FenrirKnight's page

So does the new "instance of damage" help clarify whether or not barbarian rage can be applied during a polymorph effect such as untamed form?

Their new instance of damage doesn't even quite clarify whether a rune is an instance of damage since they had it resisted rather than proc weakness.

Clarify whether effects that are part of an attacks **damage** entry (grab, diseases, poisons, riders, crit effects) are transfered to the Guardian when they Intercept Attack and take all the damage.

Intercept attack as right now by strict RAW you can intercept 10 feet away as it has "you can step" not you just move.

Mortal Heralds Shield the faithful grants a +1 item bonus to AC, it should read "increases their item bonus to AC by 1." As right now it doesn't do anything to your allies defenses.

Under the new "clarification" of instance of damage (still some ambiguity whether a rune is it's own instance), Mortal Herald's marked for Rebuke is way too powerful. It should be changed to "weakness to your allies strikes or spells" similar to Champions Blessed Counterstrike.

I do wish they had used a Frost Rune rather than Flaming rune to clarify it further as to whether runes are lumped in with the strike. So a champion wielding a Flaming, Frost, Cold Iron Battleaxe with a spell that deals fire damage and a spell that deals cold damage.

It looks like right now

Trait (Holy + 15)
Rune 1 (Frost - +15)
Rune 2 (Fire - Resisted)
Material or Damage Type (Greater of cold iron or damage type, so +15)
Spell effect 1 (Fire - Resisted)
Spell effect 2 (cold + 15)

Are each instances. Their use of a fire rune instead of a frost rune makes one wonder if the rune is actually an instance of damage, or if its included in the strike.

If runes are instances of damage you can have this happen, now this takes teamwork but wow... Demon's beware:

Mortal Herald - Marked for Rebuke - Weakness 10 to all Damage [https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=7549](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=7549)

Level 18 monk with Inner Upheaval, +3 potency rune, 3 elemental runes. Lets say the demon isn't resistant to any of the following damage types)

Someone casts as a prebuff Flame dancer on the monk
Someone casts Sanctified Infuse Vitality on the monk

Sanctified Infuse vitality granting holy trait - 15

3d8 + 12 (base 1d8 stance) + 15 (weakness to cold iron, monks unarmed attacks count as cold iron)

Frost rune - 1d6 +10

Corrosive - 1d6 + 10

Flaming - 1d6 + 10

Flame Dancer - 2d6 + 10

Inner Upheaval 1d6 + 10 (force)

For +80 damage.

If they have the Jalmandi Heavenseeker would it be +20 (each damage type) or +10 (instance being the feat?) or 0 since it's damage added to your weapon.

If runes are ruled to be apart of the strikes damage that drops it to +50.

FenrirKnight wrote:

Guardian's Intercept Attack lacks information as to whether the guardian is subject to the rider effects of the attack, the way that Protector's Sacrifice or Champion's Sacrifice do.

This leads to some very strange interactions with several monster abilities. Even something such as Grab lead to some unusual interactions. The attack was successful against PC1, but the Guardian intercepted the attack. From a logic standpoint the guardian should be subject to all of those types of things - poisons, debuffs, diseases, paralysis, targeting, and the like.

It does, in that it says explicitly you take the damage and doesn't mention anything else. The lack of anything else happening means you don't take anything else.

It doesn't make much sense if you think about it (how are you taking the damage but they're still getting grabbed/poisoned/etc?), but it's perfectly clear. This came up in the playtest feedback pretty extensively and the fact that it wasn't changed suggests its intentional.

Then they should add the line of "You aren't subject to any conditions or other effects of whatever damaged your ally (such as poison from a venomous bite). Your ally is still subject to those effects" to confirm if that was intentional. I agree that it goes entirely against the flavour and intention of the ability, which is why I'm suggesting it requires errata.

Guardian's Intercept Attack lacks information as to whether the guardian is subject to the rider effects of the attack, the way that Protector's Sacrifice or Champion's Sacrifice do.

This leads to some very strange interactions with several monster abilities. Even something such as Grab lead to some unusual interactions. The attack was successful against PC1, but the Guardian intercepted the attack. From a logic standpoint the guardian should be subject to all of those types of things - poisons, debuffs, diseases, paralysis, targeting, and the like.

Guardian's Intercept Attack lacks information as to whether the guardian is subject to the rider effects of the attack, the way that Protector's Sacrifice does.

This leads to some very strange interactions with several monster abilities. Even something such as Grab lead to some unusual interactions. The attack was successful against PC1, but the Guardian intercepted the attack. From a logic standpoint the guardian should be subject to all of those types of things - poisons, stupify, diseases and the like.