuming a typo when the text as written is completely functional.
You have to look at the whole ability to get the whole picture of how the curse works,
You also have to look at it in the context of Affliction Rules in general, including formatting/templating. Like other afflictions, curses are written like this:
Evil Eye Curse: Gaze—failed save; save Will DC 14; frequency 1/day; effect staggered (or fall comatose if already under the effects of the evil eye).It's a standardized format with standardized meanings. Despite being printed as the last line of the ability, this is still the baseline of how Evil Eye works. It is not a clarification of what's already been written. It is the starting point. That's how afflictions work.
The fact that additional text exists in this case has to mean one of two things:
1) The additional text is modifying what's in the standard template, or
2) The additional text is just that: additional. The Evil Eye has a second series of events that happen if you get cursed a second time, outside of the natural progression of the curse.
If we go with #1, we have to wonder why the information isn't simply all contained in within the standard template. After all, mummy rot is different than other afflictions, but its info is all still contained within the standard template. In order to believe #1 above, you have to be able to explain why the info isn't all together in a single template.
This is why I believe it's #2. Any text that's not part of the standard template must be assumed to be an additional contingency, not a modification of what could have just been written differently in the first place. Why would they write an incomplete statblock and add extra notes to expound on it when they could have just written a complete statblock in the first place? Until that question is answered, I cannot in good conscience believe #1.
is this an auto kill curse in and of itself, no, but in this scenario though it's pretty rough if you're not prepaired. The adventures go into a completely submerged room and then have no choice but to face off against this creature/s and if they're not prepared with Water Breathing of the like they will drowned if they fail the initial Will Save to avoid the curse and the Fort Save when glared at a second time and fall into a coma.
One other thing to consider too is that the base Sea Hag is only CR 4 and that if 3rd or 4th level PC could play in this scenario most of them would die because they failed their original Will save. Also look at the ability of the CR 9 Night Hag, it causes one 1 point of Con DRAIN every night it effects a chaotic or evil creature with nightmares, so even a creature who's of the same type who's over twice the CR of the Sea Hag must spend at least 8 nights before it kills your average commoner.
Paizo has taken great steps to avoid the save or die situations a low to mid levels (there's still risks like Phantasmal Killer) but you usually have to be 9th to 10th level before you start to see those. The Sea Hag is only CR 4, technically a party of 1st or 2nd level adventures could take on one but in this scenario's situation, the way you're reading it, up to 3 of the PC would die even at the...
Here's something you probably weren't aware of: the scenario specifically points out that the CR of the encounter has been increased due to the special circumstances of the scenario.
You point out that a CR 4 creature should be beatable by a team of 1st and 2nd level PCs. It can, as long as they're not stranded in the wilderness like you were. Unlike the CON draining curse you mention, curing this one leaves you with no remaining effects to clean up. So if a trio of 2nd level PCs fight a Sea Hag and get cursed, they can normally just run to the nearest temple and get it removed and be done with it. They're not in danger of death for 3 days (one to get staggered, one to go comatose, and another to die), so a party anywhere near civilization is completely unthreatened by this curse. So yes, it is CR-appropriate.
The fact that you were so far from a city raised the CR up to your subtier. Whoever wrote the scenario knew full well that it would increase the risk of death. Therefore, the argument that a CR 4 creature shouldn't be that powerful doesn't really hold water, as by itself it's really not nearly as threatening.
All that being said, though, I am still hoping to get feedback from James Jacobs regarding intent, just on the off chance that it really is a typo or something.
|
|
Alright Jiggy, I see your point about the condition line. So let's say that some one was affected by the Evil Eye. After failing the initial save the poor character is staggered, but then the following day they fail their save again and go comatose. Now since this is the effect of just suffering the curse they would make another Will save the next day, if they make it, they wake up, if they fail they stay comatose. Per the description of the curse, the ONLY reason for the character to make a Fort save is if the Hag uses her Evil Eye ability on the character a 2nd time because then that poor character has been doubly cursed and go into a coma that could kill them.
Again, this is a base CR 4 creature and should not threaten low level characters with near instant death. As for the scenario raising the EL of the encounter, I will guarantee you it's because it took place completely underwater, which extremely favorable to the creatures, in a desert so most casters won't have Water Breathing to make the encounter easier, also there are severe penalties for fighting underwater unless you have a Ring of Freedom of Movement or the spell Freedom of Movement cast upon you. That's why the CR would have been increased, not because you're a few days outside of a city. The also may have advanced the creature, to make it's save DC's higher which could have gone into the increased EL of the encounter.
Thoughts?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Alright Jiggy, I see your point about the condition line. So let's say that some one was affected by the Evil Eye. After failing the initial save the poor character is staggered, but then the following day they fail their save again and go comatose. Now since this is the effect of just suffering the curse they would make another Will save the next day, if they make it, they wake up, if they fail they stay comatose. Per the description of the curse, the ONLY reason for the character to make a Fort save is if the Hag uses her Evil Eye ability on the character a 2nd time because then that poor character has been doubly cursed and go into a coma that could kill them.
I have been pondering the possibility that perhaps the two mentions of comas are not two different ways of getting into the same coma, but two different comas altogether. That is, perhaps the double-curse coma is deadly but only 3 days, while the will-based coma is not deadly but is permanent (note that there's nothing anywhere suggesting that a successful post-coma save takes you out of it).
This thought has actually done more to push me in the direction of "coma only on a double-curse" than anything else has, as having two different coma states from the same curse seems kinda weird. So I'm still mulling all that over. This is one reason I'm really hoping James Jacobs will give me a thoughtful and thorough response about the intent of the ability.
Again, this is a base CR 4 creature and should not threaten low level characters with near instant death.
I'd hardly call "two days later if not more" a near-instant death.
As for the scenario raising the EL of the encounter, I will guarantee you it's because it took place completely underwater, which extremely favorable to the creatures, in a desert so most casters won't have Water Breathing to make the encounter easier, also there are severe penalties for fighting underwater unless you have a Ring of Freedom of Movement or the spell Freedom of Movement cast upon you. That's why the CR would have been increased, not because you're a few days outside of a city.
That is a possibility. However, see below.
The also may have advanced the creature, to make it's save DC's higher which could have gone into the increased EL of the encounter.
It was indeed Advanced. So right out of the book, the pair of them would have made a CR 7 encounter. If memory serves, the listed CR was about 9. I don't have the scenario in front of me, so there might be additional commentary I'm forgetting, but I imagine that even with the water it would be appropriate as a CR 7 encounter if you were just in a city (say, maybe in a flooded sewer). A potion of air bubble is a mere 50gp, and anyone who doesn't drown (whether because they had breathing options, got dragged from the water in time, or didn't get cursed more than once) simply goes upstairs and gets cured.
The threat of death is real but marginal if the exact same encounter happens in a city at CR 7. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to consider that the travel time is what raised it by a full two levels.
Even so, I don't feel ready to commit to a final interpretation until I've exhausted known avenues of additional information. I'm still dialoging in a couple of places as well as hoping for feedback from JJ. Keep talking with me, and we'll get it all figured out.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Got the skinny from James Jacobs. Apparently the intent was something none of us so far had suggested:
Basically, imagine the words "for 24 hours" appeared after "staggered" in the Effect entry.
Now the ability would read as follows:
Evil Eye (Su) Three times per day, a sea hag can cast her dire gaze upon any single creature within 30 feet. The target must succeed on a DC 14 Will save or be staggered as strange nebulous distress and a gnawing sense of impending doom plagues the victim. If a sea hag uses her evil eye on someone already afflicted by this curse, the victim must make a DC 14 Fortitude save or be overwhelmed with fright and collapse into a comatose state for 3 days. Each day that passes, the comatose victim must make a DC 14 Fortitude save or perish. The evil eye is a mind-affecting fear effect. The save DCs are Charisma-based. Evil Eye Curse: Gaze—failed save; save Will DC 14; frequency 1/day; effect staggered for 24 hours (or fall comatose if already under the effects of the evil eye).
Suddenly it becomes clear and simple:
You get cursed by failing a will save. You're staggered. Next day, you make another will save. Success and you're cursed but unaffected, failure and you're staggered again. If at any point you get cursed a second time while staggered (but not if you're cursed but made that morning's save!) then you make a fort save versus coma. Fail and you start the three day SoD process. (Technically you're also making will saves against being staggered, but it doesn't matter while you're in a coma.)
So the net result of all that is this:
1. Nobody died.
2. Someone really should have included "for 24 hours" in the text and saved us all a lot of headaches.
I am now convinced that no one should have died. How do I go about correcting this? Also, that means two people need to resolve their curses (i.e., start paying for remove curse until one sticks, or else risk being staggered in every scenario henceforth). How is that handled at this point?
|
|
It was indeed Advanced. So right out of the book, the pair of them would have made a CR 7 encounter. If memory serves, the listed CR was about 9. I don't have the scenario in front of me, so there might be additional commentary I'm forgetting, but I imagine that even with the water it would be appropriate as a CR 7 encounter if you were just in a city (say, maybe in a flooded sewer). A potion of air bubble is a mere 50gp, and anyone who doesn't drown (whether because they had breathing options, got dragged from the water in time, or didn't get cursed more than once) simply goes upstairs and gets cured.
The threat of death is real but marginal if the exact same encounter happens in a city at CR 7. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to consider that the travel time is what raised it by a full two levels.
Even so, I don't feel ready to commit to a final interpretation until I've exhausted known avenues of additional information. I'm still dialoging in a couple of places as well as hoping for feedback from JJ. Keep talking with me, and we'll get it all figured out.
Ok, so if the author used distance to a city as a basis to raise the EL of this one encounter then he would need to do it for ALL of the encounters since it's a constant (for example the fight with the Oracle and her henchmen should have been increased because you may not have had access to healing after that fight, all the traps should have had their EL increased for the same reason, and the same with the Mummies at the end for that same reason). Unless the EL was raised for ALL encounters because of distance to the city, distance to the city is not a valid reason to raise the EL of one specific encounter.
Also, of the top of my head I believe that it's a 50% increase to EL for doubling the creatures in an encounter, so a base EL 4 counter (1 stock Sea Hag) would go to an EL 6 encounter if you have 2 stock Sea Hags, and then environmental conditions would increase or decrease the EL based on who they favor, but I could be mistaken as I don't have my book at the moment.
As for the curse, I'm thinking that the two coma's ARE separate and I would be willing to concede that the Will Save coma would be permanent since there's not a cure line or a wake up condition, listed, but I'm not 100% convinced of it yet.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't think anyone was reported dead, as I asked and they both said they had the resources for a raise. I'd personally be okay with them just not writing down the expenditures of a raise (as I didn't have them write it down at the time anyway due to the store being about to close), so I'm not sure that's even an issue.
I guess the only thing is that technically, they're still cursed, and remove curse requires a CL check to actually be successful, so we'd have to find out how many castings of it they needed to buy. But after this whole ordeal, my personal inclination is to just say "I trust you to resolve the curse as needed" and be done with it. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Actually, it seems that there is only ONE way to induce the coma: fail the will save against the first Evil Eye, then fail the second save (fort) against the second Evil Eye
Correct, since apparently (as per a response from James Jacobs) the staggered condition only lasts for 24 hours at a time so it's impossible for your daily will save to hit you while you're already staggered because you don't save again until the first staggered condition runs out.
...at which point, immediate coma (in this case, underwater). If you make three fort saves while under a coma, you are no longer under the threat of death and you come out of the coma, but you still need to remove the curse somehow. I managed to make all my saves to avoid the death (although since I was never targeted twice by Evil Eye I shouldn't have even had to do that), but I paid 150 to remove the curse, so...I suppose those who died would have to get new or amended chronicle sheets which reflect simply paying the 150 gold for the remove curse.
For you, the net result (aside from a little extra stress!) was exactly as it should be: you just had to get the curse removed. As I stated above (you ninja, you) the others should technically pay for however many remove curse castings it takes to cure them.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Can someone point me to the source where it says that services from the Pathfinder Society such as remove curse or remove disease require a roll? I just thought you paid the fee and were done with it."If the target is a creature, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the DC of each curse affecting the target. Success means that the curse is removed."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, I understand that's how it works if someone in your party is casting it, but for some reason I assumed that if you bought it as a service from PFS that it was just automatically successful.
You're not the only one I've seen assume that. I'm not sure why.
|
|
All I can say is wow!! When I made the original post I did not expect the response that I got from this. First of all Jiggy I hope you did not feel like I was upset with you in any way from this thread or from my reaction during the scenario.
I was just frustrated from lack of clarity in the rules for this. Based on the rules I read after the game I saw you did nothing wrong and I agreed with having died in the end like my character did. If I had died from what I felt was an unfair ruling I would have mentioned it and still gone with the ruling either way. So no ill will between us I hope :)
If you changed your mind about my Character and the other persons character dieing then I will mention that to him when I see him next. Either way you did a good job sir :)
Thanks for trying to get this clarified here ok!! I really DO appreciate your zealousness! :)
-kip
|
|
Here's the description from the Bestiary:
look at the attacking creature’s eyes. The attack can have any sort of effect: petrification, death, and charm are common. The typical range is 30 feet, but check the creature’s entry for details. The type of saving throw for a gaze attack varies, but it is usually a Will or Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 gazing creature’s racial HD + gazing creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s text). A successful saving throw negates the effect. A monster’s gaze attack is described in abbreviated form in its description. Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order. Only looking directly at a creature with a gaze attack leaves an opponent vulnerable. Opponents can avoid the need to make the saving throw by not looking at the creature, in one of two ways.
Averting Eyes: The opponent avoids looking at the creature’s face, instead looking at its body, watching its shadow, tracking it in a ref lective surface, etc. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance to avoid having to make a saving throw against the gaze attack. The creature with the gaze attack, however, gains concealment against that opponent.
Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one’s back on the creature or shutting one’s eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.
A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an attack action by choosing a target within range. That opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to avoid this as described above. Thus, it is possible for an opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during the same round, once before the opponent’s action and once during the creature’s turn.
Gaze attacks can affect ethereal opponents. A creature is immune to gaze attacks of others of its kind unless otherwise noted. Allies of a creature with a gaze attack might be affected. All the creature’s allies are considered to be averting their eyes from the creature with the gaze attack, and have a 50% chance to not need to make a saving throw against the gaze attack each round. The creature can also veil its eyes, thus negating its gaze ability.
Format: gaze; Location: Special Attacks.
The bolded section above implies that the gaze attack is the same as any other attack. I would rule that it could be used as one of a series of iterative attacks, if applicable.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Okay, so a standard action is correct. Would a character be able to react to one by trying to hide his eyes, or is it too late by then?
The rules cited above by Myron talk about averting your eyes, but don't say if you can do it reactively or not (unless I missed it).
|
"Attack action" refers to a standard action used to make an attack. In this case, the attack used would be the gaze. Which is weird, since it requires no attack roll.
Accept when you take a Full Attack, you get ALL your attack actions, so you could use the Gaze. In the case of a Hag, they would get their full gamut of natural attacks AND the Gaze.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"Attack action" refers to a standard action used to make an attack. In this case, the attack used would be the gaze. Which is weird, since it requires no attack roll.Accept when you take a Full Attack, you get ALL your attack actions, so you could use the Gaze. In the case of a Hag, they would get their full gamut of natural attacks AND the Gaze.
Actually, that's incorrect. A full-attack is a single action which can grant multiple attacks. But those attacks are all part of a single full-round action. They are not a series of actions.
The Attack Action is a standard action used to make one attack. The Full-Attack Action is a full-round action used to make all your attacks.
|
|
"Attack action" refers to a standard action used to make an attack. In this case, the attack used would be the gaze. Which is weird, since it requires no attack roll.Accept when you take a Full Attack, you get ALL your attack actions, so you could use the Gaze. In the case of a Hag, they would get their full gamut of natural attacks AND the Gaze.Actually, that's incorrect. A full-attack is a single action which can grant multiple attacks. But those attacks are all part of a single full-round action. They are not a series of actions.
The Attack Action is a standard action used to make one attack. The Full-Attack Action is a full-round action used to make all your attacks.
So what you are saying then, when combat maneuver say they can be used in place of an attack action, that you can’t use it iteratively with a Full Attack?
When actions that can be used in combat are defined, they are typically defined as:
Move Action or Standard Action.
When it is defined as an Attack Action, it can be used iteratively or in conjunction with other attack actions to make up a Full Attack Action.
|
|
I concur with Jiggy.
So, if Gaze takes a standard action, you can't "claw/ claw/ gaze" any more than a wizard could claw / claw / burning hands, because the gaze is not an Attack action, it's an attack that takes a Standard action.
But it isn’t a Standard Action, its an Attack Action. If it is used by itself, the Attack Action reverts to a Standard Action.
But everything that is defined as an Attack Action can be used in a Full Attack Action.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So what you are saying then, when combat maneuver say they can be used in place of an attack action, that you can’t use it iteratively with a Full Attack?
Heh, now you've found the really fun part!
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
One of these things is not like the other... ;)
Disarm and Trip don't mention the Attack Action - they can replace any melee attack, including iteratives, TWF extra attacks, AoO's, etc.
Sunder, however, uses the Attack Action - so you can only do it as a standard action.
And there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth (and nerdrage, and houserules, etc).
I personally hate the whole "attack action" thing. But alas, it exists.
|
|
Okay, so a standard action is correct. Would a character be able to react to one by trying to hide his eyes, or is it too late by then?The rules cited above by Myron talk about averting your eyes, but don't say if you can do it reactively or not (unless I missed it).
I think that you would have to expect the attack is coming before you could try to avoid it. Even more reason to put ranks into those knowledge skills!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Additional reference material:
This post, in which a forumite presents material from both the PRD and developer commentary (and he cites his sources with links).
In a similar vein, there's this post from Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn stating that "Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action."
So yeah, there you go. :)