FreneticKineticAscetic's page

FreneticKineticAscetic wrote:

Since both copies are treated as you for the purposes of being attacked,

They aren't entirely (treated as both for purposes of being attacked), though. Consider the situation of both reflections getting hit with the same fireball. The rules are very specific about this: you only take damage once. You occupy both spaces...sort of. But not in terms of both places exuding your aura. Or taking heat and fire damage from an explosion that covers both places. For those sorts of things, there is only one you. Pick which one, each time you act.

Quote:

Leaving an aura effect in one spot while attacking/blasting/using an impulse from the other seems like it would open up more tactical usage of the implement, and I’m not sure it would break balance or even goes against the spirit of the implement.

It sure would open up some new player opportunities. And I also agree it probably wouldn't be tgtbt. Seems like a fine homerule for tables that want to explore the coolness of mirror implement. I just don't think it's RAI.

I agree the aura can only be in one spot at the same time, I just think it doesn’t necessarily have to move to the same place you’re acting from. You don’t have to (or get to) pick a spot you’re in for the purposes of the fireball - if it hits both, you only get hit once because there’s only one you, but if it hits A or B it doesn’t matter which one you've acted from last, or which one you’re emanating auras from - they’re in a superposition as the “real” you, and you take the full effect. The first line of the ability seems to agree: “ You reflect an illusory image of yourself into another unoccupied space within 15 feet that you can see. You are treated as being in both spaces until the start of your next turn.” Effect origins and aoe interactions seem to be more a balancing issue than an intention to me.

To be honest, I’m not sure there are RAI for these sorts of edge cases with the mirror. There are too many possibilities - physical effects like grapples, mental effects like incapacitation spells, edge cases like persistent damage - that could go one way or another to define them all, or even think of them. I think they left it vague enough for interpretation, with the hard limiters of having effects originate from only one position, and having aoes and other multi-target effects only hit you once. I’d run it one way, but I do think yours is equally reasonable.

For the aura and the gate to stay in one place while the blasts come from another would effectively put the t/k in both places at once. Which is the specific situation I think the "only one" text is intended to prevent.

I’m surprisingly torn on this. I think that running it the way you’re suggesting - do an action originating from one position, that becomes the “real” you and becomes the origin of all your ongoing effects until you take another action - is very reasonable. At the same time, it seems like the whole point of the mirror is to gain some of the benefits of being in two places at once.

Since both copies are treated as you for the purposes of being attacked, there’s no trickery involved in making enemies pick your position, so being able to discretely pick the origins of effects as you go seems like a major upside of using the mirror rather than just moving. The other is being able to flank with yourself, but giving up ~10 feet of movement, a defining class ability, and being in two places for the purposes of enemy attacks/aoes seems kind of weak on paper versus just using a stride and having allies. Then again, that’s the primary benefit for non-aura effect thaumaturges, so it can’t be that bad.

Leaving an aura effect in one spot while attacking/blasting/using an impulse from the other seems like it would open up more tactical usage of the implement, and I’m not sure it would break balance or even goes against the spirit of the implement. If you’re in positions A and B, you can certainly make an attack from position B during your turn, then choose position A at the beginning of your next turn as the copy that remains. Since you’re not acting when this happens, your “real” position isn’t tied to the position of your last action - I’m not sure you even have a “real” position. That also means that “bouncing auras” is always an allowed effect, unless choosing A over B deactivates all of your ongoing effects, which is unlikely.

Still, the best thing to do would be to run it and see what feels best. Of course that’s usually the answer, but so it goes. If I was GM ing for a mirror thaumaturge with ongoing “aura” type effects, I’d probably start with allowing effects to bounce each time you take an action, then tune that down if it felt overly pushed or unfair.

If one doesn't have a good use for a spare free hand to hold the mirror and some Charisma, then yep, there's some utility there, much of it unique. Yet how many PCs have both and no better archetype?

“Better” is very subjective, and only matters if you’re min maxing, which is also subjective since you need to take party optimization into account. This falls more under the purview of “doesn’t this seem cool?” Which I would say it is!

As for two kineticist auras, I’d agree that only one can have the “real” aura. Expanding the kineticists aura size is a 10th level feat that’s unskippable for many builds, granting a similar effect at 2nd level and allowing it to stack with the level 10 version would be a bit too pushed. However, I think the text from the implement answers the question neatly:

Your mirror self mimics your actions exactly, but any effects you generate come from only one of your positions; you decide which each time you act.

Your kineticist aura is an effect, so it can come from only one position. Whenever you act, you pick the position it emanates from. Barring a clarification from another rules source, I’d make the same ruling for any ongoing effect emanating from your position, such as bless, courageous anthem, or other aura-type effects - pick its origin each time you act. If it turns out to be too strong, then nerf it, but as it stands mirror implement is a very strong option regardless- though kineticists aren’t generally great at utilizing charisma, so that’s a consideration.

I probably shouldn't get involved here, but I just can't resist conversations about kineticists. I also can't resist... MATH!

I get that we're mostly parsing unclear rules and disagreeing about interpretations, something all too common with RoE (at least Kindle Inner Flames[KiF] is usable and doesn't lack a range or an area!) I think either interpretation is reasonable, though personally I'd lean towards KiF damage being damage from the impulse as others have argued above. However, I'd do so not only because of my interpretation of the rules, but because MAN, it would be a bummer if it didn't. Once you look at the numbers, the added damage from KiF becomes appallingly low without it, given that the aura junction is practically a requirement for fire kineticists to keep up in damage.

So, let's compare Kindle Inner Flames with Thermal Nimbus[TN], the other stance available to Fire Kineticists. There's no rules ambiguity there, TN certainly triggers the aura junction weakness. Given that, let's compare the damage output of the two at level 8 in a few different circumstances.

[Now I'll admit, if we're factoring in overall utility, KiF is usually going to be better: 5 feet of movement for each party member walking by, along with a +1 bonus to reflex saves and acrobatics checks. Compare to TN's scaling Fire resistance and we've certainly got a broader use case. But either one is still a 10 foot emanation for a pretty mild buff, and KiF is level 8 vs level 4. And it's not like fire breathing dragons don't exist.]

TN vs Single Target: Pretty easy - it's 8. 4 from the Nimbus, plus 4 from the aura junction weakness. Nice.
TN vs Two Targets: Same, but there's two of them. It's 16.
TN vs Three or more targets: Pretty much only limited by how many things can start their turns or enter your aura per round. n*8 where n is the number of bozos getting in close.

From this we can see that Thermal Nimbus is a mild damage boost against a single target, and becomes a massive damage multiplier against hordes of enemies. It also scales far better, and doesn't require our allies to give up a weapon property rune at higher levels.

Now, KiF is far more complex in its damage calculation. Here are my extremely optimal, extremely unlikely conditions for our initial overview.

-Level 8 kineticist, level 8 Fighter, level 8 flurry ranger
-all within the aura
-all having +4 to strength
-all using +1 agile weapons (including the kineticist, as Elemental Blast is not a strike and thus does not trigger KiF)
-all making three attacks per turn, with Double Slice on the fighter
-target(s) has 27 base ac (average for level 8) and is flat footed

KiF added damage vs single target, no aura junction damage(Double slice followed by 1 action strike to maximize damage):
Fighter attack 1: +19 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.25(4)]= 2
Fighter attack 2: +19 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.25(4)]= 2
Fighter attack : +11 to hit, [0.3(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.8

Ranger attack 1: +17 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.15(4)]= 1.6
Ranger attack 2: +15 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.05(4)]= 1.2
Ranger attack 3: +13 to hit, [0.4(2)+0.05(4)]= 1

Kineticist attack 1: +15 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.05(4)]= 1.2
Kineticist attack 2: +11 to hit, [0.3(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.8
Kineticist attack 3: +7 to hit, [0.1(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.4

Total damage added by KiF = 11

Whew! So, if the all three of the party's martials stand next to each other swinging wildly, including our dagger-toting kineticist, the damage differential from KiF to a single target is... 3. Not too impressive given we've needed 10 actions versus TN's 1. What about additional targets?

KiF added damage vs two targets, no aura junction damage(Double slice followed by 1 action strike to maximize damage):
Fighter attack 1: +19 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.25(4)]= 2
Fighter attack 2: +19 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.25(4)]= 2
Fighter attack : +11 to hit, [0.3(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.8

Ranger attack 1: +17 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.15(4)]= 1.6
Ranger attack 2: +15 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.05(4)]= 1.2
Ranger attack 3: +13 to hit, [0.4(2)+0.05(4)]= 1

Kineticist attack 1: +15 to hit, [0.5(2)+0.05(4)]= 1.2
Kineticist attack 2: +11 to hit, [0.3(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.8
Kineticist attack 3: +7 to hit, [0.1(2)+0.05(4)]= 0.4

Total damage added by KiF = 11

Ah, right. Strikes target only one thing. Even if we manage to pile all 5 combatants into our friendly little aura, we still lose 5 damage against TN, which has also asked nothing of our party composition, group positioning, or additional feats. Additional enemies will also slightly reduce our likelihood of perpetual off-guard, and dent our damage a bit.

Now, let's see what happens when we add in our additional aura damage.

KiF added damage vs single target, with aura junction damage (1 action strike followed by Double Slice to maximize chance to hit):
Fighter attack 1: +19 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.25(10)]= 5.5
Fighter attack 2: +19 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.05(10)]= 3.5
Fighter attack : +11 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.05(10)]= 3.5

Ranger attack 1: +17 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.15(10)]= 4.5
Ranger attack 2: +15 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.05(10)]= 3.5
Ranger attack 3: +13 to hit, [0.4(6)+0.05(10)]= 2.9

Kineticist attack 1: +15 to hit, [0.5(6)+0.05(10)]= 3.5
Kineticist attack 2: +11 to hit, [0.3(6)+0.05(10)]= 2.3
Kineticist attack 3: +7 to hit, [0.1(6)+0.05(10)]= 1.1

Total damage added by KiF: 27.15

Alright, now we're talking! If we're gonna build our entire party around maximizing this level 8 feat against an unmoving training dummy, we should at least get some real damage out of it. We'd need to fight four whole things before TN starts to outclass us!

This is also ignoring the fact that our kineticist friend has given up a +2 to hit and a free hand by using a weapon rather than an Elemental Blast, and is either using a d4 agile weapon or has given up another ancestry or general feat for an agile d6.

For those who'd like a bit more realism in the KiF calculations, let's assume the fighter and ranger are the only ones getting the damage benefits, and that they're averaging two attacks per turn. The calculations will be the same as above, so I won't repeat them.

KiF added damage vs one or more targets, no aura junction damage(Double slice followed by 1 action strike to maximize damage) = 6.8

KiF added damage vs one or more targets, with aura junction damage (1 action strike followed by Double Slice to maximize chance to hit) = 16

So in a more normal encounter, KiF without the junction damage is always outclassed by TN, whereas with the damage it doubles TN against one target, then equals it against 2, and is rapidly outclassed against a horde.

TTTL;DR

Rules are rules, and sometimes they're unclear. Play them how you will. But remember that Too Good and Too Bad to be True are rules as well. It's very unlikely you're going to run into any balance issues if you let KiF trigger the damage weakness. It also seems unlikely to me that the intention of the impulse was that it would ask more of your entire party, and give them less. Given the number of kineticist feats that are confusingly written, unplayably bad, or lacking basic information, I think we can safely leave Kindle Inner Flames off the chopping block.

Hello!

So I'm playing a Magus who really likes his familiar and took the Enhanced Familiar feat. My Magus also took the Wizard Dedication and through the dedication it looks like he can pick up Enhanced Familiar again.

Is this legal? Pathbuilder seems to say yes but I'm unsure.

It’s legal, but it wouldn’t do anything - the feat increases the number of familiar abilities from 2 to 4, so the second copy would have no effect. Generally, taking a feat multiple times has no effect unless the feat states otherwise.

If he’s interested in improving his familiar further, he would have better luck with the witch or familiar master dedication, as those have access to additional familiar improvements. Witches are also intelligence casters, and conceivably he could retrain his archetype if you allow it.

As for my initial post about status bonuses to effects with a duration, I still don't feel like I've found a decisive clarification in the rules, and I'm on the fence on how I'd rule those effects in gameplay. I appreciate Easl's post on how Consume Power seems to be singular, but that would still raise the question of what the damage roll of an effect is.

It also doesn't help to answer the fundamental question of how status bonuses (or any other modifiers) interact with effects that have a duration. For example, the Marshal's Dread Marshal Stance grants a +1 to damage rolls for allies within the Marshal's aura, and the Bard's Courageous Anthem similarly grants a status bonus to damage within a 60 foot emanation. If an ally cast a damage dealing spell with a duration, received a status bonus to damage rolls from that effect, then left the aura/emanation, would the initial status bonus continue to apply to the effect? If not, would entering the stance or anthem grant a damage bonus to an effect already taking place?

I know it's all very specific and pedantic, but by gum I want to turn my fire/metal kineticists reaction into more damage by Consume Power-ing my own Thermal Nimbus, and I want to know if Molten Wire makes that plan better :P

Finoan wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

Because resistance/weakness 5 to all damage translates to "has weakness 5 to fire, acid, cold..." and lists every damage type. It is shorthand for listing off every type.

No, it is not.

That is a common interpretation of Resist All. But it is not stated in the rules as such, and it is not the only possible interpretation of Resist All.

It can also be interpreted that Resist Fire (5), Resist Acid (5), Resist Sonic (5), ... is in fact different than Resist All (5). That difference being that if an effect would cause multiple damage types and 'instance of damage' does not get separated out by damage types, then the rule about only applying one Resistance would apply and you would only drop 5 points from one of the damage types rather than Resist All that would drop 5 points from all of the damage types.

I thought of this too, but what changed my mind was that means Resistance [5] to each individual damage type spelled out, excluding one, is Better than Resistance all [5] not spelled out in the vast majority of cases. And that sounds both TBTBT and the kind of minute rules interactions that Paozo has tried to avoid.

In certain cases, it makes resistance fire [5] and resistance cold [5] better than resistance all [5] (if they take fire and cold in the same attack)

I think it would actually be the opposite - the rules for Resist All state that

When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely.

whereas when you have multiple types of resistance

If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value

which can be interpreted to mean that if a character has Resist 5 slashing and Resist 5 fire, then takes the same damage as the resist all example (7 slashing, 4 fire) they would only get to apply their highest resistance (slashing 5) and would take 2 slashing + 4 fire. The whole thing hinges on Finoan's first post, which is the confusion around how to define an "instance of damage."

Given that the rules for resistance mention treating resistance values like weakness values and weakness values state

If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing.

I'd say the RAI interpretation is that an instance of damage is a single damage type within a damage roll calculation, since the example given is an edge case where the single roll (the axe dealing slashing) would contain two different weakness triggers (cold iron and slashing.)

So I'd lean towards saying that if a character had resist all 5 and took 7 slashing and 4 fire, they'd end up with only 2 slashing. If they had resist slashing 5 and resist fire 5 and took the same damage, they'd end up with 2 slashing. If the resistances were flipped for weaknesses, they'd take 12 slashing and 9 fire in both cases.

I'd accept otherwise if the designers wanted it to work differently for balance reasons, but I think that from a common sense perspective, it doesn't make much sense for it to work otherwise. It would be very odd for you to be specifically more sensitive to fire when it's on a sword you have resistance to, rather than, for example, a hammer that damages you normally.

Outside the use of nonlethal weapons and athletics maneuvers, I agree that the best chance at making it work is discussing it with your GM. They also have the option of using recovery checks for any creature.

Player Core pg. 410: Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don't automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points. Instead, they are knocked out and are at risk of death. The GM might determine that villains, powerful monsters, special NPCs, and enemies with special abilities that are likely to bring them back to the fight (like ferocity, regeneration, or healing magic) can use these rules as well.

a valuable bounty seems like a reasonable candidate for "special NPC," so you might be able to stabilize them even after taking lethal damage. This can bog down combat, so I'd talk to your GM about it beforehand.

The bonus should apply only once for each instance of damage...

Whatever 'Instance of Damage' means.

Yeah, the instance of damage thing is definitely an interrelated can of worms.

The Psychics Unleashed Psyche ability is also a status bonus to damage rolls, and it is… adding to my confusion:

When you cast a damaging spell, you gain a status bonus to its damage equal to double the spell's level. This applies only to spells that don't have a duration and that you cast using psychic spellcasting.

It specifically excludes spells that have a duration - you could infer that the exclusion is only necessary to control the damage output because a spell with a duration would receive the bonus multiple times. Or, it could be a confusing rules interaction that the designers wanted to avoid players running into. Who knows!

How do status bonuses to damage interact with spells and abilities that deal damage multiple times? Specifically, I’m trying to clarify the interaction between the Kineticist’s Consume Power and Molten Wire:

Consume Power:

You absorb energy and hold it in your kinetic gate. You gain resistance equal to your level to the triggering damage—choose one eligible type of resistance. If this reaction prevents any damage, you gain a status bonus equal to half your level to the damage roll of the next metal impulse you use before the end of your next turn.

Spinning molten iron through a vortex of fire, you trap your foe in searing wires. Make an impulse attack roll against a creature within 15 feet. On a success, the target takes 2d6 slashing damage and is wrapped in molten wire for 1 minute. It is clumsy 1 and takes 2d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns, with a basic Reflex save. The wire's Escape DC is your class DC. The wire has AC 10 and 75 HP. The impulse ends if the creature Escapes or the wire is destroyed.

Molten Wire is a metal impulse so it qualifies, but it deals slashing damage on a hit, then additional fire damage each turn as long as the creature remains in the wire - notably, this isn’t persistent damage. Would the status bonus apply only to the slashing, or to both, or apply to a roll you choose? Most rules clarifications I’ve seen have dealt with damage that has multiple types but is dealt all at once, which the rules treat as one damage roll, but the second set of rolls and saves are throwing me for a loop.

Little late to this post, but there’s a wrinkle about how the bonus damage from consume power is applied that I’m having trouble finding a definitive answer on. Supposing a fire/metal kineticist has thermal nimbus, consume power, and molten wire, a conceivable turn could be:

Start turn, Take thermal nimbus damage
React with consume power, gaining a status bonus to your next metal impulse
Hit an enemy with Molten Wire

When molten wire hits, “the target takes 2d6 slashing damage and is wrapped in molten wire for 1 minute. It is clumsy 1 and takes 2d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns, with a basic Reflex save.”

Being a metal impulse, it receives the status bonus to damage from consume power, but it deals damage on hit, then deals additional damage at the beginning of the creatures turns - notably, this isn’t persistent damage, but an additional damage roll with a basic reflex save. I’m unsure whether the status bonus to damage would apply each time the impulse deals damage, or to one roll, or to multiple. The text on damage bonuses doesn’t help to clarify:

“As with checks, you might add circumstance, status, or item bonuses to your damage rolls, but if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you add only the highest bonus of that type. Again like checks, you may also apply circumstance, status, item, and untyped penalties to the damage roll, and again you apply only the greatest penalty of a specific type but apply all untyped penalties together.”

Definitely a candidate for too good to be true, but it’s an edge case I’m having trouble clearing and would be a bigger boost to damage for fire/metal kineticists that are already taking three solidly desirable feats, and the reaction would only need to be spent on the turn using the wire.