SuperParkourio's page

Losing spellbooks doesn't seem to be a thing in 2e. They probably removed the feature for backing up your own spells so that GMs wouldn't be inclined to take your spellbook away. As long as the book is stowed, no one other than an extremely specialized PC should even be able to Steal it.

In fact, the devs made it very difficult for harm to come to any of your items because your character's power heavily depends on them. Search this forum for "how to Strike unattended object" for a plethora of arguments resulting from this.

However, doubling the distance would be in line with what the monsters were originally capable of while still allowing player abilities to defend against it. The Megalodon really was capable of pushing 30 feet before the Remaster, and it is unlikely that the intent was to take that away.

Actually, Megalodon has an attack with Push 15 feet.

Not sure, but I do know that Push used to double distance if the preceding attack roll was a crit. It seems odd that there would be an extra roll required in the Remaster but no way to double the distance.

Remastered creature Push says to use the listed distance on a successful Shove. But Shove just says to push 10 feet on a crit, not to double the distance. Is the listed distance also used in a crit, or is it doubled?

Is there a new monster with the same stat block?

Conceding that a bird's eye view is all we need to determine flanking in cases that don't require a 3D perspective, I should still make clear that the flanking rules explicitly say to use the center of your space. Not just one 5x5 square, the entire space. Even if we don't care how high the center is, we still don't pick and choose individual squares within the space to determine flanking. Only the very center of the space matters.

See Size, Space, and Reach for more elaboration on the difference between a creature's space and the squares that comprise it.

I played as the Kool-aid Man in a 5e one shot. My GM and I gave him an adamantine halberd and Siege Monster.

No, it's probably drained 2. The definition of enervated is "drained of energy or vitality." As for the redundancy, this is the result of a successful saving throw, so it's probably not supposed to be very dangerous.

Similarly, to how you swing against squares and not ankles, you use squares, and not height, to find stuff like off guard for the same exact reasons. Being sandwitched between two huge creatures is not less life threatening just because the center of the cube is higher.

Ok, sure. Maybe the 3D flanking rules aren't meant for when all combatants are standing at the same elevation. But it's still the center of the entire space (2D or 3D) that is used to determine flanking. If two Huge creatures were standing opposite 3 Medium creatures, only the middle Medium creature should be flanked at most.

To me, I don't think the rules intended that to be the case; why should being larger mean you can't threaten a creature properly? It falls under TBTBT. "You are a threat based on your position, but if you grew in size, you would fail to be an opposing threat to the creature even though your position doesn't really change," sounds really, really stupid to me. I could extrapolate this further by arguing that you couldn't flank in a 3D space unless everyone is on the same elevation, which is equally dumb in my opinion, but I can definitely see the RAW supporting this. **EDIT** I also forgot to consider that, since the Huge creatures are 15 feet tall, that means their line would also start at an elevation of 7.5 feet, meaning they could never flank creatures that are more than 1 size smaller than them unless they start at a lower elevation, further enforcing the TBTBT argument.

Not gonna argue with this. It probably shouldn't take being able to Fly hundreds of feet in the air to get flanked by two Godzillas.

They are not. Flank rules require that you are on opposite sides of a creature, and that you can draw a line passing through the entire space. (You wouldn't technically need to be directly opposite the creature either, in certain circumstances, as long as the line goes from one edge to the opposite edge.) Cover rules, on the other hand, only require that the attack passes through a given creature's/object's space. Even if only partially, it still counts.

That's not the part of the cover rules I'm talking about. To determine cover (when precision is necessary), a line is drawn from the center of your space to the center of the target's space. To determine flanking, a line is drawn from the center of your space to the center of the ally's space. These lines are not used in the same way, but they are drawn in the same way. What matters is the center of your space, not the center of one square you occupy (unless you occupy only one square).

The issue becomes that Flanking requires both conditions; you need to be aware of your attackers, and you need to be threatened by your attackers in melee combat. If there are two invisible creatures that flank me, and I fail to perceive them, they are Unnoticed. Even if I am aware that there are Invisible creatures, but I do not know their spaces, they are Undetected. Because I do not perceive them in either case, I have no reason to protect against them, making me Off-Guard to both. If both entities attack me while flanking, and break their Invisibility, I am now Flanked, because now I perceive the attackers, and they physically threaten me based on their position. Invisibility trumps Flanking by default unless I have an ability/action that lets me see Invisible creatures.

What are you taking issue with? Should flanking function regardless of the undetected condition so that an observed creature doesn't miss out if their ally is undetected? Because flanking technically does not include awareness or sense as a requirement. Or do you want flanking to only function if neither you nor your ally are undetected?

Take as an example a huge, or even worse, a gargantuan, dragon, on the ground, the Barbarian charges in, and the GM goes "well yes... but! you can only hit the dragon's ankle, since you don't reach anything else."

What's wrong with hitting the dragon's ankle? The dragon doesn't have particular body parts with different effects when targeted.

Ok, here is the text on Pull from Monster Core:

Pull [one-action] Requirements The monster’s last action was a success with a Strike that lists Pull in its damage entry; Effect The monster attempts to Reposition the creature, moving it closer to the monster. This attempt neither applies nor counts toward the monster’s multiple attack penalty. If Pull lists a distance, change the distance the creature is pulled on a success to that distance.

So this action, explicitly named "Pull," is a MAP-less Reposition that must move the creature towards the user. This can pull creatures into danger because it is obviously pulling. What if I had a reach of 10 feet and tried to do the same with a regular Reposition? Would that count as pulling because the creature is moving toward me? Would it not count because Reposition is not exclusively for pushing/pulling?

And on another note, if there is a listed distance for a Push/Pull success, what about a critical success?

Especially given the examples in the book for flanking use a large size Ogre, I'm pretty sure height of the creature is irrelevant

Actually, the examples in the book use exactly one Large ogre. So it's being measured from a point 5 feet above ground to a point 2.5 feet above ground. The resulting line easily passes through a Medium creature's space, even in 3D.

SuperParkourio wrote:

I'm talking about a Tiny creature being flanked.

The rules don't specifically talk about what two medium opponents can do against a tiny creature in the same space with one of them. Again, I would advise working with your GM to come up with a set of easily applied rules, rather than trying to solve it using geometry. The RAW does specifically say that tiny creatures without reach weapons cannot usually flank: "This makes a Tiny creature unable to flank unless it's able to use a weapon with reach or has a melee unarmed attack with reach greater than 0 feet."

Quote:

If a Tiny creature's space is its entire square, then there's no problem for Medium creatures trying to flank it. If it's just a quadrant, flanking the Tiny creature just gets weird.

AIUI, a tiny creature with a reach weapon is considered to be occupying the entire space. There is nothing in the rules about quadrants or about subdividing combat grid spaces into smaller sections for tiny opponents. Don't take this the wrong way, but I think your idea of doing that makes the flanking determination much harder than it needs to be.

***

This discussion and the upcoming Howl of the Wild opening up the design space to tons of animals has me hoping that Paizo will revisit this subject. The current system is totally fine when tiny opponents and PCs are rare, but maybe not what mechanics-oriented players would find satisfying if the issue is coming up in every combat encounter. But...I'm not holding my breath.

My hypothetical never entailed the Tiny creature having a reach weapon or occupying anyone else's square. I don't know where you got that idea.

SuperParkourio wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Flanking exists more because you can't reliably defend from two opposing positions, which these two huge creatures occupy. Given that there is no "facing" in this game compared to games like Battletech, the argument of "you can't see both enemies reasonably" kind of falls apart.

The point about it not technically depending on sight is fair, but I thought the whole in-universe reason that all-around vision makes you immune to flanking is that you can see in all directions at once rather than having to turn your head constantly in battle.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Just as well, when a Large or larger creature attacks, they choose which of its squares it attacks from, and all of their squares count as a valid space to provide flanking from, since you can also attack any of their occupied spaces.

The flanking rules state that you use the center of your space and the center of the ally's space to determine flanking. Refer to the flanking diagram again. The demonstration makes it clear that only the center of the ogre's entire space matters.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Extending it further, one of the Huge creatures would have to be Invisible for there to be no flanking. And that is solely because the Medium creature does not know that the creature is in that square; said Medium creature would still be off-guard from the Invisible one, though. It would need to succeed at a Seek check to know it's location, and even then that would make them flanked by being aware of their physical location, making Seek a trap action in this case.

I don't think flanking is affected by the target's awareness of the flanking creatures. I guess that can be weird though. If a flanked PC is unaware of the invisible enemy's position as the visible enemy attacked, then I guess the GM would just say "You are off-guard for reasons unknown." Or

...

That bit about all-around vision is what I was trying to say. I was using it as a possible explanation for why two Huge creatures would have their size handicap their attempts to flank. Yes, even creatures without all-around vision can see in all directions.

The flanking rules are consistent with the cover rules in their treatment of the center of your space as the center of all the space you mechanically occupy.

I'm saying in the Invisible flanking example that the creature being flanked wouldn't be immune specifically to the flanking by being blissfully unaware that there is another creature adjacent to them. I don't know whether awareness is the in-universe explanation for flanking, though. It just says it's harder to defend yourself when flanked. Then again, the rule about all-around vision says such a creature is harder to distract, so maybe it is about awareness after all.

2. A tiny creature using a reach weapon occupies the square next to you. Again, the flanking rules reference squares, not critter dimensions. By RAW, it does not matter if the flanked being is a microbe or a 5x5x5 gelatinous cube semiviscous hexahedron, for both the flanking rules are the same; you draw lines between your square and their square to determine flanking. Do not bother thinking about creature bodily dimensions, by RAW, they don't matter. It's the squares.

I'm talking about a Tiny creature being flanked. Also, you are conflating the words "square" and "space". Your space is everything you occupy. If a Tiny creature's space is its entire square, then there's no problem for Medium creatures trying to flank it. If it's just a quadrant, flanking the Tiny creature just gets weird.

SuperParkourio wrote:

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜

[edited for brevity]

Why isn't the line touching any part of the Tiny creature's cube?

It touches. It runs along the edge. But the rules say "pass through", not "touches." I guess I can retract my first sentence as persnickety, particularly since I'd defend a more abstract, not-solely-geometrical concept of flanking. But on exact 2-D geometry, even eliminating the spacing between the cubes, a straight line drawn between the centers of the black never crosses over the perpendicular faces of the M-cube. They'd instead exactly trace over the parallel edge of it.

Come to think of it, doesn't it look exactly like this with a bird's eye view, too? The Medium creatures would have to stand specifically to the southwest and northeast to flank a Tiny creature whose space takes up the southwest portion of its square. Or perhaps the Tiny creature simply treats the entire 5 foot square as it's space?

SuperParkourio wrote:

Would Tiny PCs actually be unflankable?

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
The line between the centers of these two Medium creatures viewed from the side perhaps isn't going through opposite corners...

There you go. Applying the requirement to your concept, the M-dot is not flankable. In fact a line drawn between each center of four black dots doesn't pass through any part of the M-dot.

But, maybe there is a simpler way to say "don't do this". Per the flanking rules, "A line drawn between the center of your space and the center of your ally's space must pass through opposite sides or opposite corners of the foe's space." It says the creatures space. Not cube. Not the centerpoint of the creature itself. Just their space. The rules are telling you to do it 2-D; they are referencing the creatures' map space, not the center of mass of the creature or whatever. So do what the rules say to do, and use the squares on the map to calculate flanking.

Now yes, there are rules for 3-D flanking. Three opponents on a flat surface banging each other with clubs are not what they are intended for; those rules are for flying griffons and the like. Morover, the 3-D rules say "In these cases, it's usually best to have the GM make the call on who's flanking rather than trying to do meticulous measurements in three dimensions." I would note that what you are trying to do here is meticulous measurements in three dimensions - exactly what the rules recommend against.

I agree with your conclusion, but I don't understand what you're saying in your first paragraph. Why isn't the line touching any part of the Tiny creature's cube?

Errenor wrote:

Flanking of and by tiny creatures is almost completely undetermined anyway.

Right, but OP just proposed a way to determine it, and using that way, they'd be unflankable because the centerpoint of their opponents would be above their heads. So I think my warning is relevant: IF SuperParkourio is going to use 3-D 'height' to assess flanking, be aware that this could create many more 'unflankable' situations than just the odd situation of a medium PC being flanked by two ogres, and it could create a mechanistic way for the players in his home game to select an ancestry which makes their PCs unflankable by most opponents. Which is probably not RAI nor what most GMs would accept.

Would Tiny PCs actually be unflankable?

Flanking exists more because you can't reliably defend from two opposing positions, which these two huge creatures occupy. Given that there is no "facing" in this game compared to games like Battletech, the argument of "you can't see both enemies reasonably" kind of falls apart.

The point about it not technically depending on sight is fair, but I thought the whole in-universe reason that all-around vision makes you immune to flanking is that you can see in all directions at once rather than having to turn your head constantly in battle.

Just as well, when a Large or larger creature attacks, they choose which of its squares it attacks from, and all of their squares count as a valid space to provide flanking from, since you can also attack any of their occupied spaces.

The flanking rules state that you use the center of your space and the center of the ally's space to determine flanking. Refer to the flanking diagram again. The demonstration makes it clear that only the center of the ogre's entire space matters.

Extending it further, one of the Huge creatures would have to be Invisible for there to be no flanking. And that is solely because the Medium creature does not know that the creature is in that square; said Medium creature would still be off-guard from the Invisible one, though. It would need to succeed at a Seek check to know it's location, and even then that would make them flanked by being aware of their physical location, making Seek a trap action in this case.

I don't think flanking is affected by the target's awareness of the flanking creatures. I guess that can be weird though. If a flanked PC is unaware of the invisible enemy's position as the visible enemy attacked, then I guess the GM would just say "You are off-guard for reasons unknown." Or perhaps they could say "You feel an enemy breathing down your neck. You are actually being flanked!"

(Also, in-fiction, it doesn't make much sense.)

Well, the reason flanking is a threat is because you theoretically can't look at both enemies at once. So if they're so big that you actually can, I guess it could make sense that they wouldn't benefit from flanking.

-
-
-
-
Imagine two Huge enemies standing to either side of you, trying to flank you. At first, it looks like the line from the center of one enemy to the center of the other easily goes through your space.
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
But if you consider the 3D space and view the enemies from the side, it seems the line sails above your head completely.
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
And each enemy can't just choose a square they occupy to take the center of. Center of the creature's space means center of the entire space as demonstrated by this ogre.
Then again, as soon as 3D flanking is introduced, it's recommended that the GM just make a judgement call. And since Foundry doesn't seem to care, I might not care either.

There's also relative motion to consider. Imagine you are on top of a train. The train passes through an dragon's Frightful Presence. Did you enter the area? Suppose the train is off, but the dragon flies by. Did you enter the area? Is there any difference? My group also asked such questions in 5e, since one of the story arcs took place on a train. I cast cloud of daggers on a passenger seat. Will it stay still? Relative to whom? Will all the passengers behind us get cut up by the cloud of daggers? Will the cloud of daggers harmlessly pass them? Relative to whom? The earth? The caster? The cloud itself?

SuperParkourio wrote:

Finoan wrote:

Second, your proposed tactic is going to run into a different problem with forced movement.

Forced Movement wrote:

If forced movement would move you into a space you can't occupy—because objects are in the way or because you lack the movement type needed to reach it, for example—you stop moving in the last space you can occupy.

Unless the target has a fly speed, you can't push them into the air. Certainly not high enough that they will take fall damage afterwards.

I was rightly criticized in another thread for using a lack of Burrow Speed to justify why a Burrowing Creature that Swallowed Whole a PC couldn't auto-kill them by simply Burrowing away without leaving a tunnel. And come to think of it, it is a weirdly written rule. Forced movement doesn't rely on your Speed, yet it suddenly matters for determining where you can be moved?

Perhaps it's just meant for stuff like Leading Dance (I learned about that recently), where the target is walking with you, but it's technically forced movement.

It doesn't make sense to use a lack of a Fly Speed to say why a target can't move through the air. It's like saying a worm can't be carried away by a bird because worms can't fly.

The difference in all the examples (burrowing creature with somebody inside, bird carrying off a worm, horned dragon impaling somebody and flying off) is that one of the creatures involved has the movement speed, and is actively carrying the other creature. It falls under "In all cases, the GM makes the final call if there's doubt on where forced movement can move a creature."

Trying to use a reposition-type effect to punch somebody up into the air is very clearly different, and it's one of the things the rule is there to prevent. While the GM could decide to allow it, there isn't a good reason to.

Acid Grip isn't trying to punch people into the air. "An ephemeral, taloned hand grips the target, burning it with magical acid... the claw moves it up to 5/10/20 feet in a direction of your choice." Hm, that actually sounds a lot like a bird carrying off a worm.

You gain the Dying 2 condition, and if the Wounded 2 condition would increase it, you can prevent that by spending all your hero points.

Aw, man. That means the Burial rules are my only recourse if this happens.

The creature was occupying it, and you were inside them. The creature being dead doesn't really change that scenario; you wouldn't teleport back up to the surface or something because of a collision glitch.

The scenario I was talking about in the original thread was as follows:

What I'm saying now is that #2 can't happen because I can't occupy the underground spaces. The monster must leave a tunnel, otherwise I can't be brought along.

If it doesn’t say “push” or “pull” it’s not doing those and you’re protected from the forced movement.

...
I’m aware of very few pull effects.

Monster Core actually just added one. There is a creature ability called Pull, but I seem to recall that it's just a MAP-less Reposition that must move the target in a straight line closer to you. So would a normal Reposition that does that (or doesn't) also suffice? Reposition doesn't have the word "pull." But I don't think it's weird for someone to cling to a ledge like Sam Fisher and Reposition someone to their doom.

Second, your proposed tactic is going to run into a different problem with forced movement.

Forced Movement wrote:

If forced movement would move you into a space you can't occupy—because objects are in the way or because you lack the movement type needed to reach it, for example—you stop moving in the last space you can occupy.

Unless the target has a fly speed, you can't push them into the air. Certainly not high enough that they will take fall damage afterwards.

I was rightly criticized in another thread for using a lack of Burrow Speed to justify why a Burrowing Creature that Swallowed Whole a PC couldn't auto-kill them by simply Burrowing away without leaving a tunnel. And come to think of it, it is a weirdly written rule. Forced movement doesn't rely on your Speed, yet it suddenly matters for determining where you can be moved?

Perhaps it's just meant for stuff like Leading Dance (I learned about that recently), where the target is walking with you, but it's technically forced movement.

It doesn't make sense to use a lack of a Fly Speed to say why a target can't move through the air. It's like saying a worm can't be carried away by a bird because worms can't fly.

But I also can see someone saying that this acid hand is not that strong, that's not RAI, and using general formal rules.

I can understand that. The spell does acid damage, persistent acid damage, -10 status to speed as long as the persistent damage lasts, and forced movement. Extra bludgeoning and prone may be a bit much, but I'm not familiar with enough 2nd rank spells to know what's too powerful.

I picked up Acid Grip (the remaster replacement for Acid Arrow) under the assumption that I could move the target straight up to cause a damaging fall and knock the target prone. But I just learned that forced movement isn't so easy.

Usually the creature or effect forcing the movement chooses the path the victim takes. If you're pushed or pulled, you can usually be moved through hazardous terrain, pushed off a ledge, or the like. Abilities that reposition you in some other way can't put you in such dangerous places unless they specify otherwise. In all cases, the GM makes the final call if there's doubt on where forced movement can move a creature.

For Acid Grip to lift people off the ground to set up a damaging fall, it should generally be pushing or pulling the victim to the location. Is the forced movement caused by Acid Grip pushing/pulling? Does pushing need to be away from me? Does pulling need to be toward me? Should I be looking for the words "push" or "pull"? How do I spot forced movement that generally does or does not qualify?

Ok, fine. A lack of Burrow Speed prohibiting being taken underground would just be silly. But you still can't occupy the underground, right? Because there are objects in the way (the ground).

A while ago, I posted this thread asking how to escape from an underground creature that Swallowed me Whole then Burrowed away without leaving a tunnel and then died.

Fortunately, this is impossible.

If forced movement would move you into a space you can't occupy—because objects are in the way or because you lack the movement type needed to reach it, for example—you stop moving in the last space you can occupy.

The monster can travel through the earth with its Burrow Speed, but unless you also have a Burrow Speed (and you probably don't), the monster can't bring you along without leaving a tunnel.

So if a dragon Flies right up to me and stays in melee, I don't have to worry about Frightful Presence because I never entered the aura?

I understand that incapacitation is not the reason the feat isn't viable in combat. I'm just baffled that the feat has incapacitation at all for an effect that has so little consequence in combat.

This section of GM Core says:

As with flight, dispelling can be deadly if someone relies on magic to breathe underwater. It's generally best to avoid having enemies who can breathe underwater dispelling the water-breathing magic aiding PCs. Though PCs might be able to use air bubble and quickly cast water breathing again, having this happen repeatedly can be frustrating, and being forced to prepare an extremely high-level water breathing spell to avoid it isn't much fun either.

The trigger for Air Bubble is "A creature within range enters an environment where it can't breathe." I wasn't aware that the environment becoming unbreatheable counted. Is this what it means to enter something? If a dragon flies toward me, does that mean I entered its Frightful Presence? If a cinder rat approaches me, did I enter its Fetid Fumes?

I'm really just frustrated that fascinated is so fragile. There are combat abilities that inflict fascinated and a powerful secondary effect that may or may not depend in fascinated, and if it were just those cases, I could understand fascinated being so easy to remove. But there are also abilities like Fascinated Performance that treat fascinated alone like some sort of holy hand grenade that needs to be nerfed or else it will break your game. And there are abilities that use fascinated but have peculiar assumptions about how the condition is normally removed (Frost Worm's Worm Trill comes to mind). There are even Adventure Paths that give the GM instructions that only make sense if the fascinated condition works completely differently from what the condition says. So when something says it inflicts fascinated, I have no idea what the developers meant for it to do.

I recognize that fascinate is not an amazing condition to impose, but it is a very powerful tactical play. You can shutdown many actions, most spells included. If it's going to be one action and MAP-less, it should have other limitations. Given that the intent is not to be used in combat, it seems like both of you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

There is an enormous difference between shutting down actions and painting a target sign on your back that may or may not be ignored. And even without incapacitation, it has these limitations:

It would help to put things in perspective a bit. Fascinating Performance is a level 1 skill feat that you can gain through your background. The cost of entry is remarkably low. It's main function is out of combat tricks, not combat. It's distracting the guard while the rogue lifts the keys off of him, stopping the bar fight from breaking out while your group escapes, or buying time for your archer to get into position while you keep the goblins busy.

All of these examples sound like things you could achieve with the Aid reaction. I guess it made more sense back when the feat was first published, before the default Aid DC was reduced to 15. And now that I think of it, nothing is stopping someone from using Aid and Fascinating Performance to make an ally's Stealth or Thievery extra easy.

The ability to essentially remove someone in combat is quite strong - especially at level 1 and typically with a skill that people either forget or take all the way to legendary depending on their character. With high enough bonuses, it becomes more viable for combat, but that certainly is not its main role in the game.

Fascinated doesn't remove someone from combat at all. It inflicts some status penalties and prevents concentrate actions from targeting anyone else. These are good de-buffs, but they aren't actually depriving the target of any actions, and they don't last a meaningful amount of time in combat. I've been looking at other fascination effects, and the only ones that seem to have the incapacitation trait are the ones with secondary effects that actually deprive you of actions.

If your boss gets petrified, they're done for. If your boss gets stunned for 1 round, they're probably done for. If your boss gets blinded for 1 minute, they're probably done for. If your boss gets fascinated for one round or less, they are NOT done for.

I don't see a need to hide a regular failure from the players. The feat says you don't know which is which, not that you don't know that one of the info bits is false. That suggests that the player is expected to be told that they failed and must figure out which info is false.

SuperParkourio wrote:

Now you still need a critical success to fascinate the enemy. The difference is it's now possible against bosses. Woo hoo.

*squints skeptically*

For certain meanings of 'possible', I suppose.

This feat only works on a critical success even against regular mooks. Against bosses, your critical success is downgraded by incapacitation to a success, which isn't enough.

Now you still need a critical success to fascinate the enemy. The difference is it's now possible against bosses. Woo hoo.

Ok, but why does it have the incapacitation trait in 2e? As soon as anyone uses a hostile action on the target or any of their allies, it's gone. And even if that weren't true, the effect only lasts for one round. And it's just a bunch of skill and Perception penalties and a slight targeting restriction.

What did it do in first edition?

Why does Fascinating Performance give Perform the incapacitation trait in combat? That trait is for effects that can take a character out of a fight entirely. But fascinated is barely an inconvenience.

The Snicker-Snack reaction granted by the vorpal rune has the incapacitation trait, so creatures of a higher level use a degree of success one step better. Does the target's level only need to be higher than the vorpal rune's level (17), or does it need to beat the level of the weapon to which the rune is attached (19 for a +3 major striking vorpal weapon)?

Can a summon spell like summon animal summon the animal in mid-air and have it fall on someone?

I see. Would Counterspell be too powerful if it did work against cantrips? Having played with it enabled, I'm leaning toward "probably."

I agree that the RAW does not support Counterspelling cantrips. I'm asking if the developers have clarified their intent for Counterspell.