Angrimbor's page

I'm going to bed now, but I'll check back later.

Angrimbor wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Angrimbor wrote:

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.

Blog

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.

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?

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 have to house rule that the list is exhaustive (when it is clearly not), and/or houserule that any unlisted distractions that come up (and if you have a party that knows enough about fighting casters, they will) are GM discretion. That's two houserules just to make your position.

So a Sprite with a feather tickling your nose will not trigger a concentration check? I say fie on you sir or madam!

According to many people in this thread, apparently not, which is quite silly.

I would say that if a supernatural ability would be treated as a spell for the purposes of disrupting concentration.

"Spell: If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell you are casting. If the spell affecting you deals damage, the DC is 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting.

If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell's saving throw DC + the level of the spell you're casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it's the DC that the spell's saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster's ability score)."

So, for something like, say, a witch's agony hex, the DC would be the DC of the hex + spell level.

I would not say something like Evil Eye, Misfortune, or the like would interfere with concentration, but, say, a void dragon's alien presence aura would.

The only ongoing effects accounted for in concentration checks are damage effects. What you are referencing refers to a readied spell being cast against you and you becoming affected by it. Imagine how broken it would be to cast Message and force a caster to make concentration checks for every cast for the rest of the encounter. It is the spell affecting you which causes the distraction, not necessarily the effects of the spell.

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...

There's actually a number of things I want to contest here, but first, I linked to your blog to help people understand how distractions and concentration checks worked. The fact that you wrote that spells saved against still provoke concentration checks helped to show that it wasn't the content of the spell that mattered, but the timing. Your article didn't prove my point, but I figured it would help people understand it. The rules themselves prove my point.

1) I never said the Concentration table was a list of suggestions, only that it was a list of examples, much like are contained in Ghost Sound, Prestidigitation, and any number of other parts of the game with near-infinite possibilities. To say that only the things in that table can distract someone is both illogical and disingenuous; how would you explain the fact that a rainstorm causes a concentration check, but not a blizzard? Snow is neither rain, sleet, nor debris by any English or Paizo definition. Therefor, a more severe condition is somehow less severe, by your interpretation. There are a near-infinite combination of both magical and non-magical occurrences which can cause significant distraction, and it wouldn't make any sense to include them all explicitly. What does make sense is to include rules that can help calculate what can be calculated, like spells with spell levels, or actions which cause damage, and then to provide a range of other examples which can't be explicitly calculated with which GMs can compare other distractions. The list is obviously laid out in this way, having wind and rain, a minor inconvenience, as an extremely low DC, and working up to Extremely Violent Motion, with a high DC. I think we can all agree that there's really no equation you can come up with to objectively compare the distracting nature of things like that, so that's honestly the best solution. Much like with Ghost Sound, providing estimated loudness in units of human voice (equivalent in this situation to our concentration DC), and providing examples of the loudness of a few common fantasy sounds (equivalent in this case to our incalculable distracting conditions, like weather effects and movement). All in all, I feel it's very obvious that the intent behind the table is not an exhaustive list, but examples to establish a range, combined with a few rules for calculable distraction where possible. There is no reason to assume the list is exhaustive, there is more than ample reason to the contrary. Unlike something concrete, such as a spell list, this list is not started with the understanding that these are actions which are being explicitly allowed under an implicit deny rule. There are also many other references to spells which you cannot cast (namely in the form of other class's spells), and there are no such references in this case to actions which cannot cause a concentration check. There is only the statement of what will cause a concentration check, which is an implicit allow, followed by a list which we have no reason to believe ends with a deny all. (Please forgive the computer terms, it's what I'm familiar with).

2) Your example of a bard's dirge of doom is hardly applicable. By that reasoning, your own article should be updated to note that any Slow spells cast on the target will also disrupt spells as long as it is active. After all, it's one of the spells you specifically listed as applicable, isn't it? And it's also constant for it's duration, isn't it? The key to provoking a concentration check is the timing; a direct action must influence the caster during the time that they are casting the spell. A spell or ability whose effect they are already under obviously would not apply. So no, dirge of doom would never become a threat to provoke concentration checks, because any caster suffering from it would already have been suffering from it when casting began. The only way to provoke a concentration check with Dirge of Doom, if possible, would be to ready the action against a cast trigger, and start the performance within range during a cast. It still wouldn't continue to provoke checks for the duration, it would function the same as a readied Slow in that regard. And yes, you better believe that I think some musician starting up a howling, doomy performance during a complex spellcasting would be quite distracting. Definitely more distracting than rain. Supernatural abilities are fully capable of triggering checks under the same rules as spells (both harmful and non-harmful, per ability's effect). The only question comes in DC calculation, but never in provoking checks.

And how exactly would dirge of doom be interrupting casters in the same way as a readied action?

Angrimbor wrote:

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.

No, but in that sense, neither are the official rulebooks. Numerous corrections have been released for those. What I will definitely accept is that a writer paid by Paizo is more reliable than a forum poster.

Angrimbor wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

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.

That's your interpretation of the rules, and thus a house rule. See how we can go on and on with this? Unfortunately, one of these interpretations is obviously more logical, and it's not the one that insists the example list is an exhaustive list. It's also not the one that thinks a magical attack during the casting of a magical spell is less disruptive than rain.

Sometimes rules require interpretation. You interpreted poorly. Interpretations are not house rules. Prestidigitation, Ghost Sound, Concentration checks, and other rules all require interpretation, because of the nearly infinite possibilities generated that would be impossible to explicitly account for in text.

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.

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's in the official rules, in case you missed it. I'll post it here, again.

"To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type. Clerics, druids, and rangers add their Wisdom modifier. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers add their Charisma modifier. Finally, wizards add their Intelligence modifier. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect."

Angrimbor wrote:

No, I'm asking you to find me any rules which contradict the very positive stated rule that any distraction causes a concentration check.

I have just explained why that stated rule does not mean what you think it means.

No, you just ignored the RAW and are trying to enforce your house rule as official position. Again, the only evidence you need for a magical attack causing distraction is in the listed examples. The lowest listed example for a distraction is rain. Anything more distracting than rain causes a check. Full stop.

Angrimbor wrote:

When you have some action RAW to quote, come back.

You're asking me to prove a negative. The rules do not say that supernatural abilities cause a character to make a concentration check. They say that "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." It is up to the GM if something is interrupting your spellcasting. Since there is no entry saying 'affected by a non-damaging supernatural ability' anywhere in the concentration rules, you need to provide more evidence that supernatural abilities cause concentration checks than your own call as a GM.

No, I'm asking you to find me any rules which contradict the very positive stated rule that any distraction causes a concentration check. As for evidence, the list itself is evidence. If something as minor as rain can cause a check, then a magical attack causes a check. That's the reason the examples were listed, and it's the reason that the rain is the lowest check there (low enough to be inconsequential to any mid-level or higher caster). It sets the bar for distractions.

PRD wrote:

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.

I don't know why you're throwing out persistent conditions when concentration checks are about interruptions.

He's not a part of the Pathfinder Design Team, meaning his statements are not offical.

Then satisfy yourself with the official rules, which directly contradict you.

Angrimbor wrote:

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?

I have, and will continue to do so, when what they say is provably wrong according to the rules as they are written, until they change the rules to match what they are saying.

It's not provably wrong. What you say is provably wrong RAW. The rules do not support your argument that anything not on the example list is not distracting. They rules state that any distraction forces a concentration check. You would need to change the rules to match your claim that something which is an obvious distraction is not. When you have some action RAW to quote, come back.

Freelance doesn't mean amateur. It means he's not permanently employed, but he has written in an official capacity for them and other Pathfinder material distributors.

Angrimbor wrote:

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.

Blog

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.

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?

The rules do not expressly say that Su abilities can force concentration checks.

If we assume that they can, the question remains as to what the DC is.
You suggest using the spell DC rules.

At this point, it's definitely a house-rule; supernatural abilities are not spells or even spell-like. This results in a lot of other things, like not requiring concentration checks or being subject to spell resistance. It also requires assigning them a spell level of zero, which (while intuitive) is not how the rules work.

Is this reasonable? Sure. Just make sure that all the players know in advance so they can account for it. (I don't know of any immediate action at-will enemy-targeting Su abilities that can be used during the target's casting, fortunately, so the worst abuse seems to be off the table.)

Will people say that the rules suggest or support this on the rules forum? Probably not.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're hoping for.

The rules expressly say that any distraction during the action of casting forces a concentration check. The DCs of a few specific actions are given, and the rest is left for interpretation. The table is not exhaustive. There is no rule stating that SU abilities are for some arcane reason unable to distract people, which would need to be the case for them to not cause distraction. It's a magical attack. Unless the rules state otherwise, it's distracting.

There is no "house rule" involved in the interpretation of official rules. Not every official rule is lined out in exact decimal point notation. The GM is an official part of the game, and a large part of the role is to interpret the official rules. No house rule is necessary to ensure SU causes distraction, because it's covered by the official rule:

"To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type. Clerics, druids, and rangers add their Wisdom modifier. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers add their Charisma modifier. Finally, wizards add their Intelligence modifier. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect."

The official rule provides the condition for a concentration check (If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting), and it provides guidance for the DC (The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC), and it provides examples (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). Everything is officially accounted for. No house ruling involved. It's not a house rule when a DM decides approximately how many human voices a crashing wagon is worth for Ghost Sound, it's not a house rule when a DM decides exactly how heavy a particular wagon is. A house rule is a new rule, or the changing of a rule. Following an official rule within official guidelines is not houseruling.

Determining the DC of a SU, utilizing the table provided, leaves you with two options: attempt to determine a fixed DC based on the fixed DC values provided by estimating the severity of the distraction in comparison to provided examples, like rain or violent movement. Or you can compare it to a non-damaging spell, which is a magical attack like a SU, and use the appropriate provided formula. How you want to determine the DC may be up for debate, and may require errata, but the fact that a targeted SU causes a concentration check of some kind should be obvious by this point.

The rules obviously point to this, and the official blog clarifies further. If you want to keep discussing the DC calculation, I'm game, but there's no longer a question of whether or not it causes a concentration check.

Angrimbor wrote:

Both of those statements are false.

1) The written rule says: "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." That covers any distraction. It even goes on to give guidance for things not on the list: "The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC". It wouldn't need to state that the DC gets higher with more distraction if the list was exhaustive. The values would be set in stone, there would be no interpretation.

2) Spells are not the only things listed. They simply aren't, even if you for no reason take the list as exhaustive. The majority of the examples are non-magical in nature.

1) I did not say the list was exhaustive. I said that supernatural abilities are not on the list, meaning the GM must consider if the ability is an interruption of concentration, and then call for a concentration check. You personally saying 'I consider Flare/Reveal Weakness/Gently Caress to be distracting' does not mean 'the rules say supernatural abilities cause concentration checks'.

2) Spells are the only magical attacks listed. If the rules meant to have concentration checks for being affected by supernatural abilities, they would have included that explicitly or by using a broader term such as 'magical attacks'. This is a Rules Forum discussion, so I am speaking to what the rules say, not what I think they should say.

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.

Blog

Any spell, regardless of effect, beneficial or harmful, saved or unsaved, causes a check when targeting a caster who is casting. Spells which cause damage add the damage to their check, and spells which have no damage don't. But every spell does. For the exact same reason, every targeted supernatural ability would.

2) The list is not exhaustive, therefor what is listed is irrelevant. Including every single item explicitly is also ridiculous and irrelevant. The rules clearly state that any interruption of concentration causes a check, and the check increases in DC based on how distracting it is. That value is left open to interpretation within the provided guidelines of the list, just like the approximate human voice total of a given sound is left open to interpretation in Ghost Sound. The actual rule:

"To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type. Clerics, druids, and rangers add their Wisdom modifier. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers add their Charisma modifier. Finally, wizards add their Intelligence modifier. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect."

The table is there as a reference for determining appropriate DCs. The rules as written are clear, and do not need to account for every distracting action explicitly, because the book would be taller than you if they did. The reason I point out the significance of SU being "magical attacks" is that it brings them under the same reasoning as the blog post. If a spell can cause a check, even when saved against and having absolutely no other effect, than under the same reasoning an SU ability is equally as distracting. What caused the check wasn't the spell, it wasn't what the spell did, it was being magically targeted. Whether that's by a spell or an SU doesn't matter. Whether there's a save or not doesn't matter. What the spell does doesn't matter. It's the interference of a magical attack on the concentration of the caster.

If you want to ignore RAW, RAI and an explanatory official blog you be my guest, but at that point I'm going to need you to point to where in the rules you're getting your reasoning.

Angrimbor wrote:

Yes, Flare distracts while casting. That's the point. So does a supernatural ability which broadcasts your weakness across an entire battlefield.

That's a GM call, not a RAW call. There is no written rule saying that Su abilities force concentration checks.

Angrimbor wrote:

There are plenty of things which are not spells which are obviously accounted for in Concentration rules, so the fact that SU abilities are not spells is irrelevant to the RAW.

The fact that only spells are listed means that supernatural abilities do not cause concentration checks. If it said 'If you are affected by a magical attack', then supernatural abilities would be included.

Both of those statements are false.

1) The written rule says: "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." That covers any distraction. It even goes on to give guidance for things not on the list: "The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC". It wouldn't need to state that the DC gets higher with more distraction if the list was exhaustive. The values would be set in stone, there would be no interpretation.

2) Spells are not the only things listed. They simply aren't, even if you for no reason take the list as exhaustive. The majority of the examples are non-magical in nature.

Angrimbor wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

"The noise a ghost sound spell produces can be virtually any type of sound within the volume limit" explicitly makes clear that the preceding list is not exhaustive. IMO the language in prestidigation does also.

You are definitely reaching at this point, and I believe wraithstrike is correct about your mind being made up already. If not, take a coffee break, because you are clearly agitated.

If that concludes that Ghost Sound's list is not exhaustive, then "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." concludes that the concentration check table is not exhaustive. Any number of things can interrupt someone's concentration.

That line is not part of the list. The list is the table. That line is an intro to chatting about the table, explaining why anything is on it at all. The table is still exhaustive.

Then the line of Ghost Sound falls under the same arbitrary logic. The line you dismiss is part of the official rules. You can't just dismiss it because you don't like the implications. The table is not listed as exhaustive, that line dismisses the idea that it can even be exhaustive, and at this point your clinging to a very thin argument and taking your RAI over explicitly stated rules.

Non-damaging spells only makes a caster do concentration checks if it somehow interferes or distracts with the casting of spells. Being hasted does not interfere with casting, for example.

I think there's no real general rule about SU abilities. However, if they do cause something that does interfere or distracts spell casting or simulates the same effects of spells that does, I'd treat it as such. Apply the existing rules. Otherwsie, they're just like any other non-interfering effect.

Any non-damaging spell causes a concentration check if you are targeted while casting, even if you save against it successfully. I'll refer you to a Paizo blog for that one.

Blog

"Spells like enlarge person or slow or even ray of enfeeblement break a caster’s concentration if they manage to affect her while she’s casting, so you have to make a concentration check in order to cast when this happens. The DC for a non-damaging spell is fairly low unless you’re affected by a spell with a seriously high save DC, and you’re forced to make the check even if you succeed on your saving throw against the spell and negate its effects. It’s a nasty bit of aftershock that you can leave a caster with if you’re lucky."

It has nothing to do with the effect of the spell, or whether it interferes with casting. Being targeted by a magical effect or attack is enough of a distraction to trigger the check, according to Alex Augunas. By that same logic, so would any SU ability that directly targets someone as they are casting.

I would say Flare may distract you while casting, as bright light is distracting. However, on further review I would say that non-damaging Su abilities do not incur a concentration check.

Quote:

Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like.

They are not spells, and so do not fall under the Concentration rules as written.

Yes, Flare distracts while casting. That's the point. So does a supernatural ability which broadcasts your weakness across an entire battlefield. Pretty distracting. It has nothing to do with the actual effect of the magic, and everything to do with the fact that you have become the target of a magical attack. Spells which are saved against and have no effect still cause concentration checks.

There are plenty of things which are not spells which are obviously accounted for in Concentration rules, so the fact that SU abilities are not spells is irrelevant to the RAW.

"The noise a ghost sound spell produces can be virtually any type of sound within the volume limit" explicitly makes clear that the preceding list is not exhaustive. IMO the language in prestidigation does also.

You are definitely reaching at this point, and I believe wraithstrike is correct about your mind being made up already. If not, take a coffee break, because you are clearly agitated.

If that concludes that Ghost Sound's list is not exhaustive, then "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." concludes that the concentration check table is not exhaustive. Any number of things can interrupt someone's concentration.

Angrimbor wrote:

Would a readied Reveal Weakness prompt a concentration check?

I would say no, as it does not actually have a noticeable effect on the targets ability to cast.

Neither does Flare, or any non-damaging spell which is successfully saved against, nor does rain. But all of those cause concentration checks, because it's not about shutting down the ability to cast, it's about distracting enough that they have to consciously concentrate on what they're doing to continue doing it. A concentration check is not an automatic fail.

Angrimbor wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

NThe list is exhaustive since it gives you a specific formula for each type of concentration check. There is no formula for SU's, and that would make any formula applies by a GM a houserule.

I see absolutely no reason that would qualify a list as "exhaustive". Does a blizzard not force a concentration check? That doesn't qualify as "wind with rain" or "wind with hail or debris", since snow is neither hail, rain, nor debris. So now, by your logic, a mild rainstorm is more distracting and disruptive than a severe blizzard.

The table gives guidelines for evaluating different values and types of distraction. Just like Ghost Sound doesn't explicitly specify how many human voices worth every particular sound is, it gives you examples to use as guidelines and leaves the exact volume definition of whatever sound you choose up for reasonable interpretation. That doesn't make anything besides humans, lions, and dragons a "house rule" Ghost Sound. As for calculating SU's, you can definitely use the non-damaging spell formula. It doesn't have a spell level, so you put nothing there. It's simple. Just because there are variables doesn't mean they all have to be filled with some positive value when they're not applicable. Trying to treat the list as exhaustive leads to incredible mental gymnastics here.

My logic is that SU's are not on the list so it is not a part of the official ruleset, and SU's are different enough from spells that the sleet vs blizzard example does not apply since a blizzard can have debris and high winds.

If you believe you are correct show me the formula for the DC from the book.

Any GM can use the nondamaging spells formula, but that does not make it legal, per the official rules.

Until I see a formula(from the book) I am done with this conversation. I have seen enough "I have already made my mind up" scenarios to know you won't take anything beyond the word of a dev, and you might complain about that too.

This is so hypocritical it's ironic.

Angrimbor wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

I believe the CRB list of concentration check conditions is supposed to be exhaustive.

What would give you that impression? There are very few exhaustive lists in the rule books at all, precisely because it's almost impossible to account for everything. If you treat that list as exhaustive, then you have to somehow reconcile yourself with the impossible idea that having rain blown in your face is somehow more distracting and disruptive than taking a magical attack, having a sudden loud sound or appearance, etc. The rules do not state that the list is exhaustive, so I see no RAW reason to treat it as such, and the logical inconsistencies that would present eliminate RAI possibilities.

The table says that taking a magical attack is more distracting than having rain blown in your face. But even if it were the other way around, the important thing is that both are on the table. I see no reason that a non-magical sudden loud sound should force a concentration check unless, of course, it says so in the ability description, since specific always overrides general.

If they wanted random perhaps-distracting things to force checks, they would have put in an "Other" line and probably said that the GM should use the explicit entries for guidance.

Can you provide a couple of examples of rulebook lists that (a) are clearly not exhaustive but (b) do not state so, whether by including an entry for "Other" or otherwise? I don't see a good way to search for such myself.

A supernatural ability (especially in this case) is a magical attack. It's in the official definition.

You can see no reason why a sudden loud sound would force a concentration check, but I see no reason why a little rain would either in that case. It's not magical rain. It's just rain. So, according to Paizo, the act of having the wind blow some rain onto you is distracting enough to force a check. I've seen people get rain blown onto them without so much as blinking, but there are very few people who aren't distracted by a gunshot.

As far as the Other line, what would that accomplish? In every instance I can think of, they never say: "Oh and other stuff, just figure it out". They provide examples to base your decisions on. Mundane but distracting occurrences, like rain blowing in your face. Or hail. Which they did; we have a list of otherwise completely random and arbitrary conditions, but if taken as obviously intended, it's guidelines for judging the severity of the thousands of situations the list doesn't cover. Is it more distracting than rain? Less distracting than a bucking ship? Okay, somewhere in between those values then.

As for examples, I already provided the Ghost Sound example, and I can also submit the Prestidigitation example. Paizo has a clear style when it comes to things with near infinite possibilities, and that style is to provide examples, with values where applicable, and to leave the rest to reasonable interpretation.

It seems to me like you had your mind made up before you came here. Do as you wish if you are the GM, but there is no rules support or formula for what you want to do.

Maybe something like "DC of the SU + spell level" can work for you since the chart uses "DC of the spell + spell level" for spells.

PS: I understand your reasoning, but the rules do tend to be specific, and if they intended for SU's to force concentration checks they would have mentioned it

If I had my mind made up I wouldn't be asking, I just don't see the sense in any claims that the list is exhaustive. There may be valid reasons why SU wouldn't cause concentration checks, but I don't see any rules support for that line of reasoning. Most tables in the book are *not* exhaustive, and that table is not listed as exhaustive. It's a rather random and eclectic assortment of items to have on there if it was. It is very specific when it comes to spells and damage, sure; it's also very vague and seemingly arbitrary (no formula listed) when it comes to weather conditions and other non-spell non-damaging conditions. This, to me, logically suggests that there is no reasonable equation to have for those (think about it, how would you calculate a balanced equation for every single non-spell disruptive event?), but that these are guidelines to judge the severity of other events.

NThe list is exhaustive since it gives you a specific formula for each type of concentration check. There is no formula for SU's, and that would make any formula applies by a GM a houserule.

I see absolutely no reason that would qualify a list as "exhaustive". Does a blizzard not force a concentration check? That doesn't qualify as "wind with rain" or "wind with hail or debris", since snow is neither hail, rain, nor debris. So now, by your logic, a mild rainstorm is more distracting and disruptive than a severe blizzard.

The table gives guidelines for evaluating different values and types of distraction. Just like Ghost Sound doesn't explicitly specify how many human voices worth every particular sound is, it gives you examples to use as guidelines and leaves the exact volume definition of whatever sound you choose up for reasonable interpretation. That doesn't make anything besides humans, lions, and dragons a "house rule" Ghost Sound. As for calculating SU's, you can definitely use the non-damaging spell formula. It doesn't have a spell level, so you put nothing there. It's simple. Just because there are variables doesn't mean they all have to be filled with some positive value when they're not applicable. Trying to treat the list as exhaustive leads to incredible mental gymnastics here.

Nope. The rules doesn't give any indication that it would.

There we disagree. The very presence of "Wind with rain" on the table sets a very low bar for non-damaging, non-spell distractions that can force concentration checks. There are also rules in regard to constant abilities, to address your other point. Not all constant effects force concentration checks, even if they are spells. It usually has to happen specifically during the casting of the spell, unless it's damage from DoT. The only constant abilities that would force constant checks would be abilities with recurring applications that somehow managed to apply right as the caster was casting, whereas most abilities like that happen at the beginning of the user's turn.

I believe the CRB list of concentration check conditions is supposed to be exhaustive.

What would give you that impression? There are very few exhaustive lists in the rule books at all, precisely because it's almost impossible to account for everything. If you treat that list as exhaustive, then you have to somehow reconcile yourself with the impossible idea that having rain blown in your face is somehow more distracting and disruptive than taking a magical attack, having a sudden loud sound or appearance, etc. The rules do not state that the list is exhaustive, so I see no RAW reason to treat it as such, and the logical inconsistencies that would present eliminate RAI possibilities.

They all won't, but some will.

What do you think about Reveal Weakness?

"When you activate this school power as a standard action, you select a foe within 30 feet. That creature takes a penalty to its AC and on saving throws equal to 1/2 your caster level (minimum –1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence bonus."

Would a readied Reveal Weakness prompt a concentration check?

Sure, that might make calculating the concentration check different (personally I'd just consider the "spell level" variable as 0), but I don't see why it would remove the requirement for a concentration check. Is being subjected to a magical attack really less distracting than having rain blown in your face?

I'm talking about a caster taking a non-damaging supernatural ability while casting, not the other way around.

It seems like an obvious answer, but it's not addressed directly in the rules, which leads to a lot of weaseling and trying to get out of it. Basically, do non-damaging supernatural abilities cause concentration checks in the same manner that non-damaging spells do?