If you were underwater, you wouldn't be able to cast it because it's a fire spell. But if you cast the spell from above water, it would work, but any targets in the water will have resistance to the fire damage.
Search Posts
Early in production, there was apparently a desire for spellcasting to be accomplished by spending multiple different single actions that ultimately combine for a greater effect. For instance, you'd use a verbal action then a somatic action to accomplish a burning hands spell. This was ultimately scrapped in favor of the activity system we have now, but the basic rules still contain references to this, which sometimes leads to confusing language. For instance, if you began to Cast a Spell requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.
It would be very satisfying to dispel the Grim Reaper's constant haste then use 4th rank haste slots to Counterspell his attempts to restore haste.
It's in the errata on the FAQ. This error was fixed after the first printing was finished.
Of course 5e convertees read the rules. That's why we converted in the first place. Having actual working combat has been a boon. But you make a good point that a spell saying "dealing 2d10 sonic damage" for the area instead of allocating it to a specific, repeated part of the effect is sufficient to conclude that all targets use the same damage roll. I was too hung up on the absence of a more explicit rule to reach the same conclusion.
Are you kidding me? Become aware. I was being completely serious. As a 5e convertee, I couldn't help but notice the absence of a rule about using the same damage roll for effects dealing simultaneous damage. The wording of that rule was the subject of a number of rules debates regarding magic missile and its alleged ability to add the same damage bonus to all missiles.
Okay, hear me out. I'm not aware of any actual rule that says everyone caught in the same area effect suffers the same damage roll. I think we've just been doing that because it's faster than the alternative. But since we are doing that, we could probably also be doing that with Blazing Bolt, too. For instance, the caster rolls 4d6 -> 12 fire damage and makes an attack roll against each creature to see if that damage (or double damage) is inflicted. Kind of like how we roll electric arc's 2d4 electricity and have two targets save against that damage roll result.
By that logic, why stop at blazing bolt? Why don't we split the fireball down into two effects as well? The effect on the summoner and the effect on the eidolon, as determined by their Reflex saves. Even the Eidolon class feature seems to refer to these parts of the area effect as effects in and of themselves. Is the damage not occurring simultaneously for Blazing Bolt? Would that matter?
Yes, the ooze could theoretically use a part of its body to perform an unarmed Strike with the same statistics as a human fist, much like how a human can kick with their fist statistics. But the ooze still doesn't have an actual hand, right? This does get me thinking, though. I get Disarm requiring a hand, but why Shove and Trip? Has no one seen 300? Has no one seen a low-sweeping kick knock someone prone? You can Force Open a door with your body hands-free. Why not Shove?
I don't know what nonsense you're trying to claim with this false equivalency regarding haste. Haste gives the quickened condition with a use restriction. The Stride or Strike made with the action gained from that quickened is not subordinate to haste. They are not the same. That was my point. Haste is an example of an action that enables Strikes without those Strikes being part of the action. I meant to point out that Vine Lash is different precisely because its Strikes are subordinate and comprise the Vine Lash effect itself. As for your last question, Subordinates Actions says, "This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action." The subordinate action has ITS normal traits and EFFECTS. Those effects aren't attributed to the larger action, and the rule goes on to say that the sub action doesn't inherit any traits from the larger action unless specified. Note that Vine Lash also doesn't have the attack trait. Because Vine Lash is not the action you're making the attacks with. Those are from the sub Strikes, and the only effect Vine Lash has besides enabling those Strikes is that MAP doesn't kick in until all the Strikes are done Hmm... OK, I don't entirely agree with the line of reasoning that subordinate actions aren't part of the containing effects specifically because the subordinate actions have their own effects. The latter just doesn't seem to follow from the former. But this did get me thinking about why the traits aren't inherited from the larger action. And I think a big reason for that is handling immunities. Spectral Corruption [two-actions] (curse, divine, enchantment, incapacitation, mental) The specter makes a vile touch Strike. If it damages a living creature, the specter gains 5 temporary Hit Points and the target creature must attempt a DC 24 Will save to avoid becoming corrupted. The subordinate Strike doesn't gain the curse, divine, enchantment, incapacitation, or mental traits. So it follows that immunity to any of those traits wouldn't protect against the Strike. But if the Strike effect were treated as part of the curse, divine, enchantment, incapacitation, and mental effect that it is subordinate to, then the immunity would work against it anyway. And now I'm also wondering if including a subordinate Strike in a containing effect and treating them both as affecting the target would mean that such effects would suffer more flat checks against concealed and hidden. Such as a flat check to Vicious Swing then a second one to actually Strike. Okay, I'm convinced, at least when it comes to subordinate actions. Vine Lash would need a house rule to qualify. But why is Blazing Bolt a doomed case? All the rays are part of the same spell and aren't subordinate actions.
If that's your goal, couldn't you have just given it an attack that uses a hand, ignoring the suggested attacks? You aren't limited to those suggested attacks.
You've been answered already, with examples. A fireball is one effect. Vine Lash's effect is not the damage of the Strikes. Its effect is to enable the shambler to do the Strikes in the way it describes. Vine Lash's Strikes are subordinate actions and each is a separate effect. They are not "the same effect" The haste spell enables Strikes. Vine Lash has the user actually make the Strikes as part of the action. Is there any reason to believe an effect that uses subordinate actions somehow doesn't include those smaller effects in its own effect?
Perhaps I'm undervaluing the item bonus these traits grant. The lowest level source of an item bonus to Athletics (for nonconsumables) is 3, while a +1 weapon potency rune is level 2.
I also need to point that such things comparing abilities that already allows damaging the same target multiple times is only relevant in teorycraft."X is only relevant in theorycraft" is, I find, an overused argument that isn't as relevant to as many discussions as people think. In this particular case, the discussion isn't even about practicalities versus theorycrafting, it's determining how to rule composite actions with regards to the Summoner and their Eidolon's shared HP pool: if we are to assume it's RAW for every composite action to have only the worse of their individual subordinate actions affect either of the two, then this leads to inconsistent behavior with focus-fire composite actions such as Draconic Frenzy, which absolutely can and do happen even against two bodies belonging to the same character. If we want to house rule a distinction in order to prevent actions like Vine Lash from messing up Summoners, then that is perfectly valid and I'd support it, but if we want to assert that this is part of the rules, then the case needs to be argued from the rules themselves, and I'm seeing very little of that used to support the notion that Vine Lash only affects the Summoner once and Draconic Frenzy as many times as it hits. By RAW, Vine Lash is an effect that damages both, so only the greater effect applies. Draconic Frenzy can also technically be such an effect, which can lead to the RAW weirdness of the summoner taking less damage overall if the dragon happens to not focus fire. If anything needs a house rule for the summoner, it's Draconic Frenzy, not Vine Lash. And in most cases, Draconic Frenzy isn't going to have this problem anyway, even without a house rule. If the dragon simply focuses all its attacks on one target (something it usually wants to do anyway), then the summoner and eidolon are not both subject to the effect, so the rule doesn't apply and the damage goes through normally. As for further support from the rules, just look at the relevant rule in the class feature itself. Lastly, the connection between you and your eidolon means you both share a single pool of Hit Points. Damage taken by either you or the eidolon reduces your Hit Points, while healing either of you recovers your Hit Points. Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable). For instance, if you and your eidolon get caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies. The rule addresses the overall effect, which in the example is the area effect itself. Then it also refers to the damage suffered by each target as an individual effect and claims that only the greater of the two applies. If even a fireball can be broken down into its individual effects on each target yet still qualify for this rule, why should Vine Lash be any different?
The feat being poorly written seems to be what Castilliano is claiming. Though the primary attack in question has the same wording. Perhaps the fist option is purely meant to be flavor? The rules for picking attacks say you can have the attack take the form of a fist, but maybe that's all it is. A battering attack that looks like a curled fist but lacks the prehensile capabilities of an actual hand.
You can make any lethal attack nonlethal with a penalty (or vice versa). Heck, the Nonlethal trait is arguably a drawback. Sometimes you want to deal nonlethal damage, so it can be desirable, but it's never more powerful and sometimes it's less. That's a good point. The nonlethal trait is being provided as an option alongside the disarm, shove, and trip traits. Since the nonlethal trait is so weak compared to those traits, perhaps the other three traits are intended to provide less of a benefit than they would on an actual weapon. Maybe they really only serve to let you add an item bonus to the Athletics check. On the other hand, some of these primary attacks seem on par with regular one-handed weapons. The fatal one looks a lot like a pick, the shove one looks a lot like a warhammer, the forceful/sweep one looks a lot like a scimitar, etc. It would be strange if one of the primary attacks was intended to noticeably underperform compared to these weapons.
It could be easier. Like, yes, VIne Lash is a single effect. Only it's not an effect that damages summoner and eidolon. The effect is 'you make a lot of Strikes'. There's no damage. Damage appears only in each separate subordinate Strike which do have their own effect and you can't damage summoner and eidolon with the same Strike twice. Are you trying to tell me that the most damaging offensive tool in the Shambler's arsenal, a tool whose only job is to do damage, doesn't do any damage? Simply because that damage is delivered with subordinate Strikes? Does Reactive Strike do no damage? Does Vicious Swing do no damage?
This weirdness is a valid reason to rule that focus-fireable abilities (Draconic Frenzy, Force Barrage, etc.) don't count if they happen to be used against both the summoner and the eidolon. But I don't see why that same ruling is needed for Vine Lash and other things that can't be focus fired. Especially since doing so causes Vine Lash to hit twice as hard as it's designed to. That's not just "rough." That's nasty. A bad match up for a class occurs when you can only target high saves, or the enemy can target your lowest save, or the damage you specialize in just doesn't work. This is just "you take double damage from what is substantially an area effect, even though you aren't supposed to because that's extremely dangerous." There's a good reason weakness doesn't double the damage in this game. Besides, I don't see why a dragon would be splitting its attacks like this in the first place. In most cases, continuing to attack the same creature until it hits zero HP is the way to go, especially if hitting one creature is noticeably somehow also hurting the other anyway. I'm playing a summoner now, IMO the class is well balanced already, and doesn't need the damage resistance buff interpretation you're giving it. I don't consider this interpretation a buff. I simply consider this interpretation: - RAW, because Vine Lash is an effect that damages multiple targets once each (using Strikes) and therefore qualifies, - RAI, because Vine Lash damaging the same PC twice is bad for all the same reasons fireball damaging the same PC twice is bad, and - RAF, though your mileage may vary.
You are more likely to have the right spell if you stick to Player Core spells, especially the broadly useful ones. Enemies are less likely to have more situational spells and spells from other source books, since that would require extra books to run them. Conversely, using such spells makes you less susceptible to enemy counterspell.
That's right. The possessor can't even use self targeting spells since they aren't in their own body.
Advanced Weaponry gives Versatile too. That's useful, isn't it? I remember Castilliano saying the traits are largely just prerequisites for feats. But that's not true for the disarm trait. Giving your primary attack disarm doesn't lead to any feats, which is especially glaring since this was written back when Disarm was awful and wore off at the start of the target's turn. Why take disarm at all if every eidolon can get hands for free? Disarm makes sense on a weapon since you need to hold the weapon, and that would normally prevent you from Disarming. You don't need to hold an unarmed attack.
But maybe we are being too restrictive? I'm definitely curious to see how others have run this. I don't know. There doesn't seem to be any cost to giving the eidolon a fist, which would theoretically provide a free hand for free. Familiars need a special ability to perform manipulate actions. And if eidolons just straight up had working free hands, then there wouldn't be any narrative reason they couldn't use items. And yet, they explicitly can't use items without the eidolon trait. Strangely, there don't seem to be any summoner feats that grant the eidolon hands, manipulate actions, or the like. But I find it unlikely that the devs were worried about eidolons with hands being too powerful. They share HP with the summoner, so the PC wouldn't avoid any risk by having the eidolon perform dangerous hands-on stuff. Further complicating things, eidolons share your skill proficiencies. If they can't have hands, then they can't use skill actions that require hands. But the fact of the matter is they already can't for skill actions that require tools without the eidolon trait.
A summoner's eidolon can have a primary unarmed attack that deals 1d8 damage and has the disarm/shove/trip trait (or nonlethal). But is there really a point to this beyond adding your handwraps' item bonus to the Athletics check? The main purpose of the disarm, shove, and trip traits is to let the user Disarm, Shove, or Trip despite not having a free hand. If either unarmed attack is a fist, then doesn't the eidolon have a free hand already? Couldn't it just decide to Disarm, Shove, or Trip the opponent?
Did you see what Yuri posted about activities? Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect. This can be applied to Vine Lash as well. Vine Lash is an activity in which the shambler uses multiple Strike actions to generate the activity's effect. Did they developers consider Act Together, Force Barrage, Flurry of Blows, and other things that can be either focus fired or spread out over multiple targets? No, probably not. Their concern was presumably over area effects in particular, since they are designed to not affect the same creature twice and they didn't want summoners getting completely steamrolled by them. But the same concern applies to Vine Lash. The only real difference between fireball and Vine Lash is that Vine Lash is settled with attack rolls instead of Reflex saves. And it does no damage on a miss of course. You say that any competent summoner keeps their eidolon far away from them to avoid Vine Lash and other Whirlwind-Strike-like abilities. But there are plenty of situations that require you to be near or even adjacent to your eidolon, so a summoner and eidolon both getting fireballed or Vine Lashed isn't always coming down to skill. Which is why summoners have the mitigating rule in the first place.
By the time they meet Mr. Shambler, they should be okay. It's not like they're stuck with a puny three actions. In that first shambler round, a L4 summoner probably gave both her figures a move action via tandem movement (positioning one forward, one back), then acted together to blast with a spell at range while striking it with a melee attack. Or... The shambler used its Shamble reaction to Strike the summoner. Then it went first with its +18 Stealth for initiative and used Vine Lash on both the summoner and her eidolon. The summoner got crit and sent to dying 2 while the eidolon also got crit and sent to dying 4.
But you wouldn't just remove a missile. You'd roll the missile damage for both and only apply the higher one. So if a 4 on the d4 is rolled against the summoner and two 1s are rolled against the eidolon, the total damage is 4+1=5.Well, yes. The Strikes are each their own effect. But those effects are still carried out as part of the larger Vine Lash effect, right? It seems like the summoner and eidolon are both getting damaged by the same Vine Lash effect. My argument was that the subordinate Strikes are both their own effects and part of a larger Vine Lash effect. I don't see how those are mutually exclusive.
I think from a balance perspective, whether the overall effect can normally damage its targets multiple times is key here. You wouldn't allow an enemy to take double damage from fireball simply because they are crammed in a tiny space. Fireball is balanced around the assumption that each creature is only getting damaged once. Vine Lash is restricted to one Strike per creature because attacking the same creature repeatedly with no MAP is quite dangerous. Same goes for 2 action Blazing Bolt, which at rank 3+ is basically fireball with an attack roll. I fear that allowing such effects to bypass that once per target limitation on the basis of "Well, it is all one effect, but isn't it basically just action compression of two discrete effects?" is dangerous, especially if only one class is susceptible to such a dire effect. But things like Flurry of Blows and Force Barrage? They are already designed with focus fire against one creature in mind. A summoner on the receiving end of these isn't in more danger than anyone else, so I'm more okay with these bypassing the same-effect protection.
Well, yes. The Strikes are each their own effect. But those effects are still carried out as part of the larger Vine Lash effect, right? It seems like the summoner and eidolon are both getting damaged by the same Vine Lash effect.
I would think that the Force Barrage is all one effect. It's not like the missiles are subordinate actions, so this case seems clearer to me. But you wouldn't just remove a missile. You'd roll the missile damage for both and only apply the higher one. So if a 4 on the d4 is rolled against the summoner and two 1s are rolled against the eidolon, the total damage is 4+1=5.
Vine Lash can only Strike each creature within reach once, making it slightly more akin to fireball in that it can't typically hurt a PC multiple times. Flurry of Blows is designed to be able to hurt the same target multiple times, but you are right that if used against both the summoner and eidolon, Flurry isn't much different from Vine Lash.
Good question. I'd say fleeing takes precedence. The controller may get to control the target's actions, but that doesn't lift any restrictions on what actions the target can perform.
A Shambler can use Vine Lash to Strike each creature within reach, increasing MAP only after all the attacks are made. If a summoner is noncritically hit and their eidolon is critically hit by the same Vine Lash, does their shared HP pool only take the critical damage because that's the most damaging part of this Vine Lash? Or does it also take the noncritical damage because they are separate Strikes?
GM Core recommends giving additional XP for environmental effects that make the encounter tougher. Cliffs that one could be Shoved off of come to mind. I might liken that to a level 9 bottomless pit for the purpose of XP calculation, provided the cliff is tall enough to cause instant death.
If you don't have the dying condition, then you don't have a dying value, so it's not possible that your dying value reached your maximum dying value. A max dying value of zero only kills you when you reach it as outlined in the doomed condition. But more importantly, doomed 4 passively and constantly killing you is far more of a troll reading than what I'm suggesting. "I cast Breath of Life to prevent my ally's death." "Your ally survives. Then they die immediately because they still meet a condition for being dead." Obviously, the target shouldn't become impervious to doomed 4 either. If they gain the dying condition at doomed 4, then they should die immediately. Later effects that would increase the doomed condition should likely also kill the target. After all, we regularly infer death effect damage against targets already at 0 HP to be "reducing them to 0 HP."
It kills you when your maximum dying value is reduced to zero. There's no ongoing effect afterward that keeps killing you.the morrowkin's Swallow Future (doomed 4 without the death trait)This one doesn't work. Breath of Life doesn't remove Doomed, so while it can heal you and you get back up... you're still Doomed 4 and immediately die again. If your maximum dying value is ever reduced to 0, you instantly die. The reduction itself is what kills you. Remaining at 0 does not kill you on its own. Otherwise it would simply say: "If your maximum dying value is ever 0, you instantly die."
Funnily enough the spell's quite useful by/on NPCs who normally die when hit to zero hit points. Well worth a higher level slot as you're nearly guaranteed to use it if fighting PCs plus likely have lots of slots you won't be using due to brevity of life/screentime. 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 [dying] rules as well. I think if the enemies' healing magic would have a disproportionate effect on them, it's only fair to have them use the dying rules for that battle. The GM shouldn't be forgoing that in an effort to give the enemies a stronger impact than the players could normally get out of the same spell.
the morrowkin's Swallow Future (doomed 4 without the death trait)This one doesn't work. Breath of Life doesn't remove Doomed, so while it can heal you and you get back up... you're still Doomed 4 and immediately die again. It kills you when your maximum dying value is reduced to zero. There's no ongoing effect afterward that keeps killing you. But I would expect you'd still be easy to finish off. Any dying condition would kill you, and I assume the GM would rule that any increase to your doomed value would also kill you.
Breath of Life does actually work against things that kill the target instantly as long as they aren't death effects and do leave remains. These effects include Massive Damage, the rogue's Master Strike, the morrowkin's Swallow Future (doomed 4 without the death trait), and the mudraki's Pull Apart (sliced to pieces means your pieces are still there).
Repeating the current stage on a successful save vs virulent probably makes the most sense. If a successful save simply forced the second one immediately, it would effectively increase the fail and crit fail chance within the same amount of time. I think the intent is simply to make lowering the stage much more difficult without actually increasing the likelihood of failing and increasing the stage.
I'm starting to come around to the end-of-turn save interpretation again. I have to admit there are plenty of rules interactions that only make sense if that's when the save occurs. Additionally, GM Core guidance on afflictions states that an affliction exposure can function as a simple hazard of the affliction's level. It wouldn't make sense to use the hazard's turn to track this since simple hazards don't have turns at all.
On a perhaps less related note, I had assumed saving noncritically against a virulent affliction repeated the current stage, and then you'd make another save after the listed interval and potentially go down one stage. But now that look at it again, there's no mention of a successful save repeating the current stage. Does the next save just happen immediately? But that would mean you don't take the damage again. Had you critically succeeded, you would take the damage for the reduced stage immediately, potentially making a critical success more dangerous than a success.
"Can make a save" usually isn't sufficient to render a save optional in this system. It would have to be something like "If the target of containment is unwilling, the effects depend on the target's Reflex save" or the like. The Gliminal guidance offers a way to submit to hostile effects like Greater Constrict, but that entails lowering your degree of success, not skipping the save.
I see what you're getting at. The interval is saying when the next save happens, not the actual duration of the stage. But isn't it still a duration of time, even if there's no effect tied to it? The end of 2 rounds after the initial save is still neither the end of the victim's turn nor the end of the victim's following turn. -------------------------------------------- On a perhaps less related note, I had assumed saving noncritically against a virulent affliction repeated the current stage, and then you'd make another save after the listed interval and potentially go down one stage. But now that look at it again, there's no mention of a successful save repeating the current stage. Does the next save just happen immediately?
The crit fail is a bit ambiguous. It's unclear if the "new order" is referring to each individual action you are forced to take or a general course of action you are forced to take. I'm in favor of the former since being dominated at all is already nasty, but I would still allow at most one save per turn. The crit fail adds another condition without changing when the repeat save happens.
Let's say a four person level 7 party is facing a gang of four level 6 Vampire Counts that have teamed up for some nefarious purpose. The vampires all have Dominate (divine, incapacitation, mental, visual), a two action activity in which they innately cast the spell of the same name at will, but it gains the visual trait and anyone who succeeds is immune. One would think this ability would pose little threat to the PCs, since Dominate is an incapacitation ability and the vampires are all lower level. But the spell being cast is rank 6, so a target's level would have to be 13 or higher to benefit from incapacitation. Additionally, a rank 4 clear mind would struggle to counteract the effect and could likely only suppress it for 1 round if at all. Stronger vampires seem to have the opposite problem. It looks like even this level 19 vampire is still casting rank 6 dominate. The Dominate vampire ability and spell each have the incapacitation trait, but the trait doesn't mean anything for the former because the spell is a subordinate action, not taking the traits of the comprising action except as stated. Despite this, I think the ability's incapacitation trait should be interpreted/ruled to override the spell's trait, such that the vampire's level is used instead of the spell's rank. But what about the counteracting issue? I think perhaps this isn't as important since the spell didn't exist until the remaster (could have sworn there was another legacy spell to remove controlled though) and not everyone even prepares the spell.
Yeah, I brought up reactions with secret triggers earlier as weird because one would think any reaction's trigger would have to be observable in-world for the fiction to make any sense. For instance, the Lesser Death has status sight seemingly for no reason other than to justify its reaction's trigger including concentrate actions.
Well, then you've (again) created the same situation of 'depending on when in the battle the second centipede attacks (or the first one used a reaction or w.e.) it has very different effects' that was your argument against counting it at end of the sufferer's turn. So either that doesn't actually matter, it's fine that under certain circumstances 1 stage of a round duration poison isn't actually a round, or it does but then your take also doesn't work.Remember, if you get poisoned by a second centipede, it combines into the same poison instance, which is why it can't possibly be tracked by the cause - the same poison could have five different causes!It would be tracked by whichever one created the effect, not whoever exacerbated it. So only the first centipede would be used to track the effect. Interesting point, but now that gets me wondering. If you fail a save against another exposure, you are "immediately subject to the effects of the new stage", but the maximum duration is unchanged. I'm wondering what effect this has on the stage duration. I guess that duration ends immediately as the new stage begins? If the second exposure is immediately applying the effects of Stage 2, maybe the second centipede should be used to track the stages from that point onward. That would remove the weird situation of a second exposure exacerbating the effect to off-guard then the next turn removing it with a successful save.
As I said before, This is hardly a conflict in rules, it has the exact same behavior as in 1e if I recall. You save for poisons on your turn, at the interval listed in the poison's stage. That is the conflict. If the interval is 1 round, that means until the start of the user's next turn, so that's when the stage should end, which means that's when the new save should happen. Step 3 conflicts with this by claiming that the saving throws actually occur at the end of your turn, notably without claiming that the stage ends when your turn ends. Saving at the end of your turn means you are not saving at the end of the interval.
Well crud. So that's it? This one part of Step 3 that says to save against afflictions at the end of your turn is the only correct rule here? It's the Affliction rules and every specific listed interval for round-by-round afflictions that are wrong? As an aside, the chuul poison looks really difficult to get rid of. Even if you save against it (whether at the end of your turn or the start of the chuul's turn), you'll just be exposed to it again at the start of the chuul's turn. No matter what, you need to succeed twice in a row.
Detrimental effects often last through a number of the target's turns, but not always. And the stage intervals of the afflictions that would be rolled each round are typically listed as "1 round" or "2 rounds," which should mean they are not an example of such detrimental effects.
Remember, Nimble Dodge costs only a reaction. No setup required.
|