Evil Eye vs. Golem


Round 2: Summoner and Witch

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I have a player who has rolled a Witch (to replace his dead Summoner). The party fought an Ice Golem on Friday. For 5 rounds, the Witch declared the use of Evil Eye. Every time I told him that the creature "passed" his save, but the player continued to use the ability believing that he was gaining the on-save effect.

As a Supernatural ability that doesn't specifically say it is Mind-Affecting, the creature should have been affected. I ruled that it was not affected because the ability says:

APG Playtest wrote:

Evil Eye (Su): The witch can cause doubt to creep

into the mind of a foe within 30 feet that she can see.
The target takes a –2 penalty on one of the following
(witch’s choice): AC, ability checks, attack rolls, saving
throws, or skill checks.

This created a slightly uncomfortable moment at the table where the player felt I'd unfairly judged the ability. I feel that the spirit of this description clearly intends for it to be a mind-affecting ability. Please mark it as such if it is. If not, please reword the bolded text to eliminate confusion.

If there is a general rule that I am missing regarding will saves and creatures immune to mind-affecting, please forgive me and post a link to the PRD because I can't find anything on the subject.


Loopy wrote:

I have a player who has rolled a Witch (to replace his dead Summoner). The party fought an Ice Golem on Friday. For 5 rounds, the Witch declared the use of Evil Eye. Every time I told him that the creature "passed" his save, but the player continued to use the ability believing that he was gaining the on-save effect.

As a Supernatural ability that doesn't specifically say it is Mind-Affecting, the creature should have been affected. I ruled that it was not affected because the ability says:

APG Playtest wrote:

Evil Eye (Su): The witch can cause doubt to creep

into the mind of a foe within 30 feet that she can see.
The target takes a –2 penalty on one of the following
(witch’s choice): AC, ability checks, attack rolls, saving
throws, or skill checks.

This created a slightly uncomfortable moment at the table where the player felt I'd unfairly judged the ability. I feel that the spirit of this description clearly intends for it to be a mind-affecting ability. Please mark it as such if it is. If not, please reword the bolded text to eliminate confusion.

If there is a general rule that I am missing regarding will saves and creatures immune to mind-affecting, please forgive me and post a link to the PRD because I can't find anything on the subject.

Bear in mind that the playtest information is incomplete. The fluff, especially right now, should be regarded as just that, fluff with no bearing on what the ability does. It says it's not mind-affecting, so they want to test it as not mind-affecting.

Brings up a lot situations like this, but they'll probably decide what the limitations actually are for the final version.


Evil Eye (historicaly) is something related to luck somehow, I don't think it should be a mind-affecting thing.


I would rule it as mind affecting. The ability to read the rules is important...but I'm not going to run my game like a CPU. From looking at it I think the spirit of the ability is in line with a mind affecting ability.


Fraust wrote:
I would rule it as mind affecting. The ability to read the rules is important...but I'm not going to run my game like a CPU. From looking at it I think the spirit of the ability is in line with a mind affecting ability.

So undead should be immune to it too? Even intelligent ones? Why? This isn't mind affecting because it specifically isn't stated as such.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Fraust wrote:
I would rule it as mind affecting. The ability to read the rules is important...but I'm not going to run my game like a CPU. From looking at it I think the spirit of the ability is in line with a mind affecting ability.
So undead should be immune to it too? Even intelligent ones? Why? This isn't mind affecting because it specifically isn't stated as such.

I have always disagreed with the idea of intelligent undead and constructs being immune to mind-affecting. Anyways, I'd appreciate a comment on this.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Since this is a playtest, I'd say play as written (so it would affect the golem), and then determine if it's overpowered that way.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Since this is a playtest, I'd say play as written (so it would affect the golem), and then determine if it's overpowered that way.

As written, it puts doubt in the mind of the creature. As this creature has no mind, I'd say it wouldn't affect the golem.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Loopy wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Since this is a playtest, I'd say play as written (so it would affect the golem), and then determine if it's overpowered that way.

As written, it puts doubt in the mind of the creature. As this creature has no mind, I'd say it wouldn't affect the golem.

That is the flavor description, not the rules description. By making it 'mind effecting' you are drastically weakening the ability. There is a whole host of things that make such abilities much weaker then their non mind affecting counterparts. If you think its somehow too powerful then fine, but in terms of playtesting that is not the right approach. Personally I dont think the witch needs nerfing.

Flavor is just that, flavor. The evil eye mythologically/historically, has been as much about fate, and luck as it has about the subject's mind. You are reading the description too literally. In the case of a mindless creature, it would be the witch directing the ill eye of fate uppon the creature. A creature with a mind would then begin to doubt themselves, the golem just has bad luck.

I dont blame your player for feeling you were unfair. You were. You essentially arbitrarily negated an ability counter to the rules as written without telling the player. At the very least you should have TOLD the player you were treating it as a mind affecting ability. It was wrong of you to let him waste multiple rounds of his actions under then impression he was using the normal rules, when you were not. Even if you make so called 'spirit of the rules' rulings on the fly at the table, it is extremely poor practice to do so without telling the players.


How do I determine where the rules begin and the flavor ends? I have no knowledge of the historical significance of evil eye.

Furthermore, the group hadn't determined the identity of the type of monster they were facing. They had every reason to believe mind-affecting abilities would work on the monster.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Loopy wrote:

How do I determine where the rules begin and the flavor ends? I have no knowledge of the historical significance of evil eye.

Furthermore, the group hadn't determined the identity of the type of monster they were facing. They had every reason to believe mind-affecting abilities would work on the monster.

No one in the group knows a golem when they see one?

As for where to see where rules begin and end, i think its a pretty easy judgement call. Especially in this case where in every previous instance, a mind affecting ability is directly listed as such.


Loopy wrote:
How do I determine where the rules begin and the flavor ends? I have no knowledge of the historical significance of evil eye.

Don't worry about it too much; just point out the ambiguity in your playtest report, make a ruling that your group is happy with, and move on.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Loopy wrote:

How do I determine where the rules begin and the flavor ends? I have no knowledge of the historical significance of evil eye.

Furthermore, the group hadn't determined the identity of the type of monster they were facing. They had every reason to believe mind-affecting abilities would work on the monster.

No one in the group knows a golem when they see one?

As for where to see where rules begin and end, i think its a pretty easy judgement call. Especially in this case where in every previous instance, a mind affecting ability is directly listed as such.

It's a new class with entirely new text. Any ruling could be the right one.

I am beginning to be irritated by your comments especially considering the ambiguity of the rule. This post is meant to expose ambiguity in a rule, not a conversation regarding my DMing style.


hogarth wrote:
Loopy wrote:
How do I determine where the rules begin and the flavor ends? I have no knowledge of the historical significance of evil eye.
Don't worry about it too much; just point out the ambiguity in your playtest report, make a ruling that your group is happy with, and move on.

Thanks. I think this is all I'm going to post for now in regards to the witch's performance. The last adventure was a gauntlet, so I don't think it was a fair test of the Witch as a whole. However the class did perform well especially considering the Witch's pet goat's ability to avoid damage and the Witch's ability to act as a healer. Evil Eye and the Bard's Demoralize checks were an amazing combination. It certainly has promise.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Loopy wrote:


It's a new class with entirely new text. Any ruling could be the right one.

I am beginning to be irritated by your comments especially considering the ambiguity of the rule. This post is meant to expose ambiguity in a rule, not a conversation regarding my DMing style.

I did not mean offense, I am simply saying I think you are reading too far into the text. All things that are mind effecting have always been directly tagged as such with 'this is a mind affecting effect', or a tag of [mind-effecting]. Using the word mind in the description does not mean mind effecting. Perhaps it should be reworded, but I do not believe that the rule as currently written justifies your ruling.

In your original post you mentioned that it created an 'uncomfortable' situation. I believe that what caused some of that was heavy handedness on your part. I think at the very least you should have informed the player that you believe the power to be a mind affecting ability. Certainly given the number of things immune to such things, it would impact his choice of the ability.


I didn't have the class memorized for the game (the whole momorizing thing and I don't really get along). He described the ability to me when he used it and I figured it was a mind-affecting spell-like ability. Later, when we looked it up during the fight (after the visual effect of the Wizard's Magic missile pealing away from the creature instead of impacting and dealing damage left little else for explanation) I found it was a maybe-but-not-really-mind-affecting supernatural ability. I made a spot decision at the time to let it ride as we'd been playing it and said I'd post something here to get a clear ruling until the next time we'd play.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Loopy wrote:


As written, it puts doubt in the mind of the creature. As this creature has no mind, I'd say it wouldn't affect the golem.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Here:

Loopy wrote:


As a Supernatural ability that doesn't specifically say it is Mind-Affecting, the creature should have been affected.

That's what I meant by "play it as written".

Not saying you did the wrong thing by doing otherwise, you're absolutely right in saying that the description of the effect sounds like it should be mind-affecting. I just think that, for the purposes of the playtest, we shouldn't read too much into the descriptions of the abilities (as I imagine they aren't entirely set in stone at the moment), and focus on the mechanics.

Dark Archive

I'd probably have let it slide against the golem, especially considering there isn't a whole lot else most witches can do against them.


Akalsaris wrote:
I'd probably have let it slide against the golem, especially considering there isn't a whole lot else most witches can do against them.

They can heal the Paladin who can smack the s%$+ out of the Golem. I'm not interested in hearing how mean I am, I'm interested in an actual ruling I can use in my next game.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Loopy wrote:
I'm not interested in hearing how mean I am, I'm interested in an actual ruling I can use in my next game.

The ruling i would use is that it isnt a mind effecting ability. Such abilities have always been specifically stated as such, and the confusion likely stems from an over zealous urge to describe the ability in an interesting way.


Kolokotroni wrote:
The ruling i would use is that it isnt a mind effecting ability. Such abilities have always been specifically stated as such, and the confusion likely stems from an over zealous urge to describe the ability in an interesting way.

Isn't that just stating a tautology, i.e. "every ability that's described as a mind-affecting ability is described as a mind-affecing ability"?

Frankly, I think there are many, many cases of abilities that missing appropriate descriptors.

For instance, a yellow musk creeper's Pollen Spray attack can "entrance" a creature with a DC 14 Will save. Should that work on a golem?

A nalfeshnee can daze opponents with "visions of madness". Should that work on a golem?

A gibbering mouther's Gibber ability doesn't have the sonic descriptor. So does it work in a Silence spell?

A boggard's croak can frighten an enemy and it has no descriptors (no sonic, no mind-affecting, no fear), whereas a ghost's moan is a sonic, mind-affecting fear effect. So are there supposed to be creatures which are affected by a boggard's croak but not a ghost's moan? If so, what are they?


I guess if it quacks like a duck and it waddles like a duck and it swims like a duck, it's not a duck unless someone staples a note to it that says "Duck".


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
The ruling i would use is that it isnt a mind effecting ability. Such abilities have always been specifically stated as such, and the confusion likely stems from an over zealous urge to describe the ability in an interesting way.

Isn't that just stating a tautology, i.e. "every ability that's described as a mind-affecting ability is described as a mind-affecing ability"?

Frankly, I think there are many, many cases of abilities that missing appropriate descriptors.

For instance, a yellow musk creeper's Pollen Spray attack can "entrance" a creature with a DC 14 Will save. Should that work on a golem?

A nalfeshnee can daze opponents with "visions of madness". Should that work on a golem?

A gibbering mouther's Gibber ability doesn't have the sonic descriptor. So does it work in a Silence spell?

A boggard's croak can frighten an enemy and it has no descriptors (no sonic, no mind-affecting, no fear), whereas a ghost's moan is a sonic, mind-affecting fear effect. So are there supposed to be creatures which are affected by a boggard's croak but not a ghost's moan? If so, what are they?

I believe in separating the flavor descriptive side of an effect from the mechanics to a certain degree. Particularly with the case of things like mind affecting abilities that have so many specific modifiers. It has a big impact on balance. Giving abilities the mind effecting descriptor dramatically reduces its usefulness. And that has to be considered in it's balance, both for and against the user. For me it's GoR. Gameplay over reality. It is why I completely agree with the reduced restrictions on sneak attack for instance. Unless there is a good mechanical reason for something not to work, they should work. Come up with the flavor reason on your own.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Unless there is a good mechanical reason for something not to work, they should work. Come up with the flavor reason on your own.

So what flavor would you use for pollen entrancing a stone golem, for instance?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Unless there is a good mechanical reason for something not to work, they should work. Come up with the flavor reason on your own.
So what flavor would you use for pollen entrancing a stone golem, for instance?

What is the source of the pollen? Is it mundain? Magical? Supernatural?


hogarth wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Unless there is a good mechanical reason for something not to work, they should work. Come up with the flavor reason on your own.
So what flavor would you use for pollen entrancing a stone golem, for instance?

I think he's saying that the fact that it's described as pollen in the first place is a "flavor" thing. Kolo, if I'm hearing him correctly, is describing stripping these abilities down to the bare numbers or effects... range, target, duration, damage, etc. Whether its attacking the mind or made of pollen shouldn't come into play.

I disagree.


Kolokotroni wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Unless there is a good mechanical reason for something not to work, they should work. Come up with the flavor reason on your own.
So what flavor would you use for pollen entrancing a stone golem, for instance?
What is the source of the pollen? Is it mundain? Magical? Supernatural?

It's just pollen, I guess. Judge for yourself:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/yellowMuskCreeper.html


I would rule that the Yellow Musk Pollen is tapping into the creature's central nervous system and transmitting commands to the creature's brain ordering it to move towards the Yellow Musk Creeper that shot it. I wouldn't rule this usable against most constructs.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Unless there is a good mechanical reason for something not to work, they should work. Come up with the flavor reason on your own.
So what flavor would you use for pollen entrancing a stone golem, for instance?
What is the source of the pollen? Is it mundain? Magical? Supernatural?

It's just pollen, I guess. Judge for yourself:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/yellowMuskCreeper.html

it would be very interesting to see an iron golem become a yellow muskcreeper zombie. But kidding aside...

ok, honest answer is as follows.

I think the intent of the ability of the muskcreeper is for it to be used against the players and not other monsters. (the bestiary after all is a dm resource not a player resource). If such a scenario arose in my game where somehow a player led a gollem past some muskcreepers to disable it, I would probably allow it, saying that the muskcreepers pollen was a supernatural ability, and messed with the golem's 'programming' changing its last order from whatever it was, to stand helpless next to the muskcreeper. Either way you are right, this certainly is not adequately accounted for in the rules, and I would probably (if i intended on using it again) come up with a solution away from the table on how to deal with it. Possibly changing the pollen to a spell like ability instead of extraordinary.


I know we're veering off-topic here, but I really like the idea that it's EX because it's saying that the ability is naturally-occurring. You can build an entire dungeon based on the Yellow Musk Creeper.


Funny enough, I did the exact opposite in my last campaign as you suggested. I ruled that an effect will affect a character if it makes sense and I adjusted CRs to fit. For example, intelligent undead weren't immune or even resistant to mind-affecting and Robots had heavy resistance to it. Undead and Constructs weren't necessarily immune to sneak attack either (this was before Pathfinder). So, in essence, we completely allowed the fluff to determine these things instead of the other way around. :) It was interesting.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

For what it's worth, my players and I as a whole group in our playtest, defined it the way you did Loopy, as a mind affecting effect because of the same text. A case could be made that it's strange that no other Witch power is mind affecting, though.

One thing I'm a little frustrated about with the hexes is that I'm not really sure what they are supposed to be, other than Hexes and supernatural abilities. Because they lack a descriptor, they're not really anything and can't be countered by anything (short of an anti-magic field,) or undone by anything. This bugs me because traditionally, people did all sorts of crazy things to ward off the evil eye and hexes. Further, from a purely game mechanic situation, it puts the Witch in the same place as a psion in a game where there's no psionics-magic transparancy game... There's no effective way to counter her hex abilities (because they're undefined as conditions or effects) while there's plenty of spells to block what other casters might do.

I've already mentioned to my players that I'm strongly planning on considering that Hexes are a subset of Curses. The dual benifits of this are 1) It gives a counter for the Hexes... ie, that creatures immune to curses ignore them (it would feel weird and dissasociative to say that a creature who cannot be cursed can be given the evil eye,) and spells that remove curses can be used on it, without it being such an overwhelmingly common counter that it will be repealed willy-nilly; 2) It fits in well with the flavor of the class and the traditional ideas upon which they are based, which is important to me.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drakli wrote:

For what it's worth, my players and I as a whole group in our playtest, defined it the way you did Loopy, as a mind affecting effect because of the same text. A case could be made that it's strange that no other Witch power is mind affecting, though.

One thing I'm a little frustrated about with the hexes is that I'm not really sure what they are supposed to be, other than Hexes and supernatural abilities. Because they lack a descriptor, they're not really anything and can't be countered by anything (short of an anti-magic field,) or undone by anything. This bugs me because traditionally, people did all sorts of crazy things to ward off the evil eye and hexes. Further, from a purely game mechanic situation, it puts the Witch in the same place as a psion in a game where there's no psionics-magic transparancy game... There's no effective way to counter her hex abilities (because they're undefined as conditions or effects) while there's plenty of spells to block what other casters might do.

I've already mentioned to my players that I'm strongly planning on considering that Hexes are a subset of Curses. The dual benifits of this are 1) It gives a counter for the Hexes... ie, that creatures immune to curses ignore them (it would feel weird and dissasociative to say that a creature who cannot be cursed can be given the evil eye,) and spells that remove curses can be used on it, without it being such an overwhelmingly common counter that it will be repealed willy-nilly; 2) It fits in well with the flavor of the class and the traditional ideas upon which they are based, which is important to me.

Just make sure your players know this. Obviously it impacts the descision to play a witch, but it also impacts how they would deal with a witch enemy (assuming they are aware of the npc being a witch).

Personally I am hoping some serious work gets done on the witch's hexes. And perhaps having hexes and boons as someone in another thread had mentioned. Boons to counter hexes. Perhaps add some protective spells in the APG. IE an abjuration spell that thwarts hexes to some degree. But ofcourse there is not gaurantee for any of that.


Drakli wrote:
For what it's worth, my players and I as a whole group in our playtest, defined it the way you did Loopy, as a mind affecting effect because of the same text. A case could be made that it's strange that no other Witch power is mind affecting, though.

The Charm hex is mind-affecting. And arguably the Slumber hex is mind-affecting, since it's based on the spell Sleep.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Here's another question along a similar vein:

If a witch for some reason didn't have eyes, would you still let her use Evil Eye?

Why, or why not?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Here's another question along a similar vein:

If a witch for some reason didn't have eyes, would you still let her use Evil Eye?

Why, or why not?

I would given the evil eye never had anything to do with the 'users' eyes themselves. It was more a matter of 'bad things watching you' then the witch itself.

Scarab Sages

Loopy wrote:

I have a player who has rolled a Witch (to replace his dead Summoner). The party fought an Ice Golem on Friday. For 5 rounds, the Witch declared the use of Evil Eye. Every time I told him that the creature "passed" his save, but the player continued to use the ability believing that he was gaining the on-save effect.

As a Supernatural ability that doesn't specifically say it is Mind-Affecting, the creature should have been affected. I ruled that it was not affected because the ability says:

APG Playtest wrote:

Evil Eye (Su): The witch can cause doubt to creep

into the mind of a foe within 30 feet that she can see.
The target takes a –2 penalty on one of the following
(witch’s choice): AC, ability checks, attack rolls, saving
throws, or skill checks.

This created a slightly uncomfortable moment at the table where the player felt I'd unfairly judged the ability. I feel that the spirit of this description clearly intends for it to be a mind-affecting ability. Please mark it as such if it is. If not, please reword the bolded text to eliminate confusion.

If there is a general rule that I am missing regarding will saves and creatures immune to mind-affecting, please forgive me and post a link to the PRD because I can't find anything on the subject.

I just want to be sure I'm reading this correctly: You made a rules call that you knew would be controversial and not only did you not bother to tell your player but you mislead them into thinking you hadn't made that rules call?

As to the rule itself, the type of power it is will tell you (as a GM and a player) what creatures it affects. If your issue is where does the "flavor" text end and the rules begin, it's in the power descriptor. If it were a mind-affecting spell it would say so. It might have been intended to be one and the descriptor was left out. This is certainly something to note while playtesting. But I wouldn't read "causing doubt to creep into the mind" as making it mind-affecting since the game has a standard convention for telling when a power is mind-affecting and when it isn't. This power doesn't fall within the categories of things they are immune to (which is mind-affecting effects). Golems aren't immune to such things because they are described as having no minds (though this is the motivation behind the rule) they are immune because they have an immunity to mind-affecting effects. (You are, of course, free to add things to the immunity in your own game, just acknowledge that this is outside the rules of the game.)


aptinuviel wrote:
I just want to be sure I'm reading this correctly: You made a rules call that you knew would be controversial and not only did you not bother to tell your player but you mislead them into thinking you hadn't made that rules call?

No. What gave you that idea?

Let's be very clear here. I don't give 2 s+$+s what the rule is meant to be. I just want to know what it's supposed to be so we can play it right the next time we play. As it stands, from my point of view, it is NOT clear and anything with intelligence 0 will NOT be affected by this ability until I get a clarification. If that ruling ends up being the wrong one, then great. All I care about is getting the answer.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
Drakli wrote:
For what it's worth, my players and I as a whole group in our playtest, defined it the way you did Loopy, as a mind affecting effect because of the same text. A case could be made that it's strange that no other Witch power is mind affecting, though.
The Charm hex is mind-affecting. And arguably the Slumber hex is mind-affecting, since it's based on the spell Sleep.

Ah, my bad. Don't have the witch in front of me.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:


Just make sure your players know this. Obviously it impacts the descision to play a witch, but it also impacts how they would deal with a witch enemy (assuming they are aware of the npc being a witch).

Personally I am hoping some serious work gets done on the witch's hexes. And perhaps having hexes and boons as someone in another thread had mentioned. Boons to counter hexes....

Well, I'm not going to point and say 'Hey, that creature's immune to curses,' unless they've made a relevent knowledge check, but I have posted it as part of the feedback in my playtest (which they all can access.) I'm almost sure I've brought it up at the table, but I'll reference it with them again Wednesday just in case.

To be fair, though, sometimes things crop up in the middle of play that you don't expect. The Hex ability is a good example because you don't run into many creatures immune to curses. Then one session, bam, there you go, before you notice it, there is one. You have to make a ruling on the spot, and it might not always be one everyone agrees with (sometimes just because it's against them.)

Table concensus is good, but sometimes the GM is the referee and has to say "this is how it works."

That said, I think 'not being a jerk' about your decisions is one of the key skills of a GM.

As for Boons to counter Hexes, that'd be good... but unless they were available to lots of classes, it would still leave them in the same place as Psions in a non-transparancy setting. Only a Witch could counter a Witch. Even spells to counter hexes might be problematic because of the rarity of Witches for which to take the spell.

Scarab Sages

Loopy wrote:
aptinuviel wrote:
I just want to be sure I'm reading this correctly: You made a rules call that you knew would be controversial and not only did you not bother to tell your player but you mislead them into thinking you hadn't made that rules call?

No. What gave you that idea?

Let's be very clear here. I don't give 2 s##~s what the rule is meant to be. I just want to know what it's supposed to be so we can play it right the next time we play. As it stands, from my point of view, it is NOT clear and anything with intelligence 0 will NOT be affected by this ability until I get a clarification. If that ruling ends up being the wrong one, then great. All I care about is getting the answer.

Alright, if we're going to be clear, it doesn't actually matter to me how you interpret the rule itself. I assume they'll clear it up in the final printing (or earlier on these forums) and it's a good thing that you pointed out that they might have missed something. I pointed out above why I think your ruling is "less good" than another ruling, and I could go into more detail about consistency with other rules, but it really doesn't matter.

What I find odd is that you didn't feel the need to mention to your player that you ruled the power was mind-affecting when he made the character. Perhaps you hadn't noticed the wording yet, and that's excusable. You can't be expected to know every rule in the book off the top of your head. But then the player used the power in your game and you *still* didn't feel the need to inform him that it was mind-affecting. And even when you knew your player had a different interpretation of the rule you went so far as to mislead him into thinking that you interpreted it the same way.

I don't mind characters getting screwed because they didn't know any better. That's what knowledge rolls and some roleplaying is for. But I do object to misleading players. That strikes me as unethical, to say the least.

The Exchange

I believe what he means, to sum it up, is that you should have said to your player "It doesn't have any effect", rather than "he passes his save", making him waste 5 rounds to no effect.

As far as the Evil Eye hex, I have to agree with the majority here, in that the fluff shouldn't really dictate what the rules actually do. That's a matter of game balance. It behaves like a mini-Bestow Curse and should work like one, in my humble opinion.


I guess I wasn't clear. Until we were halfway through the battle, I had no reason to believe the ability was not mind-affecting. Didn't have the ability committed to memory.

When we play, we play by character knowledge. This goes both ways. The players do it and I do it. We are very careful not to meta-game. Everybody rolled piss poor on their knowledge checks at the beginning of the battle and there are no re-rolls allowed on knowledge checks.

Since there is no queue, visual, mental, or otherwise that the mental attack isn't working, hell, me letting on even the creature passing the save is more than I really should give. The magic missile having no affect, however, is a clear clue. Also, after fighting the creature for a while, I'd say the PCs would have realized soon that the evil eye was also having no effect.

You don't have to worry about my players. They are smart enough to figure things out and I give them plenty of clues in these situations. I do appreciate everyone's concern, though.

Now if I could only get that clarification. That is, as I said, all I really want out of this thread. I don't need validation of my decision to go on with my life. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'm right.

Scarab Sages

Hunterofthedusk wrote:

I believe what he means, to sum it up, is that you should have said to your player "It doesn't have any effect", rather than "he passes his save", making him waste 5 rounds to no effect.

As far as the Evil Eye hex, I have to agree with the majority here, in that the fluff shouldn't really dictate what the rules actually do. That's a matter of game balance. It behaves like a mini-Bestow Curse and should work like one, in my humble opinion.

Close, though what I actually meant was that when it was clear his player had a different understanding of the rules he was obligated to tell him that his interpretation was different. But instead he decided to mislead that player and use the misunderstanding against him. It's fine for the character to not realize the spell won't affect the monster. It's not fine to mislead the player into thinking that it was affecting the monster when it wasn't.

Loopy wrote:


When we play, we play by character knowledge. This goes both ways. The players do it and I do it. We are very careful not to meta-game. Everybody rolled piss poor on their knowledge checks at the beginning of the battle and there are no re-rolls allowed on knowledge checks.

If you're worried about metagaming, lying to your players is not the way to solve it. They should be aware of all the rules of the game (though obviously they can't be, it's your obligation as the GM to correct them when they are mistaken or just have a different interpretation than you.) And you're *certainly* under an obligation not to use their lack of knowledge against them. Even in a competitive game this would be questionable, but this isn't a competition.


aptinuviel wrote:
Hunterofthedusk wrote:

I believe what he means, to sum it up, is that you should have said to your player "It doesn't have any effect", rather than "he passes his save", making him waste 5 rounds to no effect.

As far as the Evil Eye hex, I have to agree with the majority here, in that the fluff shouldn't really dictate what the rules actually do. That's a matter of game balance. It behaves like a mini-Bestow Curse and should work like one, in my humble opinion.

Close, though what I actually meant was that when it was clear his player had a different understanding of the rules he was obligated to tell him that his interpretation was different. But instead he decided to mislead that player and use the misunderstanding against him. It's fine for the character to not realize the spell won't affect the monster. It's not fine to mislead the player into thinking that it was affecting the monster when it wasn't.

I found out the same time they did. The rule was pointed out after the cat was out of the bag. Read what I said happened. Again, my players are big boys and girls. They can handle themselves, they expect this to happen from time to time.

Loopy wrote:


When we play, we play by character knowledge. This goes both ways. The players do it and I do it. We are very careful not to meta-game. Everybody rolled piss poor on their knowledge checks at the beginning of the battle and there are no re-rolls allowed on knowledge checks.
If you're worried about metagaming, lying to your players is not the way to solve it.

Uh. Sometimes it is. And they expect it. The expect not to know what's happening behind the screen at all times. What should I have said?

"OKAY GUYS! YOU ARE FACING AN ICE GOLEM NOW! BE SURE TO LOOK UP THE MONSTER SO YOU KNOW WHAT TO PRETEND NOT TO REMEMBER ABOUT ICE GOLEMS!!!" Don't be ridiculous.

Loopy wrote:
They should be aware of all the rules of the game (though obviously they can't be, it's your obligation as the GM to correct them when they are mistaken or just have a different interpretation than you.)

I am not sure I can state what happened more clearly for you. I can only direct you to re-read my posts explaining how it went down.

Quote:
And you're *certainly* under an obligation not to use their lack of knowledge against them. Even in a competitive game this would be questionable, but this isn't a competition.

I think we have conflicting definitions of the term "Dungeon Master". How can you have discovery and revelation without first having chicanery and legerdemain? Sounds boring to me.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Two points Loopy.

A. There is a distinct difference between Lying to a player, and Withholding Information. It's possible to be completely honest to your players without telling them one iota of information about a monster.

B. This quote right here is why people think you lied to your player.

Loopy wrote:


I have a player who has rolled a Witch (to replace his dead Summoner). The party fought an Ice Golem on Friday. For 5 rounds, the Witch declared the use of Evil Eye. Every time I told him that the creature "passed" his save, but the player continued to use the ability believing that he was gaining the on-save effect.

From the sound of that, you led the player to think he was gaining the "on-save" effect, when in actuality he wasn't, thus causing him to waste five rounds of combat doing absolutely nothing.

Is that the case? Or did you apply the on-save effect for those five rounds, and then decide afterwards that it should have no effect?

The Exchange

Arguing about his DMing mistakes is pointless now, for multiple reasons: One, we can only judge him based off of what he has said, which may or may not be the best description of the situation; two, his original question was a legitimate one; and three, like he said, his players are big boys and girls and don't need us yelling at him for something that they might not be angry about. Also, any of the points that can be made already have been made. Can we all just drop it and be civil, and discuss his original question?

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 4

From the history of this ability I think it stands to reason it's more along the lines of a curse then a mind-affecting ability. If it's meant to be mind-affecting then clearer wording is needed.

Regarding the off-topic I give Loopy's players kudos for sticking to the no-metagaming. I'm curious if the Witch player ever asked in character if they could notice any effect from their ability. Perhaps certain tell tale signs like an uncertainty to it's movements, poor timing with swings, something that would give a hint that perhaps the Evil Eye was not working like usual.

I imagine you guys have had great fun with roleplaying when it actually worked, and so there's probably something that they noticed amiss.


Scipion del Ferro wrote:

From the history of this ability I think it stands to reason it's more along the lines of a curse then a mind-affecting ability. If it's meant to be mind-affecting then clearer wording is needed.

Regarding the off-topic I give Loopy's players kudos for sticking to the no-metagaming. I'm curious if the Witch player ever asked in character if they could notice any effect from their ability. Perhaps certain tell tale signs like an uncertainty to it's movements, poor timing with swings, something that would give a hint that perhaps the Evil Eye was not working like usual.

I imagine you guys have had great fun with roleplaying when it actually worked, and so there's probably something that they noticed amiss.

Yeah, I should have told him to roll sense motive after a couple of rounds.

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Round 2: Summoner and Witch / Evil Eye vs. Golem All Messageboards