| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Added to the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So - it says under the description of many Witch Hexes that the target cannot be targeted by that Hex for 24 hours.
The question is, does that mean the target cannot be affected by that Hex used by that witch or any witch for the next 24 hours?
Secondary question - if using a hex on a person makes that person an invalid target for that hex (cast by another witch) for 24 hours, is this status known by other witches, or do they have to use that hex on that person to find this fact out?
Alternately, if a witch casts a hex on a person, then later that day, that person uses Alter Self or just disguises themselves, will the witch know that using that hex on that person cannot work?
24hrs applies to that witch specifically
since a witch knows when her ward hex goes down would stand to reason she would know if a hex she's thrown failed due to the 24hr rule
| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
For first:
The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round. Anytime the creature makes an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check, it must roll twice and take the worse result. A Will save negates this hex. At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of this hex is extended by 1 round. This hex affects all rolls the target must make while it lasts. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day.
Clearly the creature can't be affected by that hex again unless a Witch comes along with the Accursed Hex feat. So, if I Misfortune you and another Witch comes along within 24 hours they can not use the same hex on you.
Second:
No. You would probably have to perform a detect magic spell to see if you can sense the magical energy specific to that Hex is present or lingering on that creature. Otherwise, you'd go to use it and simply nothing would happen. I did a quick perusal of the magic section and I couldn't find anything that states if a caster explicitly knows whether or not their spells were effective and couldn't find an explicit "yes."
And again, per RAW, I can't think of a way a Witch would explicitly know if a disguised person is the same person they tried to use a hex on earlier. I would think another dose of detect magic would be needed or arcane sight with a spellcraft check. Now, if you used the scar hex to leave an identifying mark, those work through spells like Alter Self since it's a magical curse rather than something changing that specific form and you could use that to identify them. Also, if you read the FAQ on scar that means it counts as having a piece of flesh for scrying and they can be the target of your hexes out to 1 mile. Thus, you would have to know if it's a particular creature or not.
HTH
depends how you interpret "this hex"
because effectively a 1st level witch using a 1/24hr hex could fail it and then a level 20 witch comes along uses the same hex and the creature is immune doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
to me this hex reads to be specifically from this witch.
but hey maybe that's just me
"This hex" (a specific effect/ability of a class) = "this witch" (the entire class)??
Consider me confused...
The only thing that would change from the level 1 to the level 20 is the DC. If you GM that way, cool. But per RAW, and hey this is a rules forum question, I gotta answer the way I did.
The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round. Anytime the creature makes an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check, it must roll twice and take the worse result. A Will save negates this hex. At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of this hex is extended by 1 round. This hex affects all rolls the target must make while it lasts. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day.
We have a witch named Dolandra and she has a "Dolandra" Misfortune hex ..
Dolandra can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round. Anytime the creature makes an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check, it must roll twice and take the worse result. A Will save negates this hex. At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of Dolandras hex is extended by 1 round. This hex affects all rolls the target must make while it lasts. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day.
"This" in this case is absolutely clear defined ..
As I said, being a rules forum post, can only really be answered per RAW. How it's interpreted is up to the individual GM. Concerning the post about Witches casting hexes on themselves, you can only voluntarily fail a save. You can't voluntarily succeed. So, it'd be up to the roll of the die if you fail at casting a hex on yourself.
Per RAW, that's correct. If you GM it differently, that's your choice.
FAQ for confirmation.
You have to actually click the FAQ button for it to appear on Paizo's queue for FAQ consideration.
Ah, didn't see it.
For first:
The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round. Anytime the creature makes an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check, it must roll twice and take the worse result. A Will save negates this hex. At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of this hex is extended by 1 round. This hex affects all rolls the target must make while it lasts. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day.Clearly the creature can't be affected by that hex again unless a Witch comes along with the Accursed Hex feat. So, if I Misfortune you and another Witch comes along within 24 hours they can not use the same hex on you.
Second:
No. You would probably have to perform a detect magic spell to see if you can sense the magical energy specific to that Hex is present or lingering on that creature. Otherwise, you'd go to use it and simply nothing would happen. I did a quick perusal of the magic section and I couldn't find anything that states if a caster explicitly knows whether or not their spells were effective and couldn't find an explicit "yes."
And again, per RAW, I can't think of a way a Witch would explicitly know if a disguised person is the same person they tried to use a hex on earlier. I would think another dose of detect magic would be needed or arcane sight with a spellcraft check. Now, if you used the scar hex to leave an identifying mark, those work through spells like Alter Self since it's a magical curse rather than something changing that specific form and you could use that to identify them. Also, if you read the FAQ on scar that means it counts as having a piece of flesh for scrying and they can be the target of your hexes out to 1 mile. Thus, you would have to know if it's a particular creature or not.
HTH
I point out the wording that states "Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day."
Does this mean that the witch that first used such a hex (misfortune in this case) knows that such a creature cannot be the recipient of an attempt to use the misfortune hex (even if said creature is polymorphed or disguised) or does the witch have to blow a standard action to find out that the hex does not work? Can a witch tell the difference between a hex fizzling because the target was already hexed or because they made their save?
Given that there is some evidence that hexes (ward for example) give the witch some feedback on their status, it would not be completely unthinkable that hexes 'flagged' people for one day, that their status had been altered wrt that specific hex.
If a hex does in fact 'mark' its target, advertising their changed status to that witch or other witches, then if a witch who had reason to believe that they were the only witch on an island and they used misfortune on an enemy who later escaped, then later, they encounter a person who didn't look like the enemy, but was 'marked' as an ineligible target for the misfortune hex, then the witch would have a legitimate cause to believe that this new person and the old enemy were one and the same.
If it is the judgement by Paizo that hexes have an exclusive lockout functionality, then it is going to become obvious that witches work poorly in groups, which sort of runs afoul of the fluff text about covens and such. If it is judged that hexes only make the target immune to that witches further use of hexes, then witches will be strong in groups, reinforcing the fluff text.
We'll see. Hopefully soon. I'm playing two right now.
You're right some hexes specifically state feedback the casters knows. However, others do not so we can only assume the caster does not automatically "know," in the general sense, unless stated otherwise. All magical effects have a lingering aura (read: detect magic). So, prior to using a hex you would have to use detect magic to see if the aura is still lingering. If it's not, there's no way to tell other than trying and failing. And, depending on the conditions of the hex, all you know is it didn't work. You don't know exactly why.
I'm playing a Witch currently myself so it's not like I'm trying to make it out to be more powerful than it is or gimping it either. I'm all for rules doing every clever thing I can with them. Guess you could technically call me a rules lawyer but I'm okay with that because I even lawyer against myself and often admit that I'm wrong when I'm wrong.
But, with what we're given in the books, there is no automatic "knowing" in the sense you're talking about. Hexes are a magical effect and is governed by the same rules as everything else. Therefore, you have to work within the magic system to gain these abilities and that primarily involve detect magic unless you have a racial or other permanent ability that makes such detection automatic for you.
Per RAW, that's correct. If you GM it differently, that's your choice.
I see how your interpreting it that way, and I can even agree you have a valid argument but most people would agree that is not how it was intended or RAI. Under the argument you are presenting I could say all this information is in the Advanced Players Handbook. Therefore its looking at it from the perspective of the player, and doesn't apply to other people. Once again this is a stretch and I believe your over dissecting the wording. English is a terrible language anyway.
This goes into that category where you dont have to sleep in pathfinder cause there are no stated penalties. The designers make assumptions in the wording thats not always clear. That is why we have to boards.
This goes into that category where you dont have to sleep in pathfinder cause there are no stated penalties. The designers make assumptions in the wording thats not always clear. That is why we have to boards.
There are stated penalties, actually. For casters, you don't get your spells per day. For monks, you don't get ki. Barbarians can't renew their number of rages, etc... That's pretty drastic. You can only hustle once without sleep. You can only walk for 8 hours without rest otherwise you become fatigued and start down that track, which requires you to get 8 hours of rest to no longer be fatigued. You don't get natural healing without sleep. There are tons of little things that can add up but no single "all character must rest 8 hour or x happens" but there are tons of penalties.
I'm pretty sure the context would be "this hex from this witch"
I'm pretty sure the context would be "this hex from this witch"
Press the FAQ link up top and help get it sorted out. :)
There are stated penalties, actually. For casters, you don't get your spells per day. For monks, you don't get ki. Barbarians can't renew their number of rages, etc... That's pretty drastic. You can only hustle once without sleep. You can only walk for 8 hours without rest otherwise you become fatigued and start down that track, which requires you to get 8 hours of rest to no longer be fatigued. You don't get natural healing without sleep. There are tons of little things that can add up but no single "all character must rest 8 hour or x happens" but there are tons of penalties.
You like picking apart things people say. I was a reference to threads that did talk about how some characters could take watch all night and never sleep without sever penalties. Yes, I know casters need it for spells and whatnot. But this was just an example of things that go unstated. No DM I have ever played with would allow things like not sleeping. They would have imposed their own. I believe this goes in that category. But by RAW, you would be correct. But none of the games I play in would a DM run it that way
having never dealt with this before, how long do you guys think it usually takes for a FAQ issue to be resolved?
Bump for great justice! (AKA to keep it in the recent list and give others the chance to click the FAQ button)
I'm sorry, I think this is pretty clear.
You can't be a target of this hex again. That doesn't mean "this (type of) hex" or "this (category of) hex(es)" or "(a hex named like) this hex." It means literally this hex.
See, each Hex is its own unique Supernatural power. Witches don't have some overarching Hex ability and then a number of options with which to apply it--each Hex is it's own ability.
You don't use a Hex called Misfortune, you specifically use your Misfortune Hex, and this specific Hex (i.e. your Misfortune Hex) is not usable again on the same target for 24 hours.
Another witch's Misfortune Hex is not this hex, it is that other witch's Hex that happens to have the same name.
As to whether or not you know whether someone was subjected to your Hex before, well, you "don't." I say it in quotes, however, because you can probably pretty easily put together that that's the reason you can't target them.
When you use an ability, choosing targets is part of it. You can choose targets right at the beginning, or wait until the power is "finished" being used. If someone cannot be a target of the power, then you can't choose them. You don't get a red flag above their head that says, "Warning! You already hexed this creature earlier today!" but you can probably guess that's the reason.
Whether or not you can abort or abandon your action upon finding this out, though, is really up to your GM. If he lets you, then obviously, you can take any action you want instead or do nothing or whatever.
If not, though, the power doesn't just fizzle. Nothing I could find suggests that. You just need to declare a valid target. If there's no valid target around other than you and your allies, well, that sucks. Be more careful about willy-nilly Hexing people that might be in disguise. ;)
10 gp that this will get "No reply required" because the intent is so obvious.
So, if a spell had the same wording as "a creature can not be the target of this spell for 24 hours" some other caster could come along and use the same spell? I highly doubt it. No where in the magic, spells, additional rules, game mastering, appendices, class descriptions, etc have I ever read that a characters spells or other abilities are "their spells" such as to make "destruction" into "[character names's] destruction" but what I do see are spells that explicitly interact with a spell in it's entirety regardless of source. For example, disspell works as a counter to all spells. The book makes no distinction as the point of origin for the power. If there needs to be an explicit point of origin then this needs explained, hence the 8 people that have marked this as an FAQ candidate. If this personalized sort of ability system exists I would expect to see something similar to "when a wizard casts this spell" or "when an oracle casts this spell," or, for hexes, "when your witch uses this hex, the target creature cannot be targetted again for 24 hours," kind of wording. But, there isn't. It's very generalized.
Aiming a Spell
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
No where in there states the target must be valid. If so, your character would "know" things about creatures such as immunities to creatures without needing to make skill checks, which would be unbalancing. Hexes that have the "can't be targetted for 24 hour" text is essentially giving the target a 24 hour immunity to that hex. Thus, if you automatically "know" you can't target the creature then this is free information about targets that normally requires skill checks in order to gain, which is unfair. If you play that way, that's awesome. But please don't speak as if that's how the rules state it is especially in the rules forum. Rather, the general execution of abilities is that your character does something and I get to respond whether that be in the form of negation, resistance, defense or nothing.
I never thought about this before, I just took for granted that 'This hex' meant 'witch y's hex'. I don't think it is intended to read as 'this hex = misfortune". I think the intent is 'this hex = specific witch misforutune."
If people gave this level of scrutiny to a math text book we would still be inventing zero.
If people gave this level of scrutiny to a math text book we would still be inventing zero.
Whereas I see it as the exact opposite. The reason other forms of math exist is to explain problems the current system can't or doesn't handle.
EDIT: I know it's not your point but just because something is taken for granted in a certain way doesn't mean it doesn't warrant discussion or scrutiny. This is why we know the earth is round. This is why we know earth is not the center of the universe. People have challenged those assumptions. Similarly, I have come to apparently challenge other peoples assumptions on the rules, when all I thought I was doing was conveying the text of the particular subject at hand, concerning hexes and I hope the publisher comes along to clarify what they mean. I see nothing wrong with this.
So, if a spell had the same wording as "a creature can not be the target of this spell for 24 hours" some other caster could come along and use the same spell?
Of course not. An individual spell is not a distinct ability. Spellcasting is the ability, not the individual spell. Referring to "this spell," is not the same as referring to "this hex" because hexes are unique abilities and spells are not.
"when your witch uses this hex, the target creature cannot be targetted again for 24 hours," kind of wording. But, there isn't. It's very generalized.
I will agree that the wording probably should have been, "Whether or not the save is successful, you cannot target the same creature with this hex twice within a 24 hour period."
However, that would only serve to make it clearer--it is not a necessary change as the wording already means this.
No where in there states the target must be valid. If so, your character would "know" things about creatures such as immunities to creatures without needing to make skill checks, which would be unbalancing. Hexes that have the "can't be targetted for 24 hour" text is essentially giving the target a 24 hour immunity to that hex.
No, that's not the case. Being immune to an effect does not prevent you from being targetted by that effect, it prevents you from being affected by it.
Misfortune Hex does not grant them immunity to your Misfortune Hex, it prevents them from being targetted by it. That is a huge difference, ruleswise, as being immune would do as you suggest--i.e. waste your action. You could target them with it and they would just be uneffected. Being unable to be targetting meaing the ability can't even be used on them at all.
Thus, if you automatically "know" you can't target the creature then this is free information about targets that normally requires skill checks in order to gain, which is unfair.
It only helps if you encountered someone, hexed them with one of these specific hexes, and then they got away and came back later in the day in disguise--and then it only helps if you remember specifically who you Hexed earlier and they are the only surviving person you Hexed. I'm sorry, it doesn't seem like a common enough situation to be an outrage that a witch can tell someone is disguised in ridiculously specific circumstances.
Of course not. An individual spell is not a distinct ability. Spellcasting is the ability, not the individual spell. Referring to "this spell," is not the same as referring to "this hex" because hexes are unique abilities and spells are not.
If you read the blocks on how other casters gain spells and how the witch gains hexes they are almost identical except for the words "hex" and "spell." Even if they are distinct abilities, they are distinct to the class, not the individual caster so I don't see how making that distinction really matters. "This hex" (be it Misfortune, Slumber, etc) is the same hex from Witch to Witch. As I stated earlier I have yet to discover a paragraph that personalizes ones abilities to themselves instead of their class in terms of magical abilities.
I see your point on targeting versus immunities.
If you read the blocks on how other casters gain spells and how the witch gains hexes they are almost identical except for the words "hex" and "spell." Even if they are distinct abilities, they are distinct to the class, not the individual caster so I don't see how making that distinction really matters. "This hex" (be it Misfortune, Slumber, etc) is the same hex from Witch to Witch. As I stated earlier I have yet to discover a paragraph that personalizes ones abilities to themselves instead of their class in terms of magical abilities.
I just looked up Wizards spells and Witches spells and compared them to Hexes and saw no similar language. What are you referring to?
For example, you gain hexes. You don't gain spells, you learn how to cast them. If [i]the ability to Hex itself[i] was (Su) and the ability allowed you to "cast" any Hex you knew, then it could be comparable, but as is, each Hex you take is a unique ability of yours.
Anyway, look at it like this:
Lets say you know how to cast Lightning Bolt. When you cast it, it is a unique event. The slot is used up and vacated. You will never cast that same, distinct Lightning Bolt ever again, even if you put the same spell in the same slot. It's a one-time use thing.
Meanwhile, when you use a Hex, it is not expended. It doesn't go away. It is still there ready to be used over and over. And each time you use it, it's the same Hex. It's not a new version of the last. The next time you use Misfortune Hex, it'll be the exact same Misfortune Hex you used a month ago. It's one distinct ability.
You cannot compare spells to Hexes in this manner.
I just looked up Wizards spells and Witches spells and compared them to Hexes and saw no similar language. What are you referring to?
For example, you gain hexes. You don't gain spells, you learn how to cast them. If the ability to Hex itself was (Su) and the ability allowed you to "cast" any Hex you knew, then it could be comparable, but as is, each Hex you take is a unique ability of yours.
Anyway, look at it like this:
Lets say you know how to cast Lightning Bolt. When you cast it, it is a unique event. The slot is used up and vacated. You will never cast that same, distinct Lightning Bolt ever again, even if you put the same spell in the same slot. It's a one-time use thing.
Meanwhile, when you use a Hex, it is not expended. It doesn't go away. It is still there ready to be used over and over. And each time you use it, it's the same Hex. It's not a new version of the last. The next time you use Misfortune Hex, it'll be the exact same Misfortune Hex you used a month ago. It's one distinct ability.
You cannot compare spells to Hexes in this manner.
I was speaking in reference to the general language surrounding the acquisition of the two. If you remove the modifiers about DCs, high ability scores, etc it basically comes down to the following:
A witch casts arcane spells drawn from the witch spell list.
and
Witches learn a number of magic tricks, called hexes, that grant them powers or weaken foes.
Those are essentially the same sentence in that it states "you get the ability to do blah." The fact that there is a difference in the core mechanic of hexes and spells in that spells are expendable daily resources doesn't automatically mean that each Witch is walking around with their own versions of hexes that happen to work the exact same way. If hexes were individualized such that my hex can't be used on the same creature twice but you can come along and cast your "same but different somehow" hex on the same creature and yours can take effect I would expect to see language stating that or at least making the effect variable on something like level. For instance, if Slumber said that the target creature goes to sleep for a number of round/hours/days/etc per Witch level and when I go to use mine and the creature makes it save then you come along and happen to be a different level than mine or not, because the effect is determined by the individual caster in question, then I can see the individuation argument holding water or at least being plausible. But, given they work exactly the same way under the exact same circumstances from Witch to Witch regardless of level except for DC, which applies to all hexes and not individually and is not individually determined, I don't think that's the case.
By the way, the ability to cast spells is not marked as anything. It's not Su, Sp, or even Ex. The class you're working with just happens to have that as a class ability. Given this, I don't really see how the argument of treating "same spells" as being the same from caster to caster is fine but treating hexes from Witch to Witch are not the same works. Hexes, yet again similar to spells, themselves, while individually marked Su (which, some are not Su, btw), are similarly nothing special. It's just an ability of the Witch class.
EDIT: added italicized sections to clarify meaning.
[I was speaking in reference to the general language surrounding the acquisition of the two. If you remove the modifiers about DCs, high ability scores, etc it basically comes down to the following:
A witch casts arcane spells drawn from the witch spell list.and
Witches learn a number of magic tricks, called hexes, that grant them powers or weaken foes.Those are essentially the same sentence in that it states "you get the ability to do blah."
But it's not the same, that was my point.
The first one allows you to cast spells drawn from the witch spell. That is a single ability--the ability to cast spells.
The second one is not an ability. It is a broad description for a number of different abilities that you can acquire.
The difference is that "the ability to cast spells" is comparable to "Misfortune Hex." That's Apples to Apples. Any other sort of comparison is Apples to Oranges at best.
It is not the same level of comparison to compare "the ability to cast spells" and "the ability to gain access to Hexes" nor is it the same level of comparison to compare "Lightning Bolt" to "Misfortune Hex."
The fact that there is a difference in the core mechanic of hexes and spells in that spells are expendable daily resources doesn't automatically mean that each Witch is walking around with their own versions of hexes that happen to work the exact same way.
But they are walking around with their own versions of hexes. It's not that they "happen" to work the same way, it's the same type of hex, so of course it works the same. But my Misfortune Hex and your Misfortune Hex are two different abilities entirely, just like my ability to cast spells and your ability to cast spells is different, even though we might cast the exact same spells.
For instance, if Slumber said that the target creature goes to sleep for a number of round/hours/days/etc per Witch level and when I go to use mine and the creature makes it save then you come along and happen to be a different level than mine or not, because the effect is determined by the individual caster in question, then I can see the individuation argument holding water or at least being plausible.
I don't understand why that makes any sense at all, sorry. You do not become immune to the effects of the Misfortune Hex, you simply cannot be targetted by "this Hex."
Lets say I have a rock. That rock has the clause, "Whether the creature is hit by this rock or not, the target may not have this rock thrown at them again for 24 hours."
Would you think that the target could not have any rocks thrown at them for 24 hours?
Or to be more specific, lets say I have a black rock. Black rocks have the clause I listed above: "Whether the creature is hit by this rock or not, the target may not have this rock thrown at them again for 24 hours."
Would you think that they could not have any black rocks thrown at them for 24 hours?
I don't understand how you see this differently.
Given this, I don't really see how the argument of treating "same spells" as being the same from caster to caster is fine but treating hexes from Witch to Witch are not the same works.
There are, to my knowledge, no spells that say anything about "this spell" being unable to target someone again. There are spells that grant immunity to the effects of the spell, which works differently, as you know. And I am pretty sure there are spells that are worded like:
Spell X
Effect: ...the target of this spell cannot be affected by another Spell X for Y amount of time.
And that's also different, because it says, "another Spell X" not "this Spell X." It is impossible to use the same Spell X twice.
If Misfortune Hex said, "...a creature may not be the target of another Misfortune Hex..." I'd agree with you. But it doesn't, it specifies "this Hex." That's the one you used, specifically.
Hexes, yet again similar to spells, themselves, while individually marked Su (which, some are not Su, btw), are similarly nothing special. It's just an ability of the Witch class.
Yes, I was being sloppy in calling it all Su because I can see several Ex ones now that I double check. But it's irrelevant. The point is that each Hex is a specific ability of the Witch, whereas each spell is not, the ability to cast spells in general is the ability.
But they are walking around with their own versions of hexes. It's not that they "happen" to work the same way, it's the same type of hex, so of course it works the same. But my Misfortune Hex and your Misfortune Hex are two different abilities entirely, just like my ability to cast spells and your ability to cast spells is different, even though we might cast the exact same spells.
Yet you agree that if we both had a spell that said that "this spell can not be cast on the same creature within 24 hours" that only one of us could cast that spell on a creature but the other could not. How does that make sense? Also, please show me how our hexes are different. They have the same name, same effect and are otherwise similar in every way the rules allow abilities to be different. You can't have it both ways.
If you can't show me how they are actually different then they are the same by definition.
Yet you agree that if we both had a spell that said that "this spell can not be cast on the same creature within 24 hours" that only one of us could cast that spell on a creature but the other could not.
I think that phrase would be meaningless in a spell. And I know I'm going to sound like a legalistic douche here, but the exact wording is really important. There would need to be mention of targeting or being affected by the spell in there, for example, because "casting on" is not a valid phrase that the rules recognize. I know you were just trying to get an example out quickly, but it makes a difference.
I think the phrasing that you want would be something like, "A creature cannot be the target of this spell again for 1 day."
Now, I don't believe you'd ever see that in a spell, though. I believe you'd see something more like, "A creature cannot be the target of another Spell X for 24 hours" or "A creature cannot be the target of multiple castings of Spell X within a 24 hour period" or something like that.
That makes more sense, because "this spell" would imply the one that was just cast, and there's no way to cast that particular spell again.
On the other hand, there is a way to use that same Hex again.
I believe, that, just like with spells, in order for a use of the Misfortune Hex to make them un-targetable by any Misfortune Hex for 24 hours, the power would need to read:
"...a creature cannot be the target of Misfortune Hex again for 1 day."
Also, please show me how our hexes are different. They have the same name, same effect and are otherwise similar in every way the rules allow abilities to be different. You can't have it both ways.
If you can't show me how they are actually different then they are the same by definition.
I have a $1 bill. You have a $1 bill. They are worth the same amount of money. They work the same exact way. We can do the exact same things with our dollars. They are not the same dollar.
Better example, since I can actually extend it to the whole situation:
You and I each have a discount card to Starbucks (pretend you like a drink from Starbucks for this analogy). It gives 15% off the purchase of any drink. Each of our cards does the exact same thing and can be used in the exact same manner. The card has a clause that states, "When a discounted purchase is made at a given Starbucks location, this card cannot be used at that location again for 1 day."
If I make a discounted purchase from a particular Starbucks, and you go into the same Starbucks a few minutes later, will you be able to use your discount card?
Lets say I have a rock. That rock has the clause, "Whether the creature is hit by this rock or not, the target may not have this rock thrown at them again for 24 hours."
Would you think that the target could not have any rocks thrown at them for 24 hours?
Or to be more specific, lets say I have a black rock. Black rocks have the clause I listed above: "Whether the creature is hit by this rock or not, the target may not have this rock thrown at them again for 24 hours."
Would you think that they could not have any black rocks thrown at them for 24 hours?
This seems arbitrary to me. It sounds like one of those arguments bringing in real-life situations where the game is not modeled on real life. I've tried to avoid doing that which is why I asked about the hypothetical spell that acted in the same manner in question. Rocks aren't magical, unfortunately, and it's not clear what Paizo intends here.
I think the phrasing that you want would be something like, "A creature cannot be the target of this spell again for 1 day."
That's different from "a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day." how?
I think the phrasing that you want would be something like, "A creature cannot be the target of this spell again for 1 day."That's different from "a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day." how?
No, it's not different. I was trying to give you the wording required to make your argument. And I answered in the very next few lines that I don't think a spell like that could or would exist because it would be meaningless.
Hey this has come up before and it was answered....
FYI
Um, a link would be nice. LOL
What Buri is assuming is no different than what the OP is assuming, your both drawing conclusions that are unsupported, the only difference I see, is your levels of humility.
This seems arbitrary to me. It sounds like one of those arguments bringing in real-life situations where the game is not modeled on real life. I've tried to avoid doing that which is why I asked about the hypothetical spell that acted in the same manner in question. Rocks aren't magical, unfortunately, and it's not clear what Paizo intends here.Lets say I have a rock. That rock has the clause, "Whether the creature is hit by this rock or not, the target may not have this rock thrown at them again for 24 hours."
Would you think that the target could not have any rocks thrown at them for 24 hours?
Or to be more specific, lets say I have a black rock. Black rocks have the clause I listed above: "Whether the creature is hit by this rock or not, the target may not have this rock thrown at them again for 24 hours."
Would you think that they could not have any black rocks thrown at them for 24 hours?
It is arbitrary, but it's not a real-life situation. It's also a hypothetical situation using concrete objects--that's the key. And even though Pathfinder isn't meant to model real life, it is written in real English, and that's what I'm focusing on in reading the rules.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand why you think what you do, but I'm trying to show you why I think that belief is in error.
The rock analogy, and later the dollar and discount card analogy are really important here, because much of what I'm talking about is based on the idea that my Misfortune Hex is a thing.
My Misfortune Hex is like a rock. It is a distinct thing that I have. I can use it and re-use it. Everytime I use it, I am using the same thing. It's like hitting something with a rock. I use the same rock over and over.
Your Misfortune Hex is also like a rock, but it is not the same rock. Your Misfortune Hex is also a distinct thing that you have. When you use Misfortune Hex, you use the same thing that you used when you last used Misfortune Hex.
Our Misfortune Hexes are both things, but they are not the same things even if they are used to the same ends, because I have one and you have another.
Spells are like this, too, except they are expended. Lightning Bolt is like a little scrap of paper and you burn it to use it. When I get Lightning Bolt, I don't get a single scrap of paper that I have to burn, I get the ability to generate scraps of paper that I can burn. This is different than the rock I get for Misfortune Hex because I can use that rock over and over, but I can only use each scrap of paper once.
If someone is untargetable by this rock for 24 hours, I am in trouble because I can't use that rock on them again. I still have the rock, it's still a thing, but I can't use it on them. Someone else could use their rock, however, because their rock is not this rock. Their rock is that rock.
If someone is untargetable by this little scrap of paper for 24 hours, then it doesn't matter. That scrap was burned up when I used it, anyway. It would mean nothing for a spell to have that clause.
In order for someone to become untargetable by a spell, it could not be "this spell" it would have to be "this sort of spell" or "spells with this name" or something like that, because "this spell" is an ephemeral thing that ceases to exist after it is cast.
This Hex is not ephemeral, though, it is an ability. You retain that particular Hex. This hex is meaningful because it means the specific Hex you used. You could not have used someone else's Hex, so it can't apply to them, only to "this" one.
Does that make more sense?
I get what you're saying I just see the "this hex" fundamentally different. I mean, it's not too likely that you're going to run into several witches in a day so as to create an issue in the typical game. That said, there is at least one country that is described where they are plentiful. I still think it deserves either a pop in by a dev to tell me I'm stupid or an FAQ entry stating specifically what it means. I'd be accepting and appreciative of either, tbh. LOL
However, this is one case where the RAI debate falls flat on its face. The English language is more than capable of indicating precise meanings. They could very well mean "this witch, this hex" but simply stating "this hex" isn't clear enough yet it was clearly printed that way at the behest of Paizo. They could be okay either way and simply want GMs to have the ability to rule either way without feeling constrained. I can accept that too. But, as stated in the book, it's not clear. THAT really is my argument. Us going back and forth is more or less just us sharing our interpretations but at the end of the day the words in the book are the same and the question remains: what exactly does that mean?
Hey this has come up before and it was answered....
FYI
too bad it didn't make the FAQ.
I saw where it was mentioned back in '10 in the APG errata thread but I didn't see a response so I posted a blatant question about it there. Other than that my search fu has failed.
|
Hey this has come up before and it was answered....
FYI
@KenderKin
You stated this came up before and was answered. Could you provide us with said answer and who answered it?
Or a link.
If you were asking about the Evil Eye hex in particular... it was mentioned in a thread from July 2011 titled "WITCH CAN CAST EVIL EYE HEX MANY TIMES ON SINGLE TARGET?". In that thread, there is a link to an FAQ from Sean K Reynolds.
From the FAQ:
Witch: Can I use the evil eye hex more than once on a target?
Yes. As long as you apply a different penalty with each use of the hex (AC, ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws, or skill checks), you can have multiple penalties on the same target. Applying the same hex penalty to a target just resets the duration to the most recent use of the hex.
Example: On round 1, you hex the target's AC. On round 2, you hex the target's attack rolls, so the target now has two evil eye hexes on it. On round 3, you hex the target's saving throws, so it now has three evil eye hexes on it. On round 4, you hex its AC again, resetting the duration of the AC-hex (which does not add an additional –2 penalty to its AC). The same thing would happen if two witches were using evil eye on the same target--as long as each evil eye hex applied a penalty to a different thing, they'd all apply.
This doesn't violate the general rule for stacking penalties--each evil eye effect is basically a different source, even though they stem from the evil eye hex (the evil eye hex is much like 5 separate weak hexes under a common umbrella). In the same way that multiple castings of bestow curse on the same target should stack as long as they do different things (penalize Strength, penalize Dex, penalize attack rolls, take no action, and so on), multiple uses of the evil eye hex stack as long as they're targeting different game statistics.
—Sean K Reynolds, 07/26/11
That doesn't really apply here. Using Evil Eye works off the "multiple buffs/debuffs from the same source" dynamic as stated by Sean. The hexes we're talking about specifically state that creatures cannot be targeted by "this hex" (that's the gray area) for a day. Evil Eye doesn't contain that constraint. If you use it again you just basically resets the duration of the debuff and there's no limit on how many times per day you can use Evil Eye on the same creature.