|
That's your own house rule. Seeing as we are at the end of the discussion, I bid you good day.That is not a house rule.
It is your own interpretation of the rules, thus a house rule. It would not fly at my house. A GM determining that something is distracting is a specific event, not a general rule.
|
|
That's your interpretation of the rules, and thus a house rule. See how we can go on and on with this?
Yes, which is why I agree to disagree with you. Hopefully the PDT has time to answer your question definitively.
And since you want to insult my position, I will tell you that my interpretation has some magical effects being more distracting than rain and some being less.
|
I don't know why you're throwing out persistent conditions when concentration checks are about interruptions.
Injured while casting 10 + damage dealt + spell level
Continuous damage while casting 10 + 1/2 damage dealt + spell level
Vigorous motion while casting 10 + spell level
Violent motion while casting 15 + spell level
Extremely violent motion while casting 20 + spell level
Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Wind with hail and debris while casting 10 + spell level
Entangled while casting 15 + spell level(note that Spell level is the level of the spell you are casting, not the level of the spell that target you)
I see very little stuff that can affect you on a failed save and that don't fail within one of the above categories or that don't already affect you in a obvious way.
Confused? it don't interrupt your spellcasting. It mess with your targeting.
Charmed? the same.
Dominated? the person dominating you decide if you complete the spell or not.
and so on.
You question is about: "affected while casting by SU abilities", all the above can be applied by the right creature if they have a ready action.
If they don't have a ready action most SU abilities are irrelevant as they don't affect concentration.
or you are trying to say that being affected by an ongoing spell like bless force you to make a concentration check every round?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Freelance writer does not mean amateur, it means not permanently employed. E.g., they pay him by the piece to write, he's not on retainer.
Search a bit the forum about errors in modules. Blatant errors like potions of personal use spells.
Freelance in no way is a guarantee about rule knowledge.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Name-dropping my name doesn't make your argument more valid. I also REALLY don't like it when people use me as a means to win an argument, because it means somewhere down the line someone at Paizo's going to have a fan hit them with, "WELL THIS GUY YOU HIRED SAYS I CAN," and then guess what? I don't get hired. Don't ruin this gig for me, man!
2) I'm not a Paizo employee, I'm a freelancer. As anyone with a 401K will tell you, there's a pretty big difference between the two.
3) Even if I was a Paizo employee, anything I say or do on my own (including write a blog) is essentially my own opinion and is never "RAW" or "RAI" unless I was posting under the Pathfinder Design Team forum account.
4) The question here seems to be, "Do supernatural abilities that do not cause damage force spellcasters that are casting a spell to make concentration checks?" The answer, as many people have pointed out, is no. The Concentration rules aren't a list of suggestions; they say for verbatim that when something interrupts your concentration, you need to make a concentration check. The rules don't say, "Use these as an example," they literally just start listing things, and that means that the list is exhaustive unless expanded upon by a future product. You wouldn't argue that the list of combat maneuvers, classes, or spells in the Core Rulebook wasn't exhaustive at the time it was printed, but none of those things needed to say, "This list is exhaustive."
5) I can't figure out how my blog plays into this conversation. I checked and double-checked; nowhere did I insinuate that non-damaging supernatural abilities cause concentration checks, nor did I ever say, "supernatural abilities that function like spells cause concentration checks like spells." As a matter of fact, I specifically wrote, "Some supernatural abilities do function exactly like spells, but they are exempt from a number of rules because supernatural abilities are not spell-like.
6) Now, as a GM, you are fully empowered to make your own rulings in your home games if you want to; the game is literally made to be modded to suit your tastes. But neither I nor the rules themselves agree that what you're describing ought to be the case, and I can think of more than one scenario that such a ruling would prove disastrous to the game's balance. For instance: if non-damaging supernatural abilities interrupted spellcasting, then every bard who sang a dirge of doom would automatically interrupt all spellcasters within 60 feet just by playing his song.
1) Not every supernatural ability would, but every targeted supernatural ability would, for the same reason every targeted spell would. Literally any spell forces a concentration check if you cast it in reaction. In case you didn't see it, I'll direct you the the blog in this comment as well.
All due respect to Alex, he did not write the rules and is not a part of the development team. Until he is, and until he changes the rules, his blog means nothing when discussing the rules save as another experienced voice.
I like the "until" bit. Gives me hope for a bright future in this industry. ;-)
Supernatural abilities work like spells except where they say they don't.
As there is no rule indicating [su] abilities aren't affected by concentration checks, then they should be treated the same as if they were spells.
|
|
Supernatural abilities work like spells except where they say they don't.
Did you mean to link somewhere else? I see where it says SLAs are like spells except where stated otherwise, but I don't see that for supernatural abilities.
There is no justification for claiming that the table is exhaustive.
The rule is, as has been mentioned "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. "
The rules go on to give some particular examples, but nothing negates that general rule.
Even for being affected by spells, if they don't do damage, it is a GM call for what whether or not they require a concentration check: "If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way." I would probably rule that any spell that inflicted you with a condition (that didn't itself have a concentration check or preclude casting) or caused penalties that I felt were related to casting or casting stats it would require a concentration check. For example, Dispel Magic getting rid of your mage armor wouldn't require a concentration check, for your wizard, but suppressing your headband of INT would. I would expect some table variance on this, although in my experience it is a fairly rare occurrence anyway.
There is no reason to believe that supernatural abilities effecting you when casting a spell would be any different, and the formula would be the same:
DC of the ability + spell level you are trying to cast.
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.
It then goes on to explain in which way SLA,s, supernatural abilities etc. are not like spells.
|
|
Supernatural abilities work like spells except where they say they don't.
As there is no rule indicating [su] abilities aren't affected by concentration checks, then they should be treated the same as if they were spells.
Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity.
|
|
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.It then goes on to explain in which way SLA,s, supernatural abilities etc. are not like spells.
Except that it never states which special abilities function like spells, except under SLAs. There are supernatural abilities that reference spells, but not all supernatural abilities function like spells.
Supernatural abilities work like spells except where they say they don't.
As there is no rule indicating [su] abilities aren't affected by concentration checks, then they should be treated the same as if they were spells.
Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity.
I don't think anyone is arguing that a Supernatural ability can be disrupted. The question is:
Can a supernatural ability that doesn't do damage cause disruption when used as a readied action when someone casts a spell, but like a spell that doesn't do damage can
Two different things being referred too between that opening sentence and the SLA block.
Spells function according to the general rules in the magic section. Specific spells functions as per their respective descriptions.
Spell-like abilities work like spells (general) and work like spells of the same name (specific).
Supernatural abilities work like spells (general). There isn't a specific ability to refer to.
If you were to argue that (Su) abilities don't base themselves off of the general magic rules then you have to accept that there are no rules governing (Su) abilities - no need for LoE, no defined area of effects etc.
|
|
Supernatural abilities work like spells except where they say they don't.
As there is no rule indicating [su] abilities aren't affected by concentration checks, then they should be treated the same as if they were spells.
Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity.I don't think anyone is arguing that a Supernatural ability can be disrupted. The question is:
Can a supernatural ability that doesn't do damage cause disruption when used as a readied action when someone casts a spell, but like a spell that doesn't do damage can
Read dragonhunterq post. "As there is no rule indicating [su] abilities aren't affected by concentration checks,". He is speaking of appling concentration check when using SU abilities.
|
And how exactly would dirge of doom be interrupting casters in the same way as a readied action?
Because readied actions are not the only things that force concentration. An ongoing supernatural effect would interfere with a caster beginning to cast, the same as being grappled does, if all supernatural abilities cause concentration checks.
Read dragonhunterq post. "As there is no rule indicating [su] abilities aren't affected by concentration checks,". He is speaking of appling concentration check when using SU abilities.
I'm assuming he made a mistake and meant to write: "As there is no rule indicating [su] abilities can't cause concentration checks" since that would make sense with his arguments.
If he didn't then he is wrong, you are correct that using a supernatural ability NEVER requires a concentration check (except perhaps one that specifically said that it did).
And how exactly would dirge of doom be interrupting casters in the same way as a readied action?Because readied actions are not the only things that force concentration. An ongoing supernatural effect would interfere with a caster beginning to cast, the same as being grappled does, if all supernatural abilities cause concentration checks.
Unless the casting time of a spell is longer than a normal, only a readied action spell or supernatural ability will affect you while casting. You might be under the effect of several spells and abilities, such as dirge of doom, but they will not affect you during the casting.
So a Sprite with a feather tickling your nose will not trigger a concentration check? I say fie on you sir or madam!
His word means more than yours, seeing as he's a Paizo writer. Now you're just splitting hairs. Would you quibble when the development team member tells you you're wrong, because he wasn't the exact individual who wrote that particular section?1) Not every supernatural ability would, but every targeted supernatural ability would, for the same reason every targeted spell would. Literally any spell forces a concentration check if you cast it in reaction. In case you didn't see it, I'll direct you the the blog in this comment as well.
All due respect to Alex, he did not write the rules and is not a part of the development team. Until he is, and until he changes the rules, his blog means nothing when discussing the rules save as another experienced voice.
Being a PF writer means nothing in this case. Any board member here can be a writer, and quiet a few are. That doesnt make them official. They are just freelancers. Also being official does not mean anything. The creative director has said some board members know the rules better than him. What matters are the books, and FAQ's.
In the rules forum we go by that. Yes it makes sense that SU's should have been included, but Paizo didnt make it a rule so it's not a rule. Pop over into the ask Mark thread in the off-topic section. He is an actual PDT member. His ruling wont be official, but you can have something for your own games. And it will allow you to stop wasting your time here.PS. It might take a few days for him to reply.
|
So a Sprite with a feather tickling your nose will not trigger a concentration check? I say fie on you sir or madam!
1) Remember, you're a caster. It is what you do. Thus, you have trained to withstand distraction. So, not just any distraction will do. As having combat around you isn't distracting, whatever happens to you would have to be more distracting then that.
2) If the caster does not sneeze, no, this would not trigger a concentration check. As, having suppressed the natural reaction to laugh or sneeze, they are not hindered.
3) But, if it does cause laughing or sneezing then...
laughing) Can not use verbal components. Not a concentration check though...
sneezing) This is a violent motion, may be worth a violent or vigorous motion on the concentration check table.
This, of course, assumes the feather has stats which allow it to cause either condition.
|
|
His word means more than yours, seeing as he's a Paizo writer. Now you're just splitting hairs. Would you quibble when the development team member tells you you're wrong, because he wasn't the exact individual who wrote that particular section?1) Not every supernatural ability would, but every targeted supernatural ability would, for the same reason every targeted spell would. Literally any spell forces a concentration check if you cast it in reaction. In case you didn't see it, I'll direct you the the blog in this comment as well.
All due respect to Alex, he did not write the rules and is not a part of the development team. Until he is, and until he changes the rules, his blog means nothing when discussing the rules save as another experienced voice.
Being a PF writer means nothing in this case. Any board member here can be a writer, and quiet a few are. That doesnt make them official. They are just freelancers. Also being official does not mean anything. The creative director has said some board members know the rules better than him. What matters are the books, and FAQ's.
In the rules forum we go by that. Yes it makes sense that SU's should have been included, but Paizo didnt make it a rule so it's not a rule. Pop over into the ask Mark thread in the off-topic section. He is an actual PDT member. His ruling wont be official, but you can have something for your own games. And it will allow you to stop wasting your time here.PS. It might take a few days for him to reply.
I sent an email to Adam Daigle on behalf of all of you who clearly misunderstand the rules. If he chooses to answer it I'll provide you with his word on it.
If you go by the books in the forums, then I'm right. The only way you can possibly interpret the rules the way you do is by house ruling it. You...
You problem here is you are saying the list isn't exhaustive.... and then saying there is a definite rule for non-spell non-damaging effects causing concentration checks.
There is no official rule for it.
Remember, most effects that are non-spell and non-damaging will tell you whether they cause a concentration check... for this very reason.
It is the individual effect that gives you the information you are looking for, not some text only written in your head and placed in a table.
In summary:
Non-damaging spells, which also cause some sort of distraction as is ruled by a GM, do cause a concentration check.
SU abilities do not. Unless the ability says it does.
That is what is in the text.
DC of the ability + spell level you are trying to cast.
The book says "DC of the spell..", not "ability".
Developer
|
I sent an email to Adam Daigle on behalf of all of you who clearly misunderstand the rules. If he chooses to answer it I'll provide you with his word on it.
Hi! I know people use the word developer and designer interchangeably, but the design team is responsible for rules clarifications and such. While developers and designers do very similar work, I typically only weigh in on rules discussions when they pertain to the products I personally work on. (In this case, the Pathfinder Adventure Paths.) I saw your email after getting back to my desk from a meeting, and figured that it was related to a disagreement on the messageboards. I rarely answer rules emails, because the majority of the time its someone looking to use my "voice" and job title as a circumstance bonus in an argument. If you're not satisfied with the answers you've received in this thread from other knowledgeable members of the community, I suggest you follow at least one of the suggestions and contact the design team with your query
About mailing Adam
Adam is not on the PDT so it won't matter what he says. Actually it won't matter too much what Mark says, but at least he is on thr PDT(rules team).
That is why I suggested you go to him.Also Pathfinder officials don't normally answer rules questions by email because they don't want to be flooded with rules request every time a debate breaks out in the forum. So when you read this I suggest you find Mark's thread and ask there. That is as close to an official answer that you will get in a quick time, and without a PDF member's statement most of us won't care. At least with his supporting you it might prompt an FAQ.
Just trying to help.
Adam I didnt mean my previous statement as an insult. I was just explaining how the rules forum works.
|
Developer
|
Adam I didnt mean my previous statement as an insult. I was just explaining how the rules forum works.
No insult taken. Judging from post history, the original poster is new to the forums and likely doesn't know the distinction between various members of our staff. It's good to provide that information to people new to our community.
The book says "DC of the spell..", not "ability".DC of the ability + spell level you are trying to cast.
Obviously. The particular case in the table in the book is a spell.
The idea that the DC of the magical effect you are resisting + the level of the spell you are casting being the DC of the concentration check is pretty plain though, and extrapolating from how a spell should work to how a supernatural (or even extraordinary) ability would work is not particularly difficult.
The book says "DC of the spell..", not "ability".DC of the ability + spell level you are trying to cast.
Obviously. The particular case in the table in the book is a spell.
The idea that the DC of the magical effect you are resisting + the level of the spell you are casting being the DC of the concentration check is pretty plain though, and extrapolating from how a spell should work to how a supernatural (or even extraordinary) ability would work is not particularly difficult.
ok. I thought you were trying to present an official rule, not a houserule. I get it now.
So....
If I am a warpriest with the sun blessing,
And I successfully identify that the spell my enemy is casting is summon monster IV
and I use my minor blessing power to Blind him for 1 turn, is he unfazed while he is casting?
However, if My buddy buddy Evil Cleric, casts blindness, effectively blinding the person using summon monster IV,
Then he has to make a concentration check?
ok. I thought you were trying to present an official rule, not a houserule. I get it now.
I would classify it as a reasonable interpretation of the existing rules based on a case not specifically covered rather than a houserule, but if that makes you feel better fine.
Once again, the base rule is "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell."
The GM then has to determine the DC of the concentration check. Many, but not necessarily all, possible reasons for the concentration check and appropriate DCs for them are covered in the table. If something happens that the GM adjudicates merits a concentration check isn't specifically covered, the GM has to figure out what it should be. In the case of any ability with a DC (like spells have) it is fairly apparent what the appropriate DC is.
ok. I thought you were trying to present an official rule, not a houserule. I get it now.I would classify it as a reasonable interpretation of the existing rules based on a case not specifically covered rather than a houserule, but if that makes you feel better fine.
Once again, the base rule is "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell."
The GM then has to determine the DC of the concentration check. Many, but not necessarily all, possible reasons for the concentration check and appropriate DCs for them are covered in the table. If something happens that the GM adjudicates merits a concentration check isn't specifically covered, the GM has to figure out what it should be. In the case of any ability with a DC (like spells have) it is fairly apparent what the appropriate DC is.
I realize that, but the book specifically calling out spells, and not SU's as causing concentration checks, not having a formula for it still means that your formula, just like the one I presented earlier are still not official. They are both just suggestions.