|
3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
PRD wrote: Misfortune (Ex): At 1st level, as an immediate action, you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed. The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it's worse than the original roll. Once a creature has suffered from your misfortune, it cannot be the target of this revelation again for 1 day.
Fortune (Ex): At 5th level, as an immediate action, you can reroll any one d20 roll that you have just made before the results of the roll are revealed. You must take the result of the reroll, even if it's worse than the original roll. You can use this ability once per day at 5th level, and one additional time per day for every six oracle levels beyond 5th.
Can an Oracle use Misfortune on herself? The existence of Fortune seems to say no. Am I missing something?
RAW -- I would go with yes. You are a creature. You are within 30feet.
However, I would always rule No if I was GMing.
If I was pushed by a player I would suggest that creatures don't typically roll d20's. It is a player or a GM who did the rolling -- on behalf of a creature. Creatures mostly take actions and stuff. But, if you see one rolling a d20, have at it!
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Yes, you can use it on yourself. It's very powerful. You'll always be wishing for more immediate actions though.
Castarr4 wrote: Yes, you can use it on yourself. It's very powerful. You'll always be wishing for more immediate actions though. Can you provide some rules basis for that interpretation?
"you can force a creature" does not read like it works on oneself.
I would say No, simply because Fortune is what you use on yourself, and you can't get that until 5th level. Why even have that as a separate (and higher level) ability if you could just use Misfortune on yourself? (Yes, I realize Fortune gains additional uses as you level up, but it still seems redundant if Misfortune already works on you.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: Castarr4 wrote: Yes, you can use it on yourself. It's very powerful. You'll always be wishing for more immediate actions though. Can you provide some rules basis for that interpretation?
"you can force a creature" does not read like it works on oneself.
I can force myself to eat cabbage.
MachOneGames wrote: N N 959 wrote: Castarr4 wrote: Yes, you can use it on yourself. It's very powerful. You'll always be wishing for more immediate actions though. Can you provide some rules basis for that interpretation?
"you can force a creature" does not read like it works on oneself.
I can force myself to eat cabbage. And that is written as "you can force any creature, including yourself" to eat cabbage. But this isn't eating cabbage. This is using magic which, in some cases, works on others, but not yourself.
I'm looking for examples of other spells that are written like this and make it clear whether the caster is included. What also complicates this question is the context. It would be reasonable (though not necessarily correct) to conclude that Misfortune does not work on oneself because Fortune does.
N N 959 wrote: MachOneGames wrote: N N 959 wrote: Castarr4 wrote: Yes, you can use it on yourself. It's very powerful. You'll always be wishing for more immediate actions though. Can you provide some rules basis for that interpretation?
"you can force a creature" does not read like it works on oneself.
I can force myself to eat cabbage. And that is written as "you can force any creature, including yourself" to eat cabbage.
Laughed out loud.
Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote: Why want daily low roll? You always take the second result. Roll a two, use Misfortune on yourself, get an 18.
Those two powers, IMHO, should say 'take the lower roll' and 'take the higher roll', respectively.
As written, you can definitely use Misfortune on yourself, as you are, by definition, a creature within 30' of yourself.
Zhayne wrote: Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote: Why want daily low roll? You always take the second result. Roll a two, use Misfortune on yourself, get an 18.
Those two powers, IMHO, should say 'take the lower roll' and 'take the higher roll', respectively.
As written, you can definitely use Misfortune on yourself, as you are, by definition, a creature within 30' of yourself. The target of a Dominate Person spell is "one humanoid". So I can Dominate Person on myself?
N N 959 wrote: Zhayne wrote: Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote: Why want daily low roll? You always take the second result. Roll a two, use Misfortune on yourself, get an 18.
Those two powers, IMHO, should say 'take the lower roll' and 'take the higher roll', respectively.
As written, you can definitely use Misfortune on yourself, as you are, by definition, a creature within 30' of yourself. The target of a Dominate Person spell is "one humanoid". So I can Dominate Person on myself? Yes.
PRD: Dominate Person wrote: You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject's mind. Online Dictionary wrote:
Link: a relationship between two things or situations, esp. where one thing affects the other.
So maybe 2nd grade reading comprehension tells us that it's impossible to form a "telepathic link" with oneself. Which means that based on the spell description, you cannot target yourself with Dominate Person.
It's responses like yours which make it clear why the developers had to put this into the Fly skill:
Fly wrote: You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding.
N N 959 wrote: various nonsensical stuff Hoooo boy. Pathfinder uses terms and common words differently than what you'll find in common speech. Dictionaries frequently add confusion rather than clarity when debating PF rules.
Kudaku wrote: Blather... We aren't talking about what constitutes an "ally." A "link" isn't a term of art. And yes, I'm looking for a specific post that spells out something that contradicts the plain english
But thanks for making me look at the FAQ, it states:
FAQ on "ally" wrote: You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Did you see that part I bolded? Guess what that means? It means you read the spell/feat/ability and if being your own ally doesn't make sense, you are not your own ally.
Thanks.
None of that has anything to do with you being a creature within 30 ft. of yourself. This is very simple RAW, I'm not sure why you are set on making it complicated.
Anzyr wrote: None of that has anything to do with you being a creature within 30 ft. of yourself. This is very simple RAW, I'm not sure why you are set on making it complicated. Because the text of the spell makes using it on yourself nonsensical. Just like using Dominate Person on yourself is nonsensical even though you are "one humanoid". The FAQ which says you are your own ally comes with a caveat that you are NOT your own ally if it doesn't make sense in the context of the spell.
"You force a creature."
Are there other spells that say "you force a creature" and clearly you can target yourself?
N N 959 wrote: Kudaku wrote: Blather... We aren't talking about what constitutes an "ally." Well spotted! I used the ally debacle as an example of why quoting dictionaries is of dubious worth when debating pathfinder rules.
Let's attack the problem from a different angle. I cast Dominate Person on an Ettin. Ettins have two minds, and dominate person stipulates I only link with one mind. Does this mean I can only control half the ettin?
A sorcerer with the undead bloodline casts Charm Person on a skeleton. The skeleton's mind has long since rotted away. Since there is no mind to establish a "link" with, does this mean the spell fails?
N N 959 wrote: Did you see that part I bolded? Guess what that means? It means you read the spell/feat/ability and if being your own ally doesn't make sense, you are not your own ally. Judging by the dictionary definition, when does it ever make sense to be your own ally?
How it will actually interact will probably be wonky and need some GM adjudication, but the fact of the matter is that according to the rules of spell targeting, the caster is a valid target for Dominate Person.
N N 959 wrote: Thanks. Anytime! Happy to help you seek enlightenment :)
You can target yourself with a lot of spells that would be better used on the enemy. It's a simple matter of choosing yourself instead of them. This is really incredibly basic and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you are your own ally (though I am always my own ally. Always.)
N N 959 wrote: PRD: Dominate Person wrote: You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject's mind. Online Dictionary wrote:
Link: a relationship between two things or situations, esp. where one thing affects the other.
So maybe 2nd grade reading comprehension tells us that it's impossible to form a "telepathic link" with oneself. Which means that based on the spell description, you cannot target yourself with Dominate Person.
It's responses like yours which make it clear why the developers had to put this into the Fly skill:
Fly wrote: You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Is this at me?
N N 959 wrote: Anzyr wrote: None of that has anything to do with you being a creature within 30 ft. of yourself. This is very simple RAW, I'm not sure why you are set on making it complicated. Because the text of the spell makes using it on yourself nonsensical. Just like using Dominate Person on yourself is nonsensical even though you are "one humanoid". The FAQ which says you are your own ally comes with a caveat that you are NOT your own ally if it doesn't make sense in the context of the spell.
"You force a creature."
Are there other spells that say "you force a creature" and clearly you can target yourself?
Doesn't matter. That's not part of the targeting restriction. The target is 'a creature within 30 ft'. Period.
I suppose a 1st grade level of reading comprehension would tell you that.
Kudaku wrote:
Well spotted! I used the ally debacle as an example of why quoting dictionaries is of dubious worth when debating pathfinder rules.
The "ally" FAQ actually proves my point. The developers decided that what they should have written was "you and your allies" not "your allies." You seem to be missing the basic fact that they are telling us what the words don't mean what they should. Let me repeat myself. They are specifically telling us that they wrote the wrong thing.
Have they done that in this case?
Quote: Let's attack the problem from a different angle. I cast Dominate Person on an Ettin. Ettins have two minds, and dominate person stipulates I only link with one mind. Does this mean I can only control half the ettin? Does a non-mythic Ettin get two saving throws? Does it get two Perception checks? Does it get to roll twice on Knowledge skills? That should answer your question about whether the Ettin has two separate independent minds or just one mind divided into two locations.
Quote: A sorcerer with the undead bloodline casts Charm Person on a skeleton. The skeleton's mind has long since rotted away. Since there is no mind to establish a "link" with, does this mean the spell fails? Let's look at the PRD
PRD wrote: Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them. Hunh. So the PRD explicitly states an exception to the rule.
Quote: Judging by the dictionary definition, when does it ever make sense to be your own ally? You don't judge it by the dictionary definition, you judge by the description based on the plain english of the words written. When the text says "you force a creature" that's not how you describe something that you do to yourself. That's basic reading comprehension.
What I'm seeing here is rules lawyering trying to twist the words "force a creature" within 30' to mean the same as "you can target anyone within 30' including yourself." The ability doesn't say that. Nor does it imply that. In fact, it implies that it would only used on others. The existence of Fortune spell which does the exact same thing strongly implies that Misfortune does not work on the caster.
Guess what...if Misfortune works that way, you wouldn't need to create Fortune. You'd say that at 5th level, the caster can use Misfortune on herself x/day. Hello?
Quote: ....but the fact of the matter is that according to the rules of spell targeting, the caster is a valid target for Dominate Person. The rules don't say that at all. The spell list a Target and the spell description goes on to describe how the spell works. How the spell works make it abundantly clear you can't target yourself. The very "ally" FAQ you showed me reinforces that point. It has to make sense.
What I see is a propensity of people who want to focus on whatever gives them the answer they want and ignore any evidence to the contrary. Yes, I realize there is a small army of Dual-Cursed Oracles out there who have a vested interest in the ability going far and beyond the plain english. I'm looking or a FAQ or concrete basis for allowing that.
N N 959 wrote: Kudaku wrote: A sorcerer with the undead bloodline casts Charm Person on a skeleton. The skeleton's mind has long since rotted away. Since there is no mind to establish a "link" with, does this mean the spell fails? Let's look at the PRD
PRD wrote: Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them. Hunh. So the PRD explicitly states an exception to the rule. Not quite - I'll be more clear. The rules state that a sorcerer with the undead bloodline can treat undead as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them. IE Charm, illusion and compulsion effects can affect an undead, since he is treated as a humanoid. However, by your interpretation Dominate Person would fail, since the undead in question doesn't have a mind to link with. You're reading too much into the essentially fluff description of the spell - the reference to a mind link is simply there to explain how you are mentally sending commands. For that matter, what's to stop you from creating a link from one part of the mind to another?
And finally, the clincher - what happens when an undead sorcerer with the undead bloodline casts Dominate Person on himself? :D
N N 959 wrote: What I see is a propensity of people who want to focus on whatever gives them the answer they want and ignore any evidence to the contrary. Yes, I realize there is a small army of Dual-Cursed Oracles out there who have a vested interest in the ability going far and beyond the plain english. I'm looking or a FAQ or concrete basis for allowing that. What you are seeing are people who are trying to explain to you the rules as written (RAW). This is the Rules Questions forum so people generally try to stick as close to the rules as written as possible instead of offering interpretations, personal opinions and so on - colloquially known as "RAI" or Read As Intended. The issue with RAI is that it'll frequently vary depending on who's reading the rule. This is important since PFS frowns on house rules or alternate play, and typically demands that the game must be played as closely to the RAW as possible.
RAW, targeting yourself with Misfortune is perfectly legal. You are a creature, you are within 30 feet of yourself, you therefore fulfill the requirements for being targeted by Misfortune.
RAI, I personally do not believe Misfortune is intended to be an "early-access" version of Fortune as the name seems to indicate that this is meant as a debuff.
If you're in a home game I'd suggest just adding a house rule that Oracles cannot target themselves with Misfortune. If you're a PFS GM (God have mercy on your soul) or if you feel this is an issue causing difficulty in your game I'd suggest starting a FAQ thread asking the developers if self-targeting Misfortune is an intended function.
N N 959 wrote: The existence of Fortune spell which does the exact same thing strongly implies that Misfortune does not work on the caster.
Guess what...if Misfortune works that way, you wouldn't need to create Fortune. You'd say that at 5th level, the caster can use Misfortune on herself x/day. Hello?
Except Fortune still has a purpose, because Misfortune only works on each creature once/day. So you take fortune to benefit yourself even more often each day.
I guess they could've combined the two together; but they wanted to make it cost two revelations. Possibly because it's a potent set of abilities. *shrug*
StreamOfTheSky wrote: N N 959 wrote: The existence of Fortune spell which does the exact same thing strongly implies that Misfortune does not work on the caster.
Guess what...if Misfortune works that way, you wouldn't need to create Fortune. You'd say that at 5th level, the caster can use Misfortune on herself x/day. Hello?
Except Fortune still has a purpose, because Misfortune only works on each creature once/day. So you take fortune to benefit yourself even more often each day.
/thread "Misfortune: bla bla bla. At 5th level, the number of times you can use this ability on yourself increases by one and as well as one additional time per day for every six oracle levels beyond 5th."
You don't need Fortune if Misfortune works on the Oracle. One thing we know is that the game authors do not want to waste words when printing books.
Only if you buff it as you suggest.
They didn't want to do that, as it's already quite powerful. You wouldn't be throwing such a fit about it working on the Oracle 1/day if it weren't already so powerful, and yet you think they'd give it additional self-only uses for free at 5th level on top of using it 1/day on all enemies and allies?
Kudaku wrote: Not quite - I'll be more clear. The rules state that a sorcerer with the undead bloodline can treat undead as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them. IE Charm, illusion and compulsion effects can affect an undead, since he is treated as a humanoid. However, by your interpretation Dominate Person would fail, since the undead in question doesn't have a mind to link with. You're reading too much into the essentially fluff description of the spell - the reference to a mind link is simply there to explain how you are mentally sending commands. For that matter, what's to stop you from creating a link from one part of the mind to another? No, you're actually reading into something that isn't there and failing to read what is there. First, the bloodline says you treat a undead corporal creature as a living one. So you treat it as if it had all the properties of a living one. Ergo, it has a mind. Second, there's nothing in the rules that says you have to have brain cells to have a mind. A lich clearly has a mind even if has no brain cells.
What you are doing is trying to interpret the the plain english in a way that fits an outcome you want.
Quote: What you are seeing are people who are trying to explain to you the rules as written (RAW). That statement is filled with irony. The RAW says "you force a creature within 30 feet."
It absolute does not say, "any creature within 30 feet." What you are several others are trying to assert is, in fact, RAI. You are telling me that when the plain english text explicitly states that the Oracle is forcing a creature, we all know that that this is code for "you can force yourself."
Nobody off the street is going to read "you force a creature within 30 feet" to mean you can use it on yourself. The plain english is you are doing this to someone else.
If you want to argue that in the context of the game, the developers also mean "you force a creature, or yourself, within 30 feet", that's fine. But that isn't RAW. That's RAI. Let's not confuse the two.
If there is a FAQ that tells us how to interpret this differently, exactly as how they did with "ally", then let's see it. But so far you are just offering opinions. You may be right, but it at this point it's still an opinion.
Quote: You wouldn't be throwing such a fit about it working on the Oracle 1/day if it weren't already so powerful It's important not to jump to conclusion you have no basis for supporting. You literally have zero idea what I think about the power/value of this ability.
StreamOfTheSky wrote: Only if you buff it as you suggest.****..and yet you think they'd give it additional self-only uses for free at 5th level on top of using it 1/day on all enemies and allies? I'm lost. What do you mean if I buff it?
If MF work on the caster, it's impact is IDENTICAL to Fortune. If that were the intent, then you don't need Fortune. You just change the frequency as it applies to the Oracle (only) at 5th level. There's no buffing of anything. It's the same exact outcome except you've saved yourself a paragraph.
It's nonsensical to create Fortune if you just want the Oracle to get more uses of Misfortune on the Oracle alone. Do you understand what I'm saying?
This is really really simple. You *are* a creature within 30 ft. of yourself. This is basic math. 2 + 2 = 4.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Anzyr wrote: This is really really simple. You *are* a creature within 30 ft. of yourself. This is basic math. 2 + 2 = 4. Personally I'm thinking NN is going to keep asking the question until someone gives him the answer he wants - it seems fairly obvious he's already made up his mind.
Anzyr wrote: This is really really simple. You *are* a creature within 30 ft. of yourself. This is basic math. 2 + 2 = 4. Since you keep posting, I'll respond.
The description says "you force a creature"
It is really simple english that this means you are doing this to someone else.
Kudaku wrote: Anzyr wrote: This is really really simple. You *are* a creature within 30 ft. of yourself. This is basic math. 2 + 2 = 4. Personally I'm thinking NN is going to keep asking the question until someone gives him the answer he wants - it seems fairly obvious he's already made up his mind. I'm waiting for an answer that is based on something written in the rules that contradicts plain english/basic reading comprehension. So far you've given me an opinion. Your opinion is that when the text says, "you force a creature" we should know that in the world of PF, the developers also mean you can use it on yourself.
What you and everyone else here is doing is ignoring the plain english meaning of "forcing a creature". Instead, you're only want to parse "a creature within 30 feet." Yes. I get that.
But you've also completely ignored the nonsensical nature of creating a completely separate ability (that you get for free) which duplicates Misfortune except for frequency. You haven't address that at all.
I force myself to do things all the time.
Allrighty then. Since you insist on bumping this thread...
Would you be opposed to it if the Oracle used Misfortune to make an ally reroll an attack roll? Why/why not?
Funny how Fortune doesn't say, "You force yourself to reroll a d20." Nor does it talk about you "suffering" from the effects.
Kudaku wrote: Allrighty then. Since you insist on buffing this thread...
Would you be opposed to it if the Oracle used Misfortune to make an ally reroll an attack roll? Why/why not?
That is a different question. This revelation is problematic.
1. It's apparent to me that we do not have two version of Misfortune by accident.
2. The mechanic of the Witch version makes it abundantly clear you are not going to use this on yourself or an ally.
Why do you think this version is clearly intended to be used as a benefit?
Do you really think the devs said, "I know, we'll create a separate Misfortune, but this version should be useful!!!! We'll still put stuff about forcing it on others and use words like "suffer", but we really think a player should be able to benefit by getting rerolls on meta-gamed failures!!!"
Personally I think they used the language because they intended it to be a negative effect, but the way it is written is unambiguous - it works either way. I'm wondering if it was originally worded more closely to the Witch's Misfortune but was toned down in editing (since Immediate Action Misfortune would be incredibly good), and they didn't realize the full implications of the change.
Then again, since Misfortune offers no way to avoid it (no saving throw, no spell resistance, no attack roll) they might have used to "force" rather than "cause" because the target has no choice but to be effected by it - force is the stronger term.
By the way, you didn't answer my question regarding allies and Misfortune.
Sure, but first explain to me why Fortune exists if Misfortune does the same thing and can be easily modified to do both.
N N 959 wrote: Sure, but first explain to me why Fortune exists if Misfortune does the same thing and can be easily modified to do both. I think StreamOfTheSky already covered this in detail, but sure - baking Fortune into Misfortune would make an already excellent revelation even better. As it stands now you'd need at least five levels of oracle and take both revelations if you want to use it more than once per day on yourself.
If you gained both Fortune and Misfortune on level 1 it'd be very tempting to dip a single level in the class. Revelations still advance at half progression if you multiclass, after all.
I suppose one could form a link between one's conscious, and subconscious mind.
MachOneGames wrote: If I was pushed by a player I would suggest that creatures don't typically roll d20's. It is a player or a GM who did the rolling -- on behalf of a creature. Creatures mostly take actions and stuff. But, if you see one rolling a d20, have at it! This is flat out horrible. It makes the ability absolutely useless. If you don't want them using it, just say it and let them ditch the archetype.
Kudaku wrote: Personally I think they used the language because they intended it to be a negative effect, but the way it is written is unambiguous - it works either way. With this, I agree. It was not intended to be used to aid allies or on oneself. But rules lawyers have wrestled that option from the text.
However, I think they wanted something similar to the Witch version but with a different mechanic. I think you are astute to point out that because you don't get a saving throw, they decided to make it so the outcome may not be bad. You don't automatically get the worse result. But players quickly saw how to exploit this.
I'm guessing the devs have talked about this. I'm guessing there are some that think it should be cleaned up and some that have tipped their hat to the player community for figuring out how to turn bad luck into good luck.
blackbloodtroll wrote: I suppose one could form a link between one's conscious, and subconscious mind. That would be more like Dominate Insomniac
At least you're not being elitist and judgmental about it.
*eyeroll*
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: With this, I agree. It was not intended to be used to aid allies or on oneself. But rules lawyers have wrestled that option from the text.
However, I think they wanted something similar to the Witch version but with a different mechanic. I think you are astute to point out that because you don't get a saving throw, they decided to make it so the outcome may not be bad. You don't automatically get the worse result. But players quickly saw how to exploit this.
I'm guessing the devs have talked about this. I'm guessing there are some that think it should be cleaned up and some that have tipped their hat to the player community for figuring out how to turn bad luck into good luck.
Thay may or may not be the case - barring a FAQ thread or a designer popping in here I doubt we'll ever know. Either way, as written the ability does not discriminate between enemies or allies. The players are hardly to blame for that.
Also, I'd politely suggest you pick your words more carefully in the future - many people here, including posters in this thread, make a point out of seeking out clarifications, suggesting improvements and overall striving to improve the rules system whenever they can.
Dismissing people who post tirelessly in the Rules Questions forum as "rules lawyers" and saying they lack the reading comprehension of a second grader because you dislike their conclusion is doing both yourself and the paizo community a disservice.
Azten wrote: MachOneGames wrote: If I was pushed by a player I would suggest that creatures don't typically roll d20's. It is a player or a GM who did the rolling -- on behalf of a creature. Creatures mostly take actions and stuff. But, if you see one rolling a d20, have at it! This is flat out horrible. It makes the ability absolutely useless. If you don't want them using it, just say it and let them ditch the archetype. That was tongue and cheek. At some point GM's have to take responsibility for their games. My point was that there is always a stupid way to read a rule. Just because I can successfully argue a point doesn't mean I should. You have to look at the context of the game and an ability. Others have made this point.
Nerfed: Only applies to creatures who are rolling dice.
Moderate: Forces a creature's(enemy) controller to re-roll a good result.
Good: Forces any creature's (enemy or ally)controller to re-roll any result.
Cheesy: Allow the Oracle player to re-roll for their own character.
Rules-as-written favours cheesy. I don't want cheesy at my gaming table. I encourage players to get the most out of a game, not get the most out of the wording of a rule.
Maybe you even strike a compromise -- have it level up at fifth/seventh level to work on allies or some such.
Again, the most salient point has already been made. If you read it that way it makes the 5th Level Revelation Fortune very weak indeed.
Kudaku wrote: If you gained both Fortune and Misfortune on level 1 it'd be very tempting to dip a single level in the class. Revelations still advance at half progression if you multiclass, after all. :facepalm:
No. You can't dip one level into Ranger to get Favored Enemy and get the 5th level Favored Enemy without actually having 5 levels in Ranger. It's beyond me why you think it would work differently for an Oracle. My Misfortune rewrite doesn't provide any benefit you don't already get. It only requires that Misfortune can be used on the Oracle.
Quote: Also, I'd politely suggest you pick your words more carefully in the future - many people here, including posters in this thread, make a point out of seeking out clarifications, suggesting improvements and overall striving to improve the rules system whenever they can. And just as many posters seem to push their opinions as fact, argue in bad faith, and push their own agendas. Posters repeatedly asserting that "you force a creature" is the same as "any creature including yourself" with nothing to back that up comes off as aggressive.
I will say that you are making a good faith discussion. I don't view your posts as asinine or obnoxious. You're at least seem to be willing to think about what is being said rather than repeatedly firing with the same response over and over.
RAW there is no restriction on using it on yourself. Reading into fluff text does not affect the crunch.
That said, it's a totally reasonable houserule to say you can only use it on those who would be considered your foes.
Kudaku wrote: Either way, as written the ability does not discriminate between enemies or allies. The players are hardly to blame for that. Well guess what. Neither does the Witch's version:
PRD: Witch's Misfortune wrote: Misfortune (Su): The witch can cause a creature within 30 feet to suffer grave misfortune for 1 round. In fact, the Witch version clearly allows you to target an ally and has far less implied functionality. Yet....NOBODY uses this on ally or themselves. So perhaps you can possibly, maybe, hopefully see how it strains credulity to sit here and assert this is suppose to work on yourself.
I went back and looked at when those two abilities showed up.
The Witch's Misfortune is in the Advanced Player's Guide. First printing was August 2010.
The Oracle version of Misfortune is in Ultimate Magic, first printing is April 2011.
So the Oracle version existed AFTER the created the Witch's version. NEITHER version explicitly states you cannot use it on yourself, and yet with the Witch's version, NOBODY does. Both use the word "suffer" from the ability. So now you are asserting that the Oracle version, written with the same heavy handed notion of penalty, is meant to work on allies and yourself. That we are clearly suppose to interpret it as such?
Sure, it's possible that the devs wanted that to happen. I'm saying there's a chance.
Bronnwynn wrote: Reading into fluff text does not affect the crunch. That's demonstrably false. The FAQ ally explicitly states that you are not your own ally if it does not make sense or is impossible. The fluff absolutely influences the crunch.
|
