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:
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.
The reason no one uses that on their allies is because of the effect. It makes no sense to cause your allies to take the worse of two rolls on every d20 roll. It makes absolute sense to cause your allies to reroll a d20 before the end result is shown and take the second roll.
Is this cheesy? Absolutely. Does it reek of metagame? Somewhat. Is it RAW? Yes.
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.
I apologize. That is not always true - fluff can influence crunch. However, in this case, it does not.
Misfortune (Ex): At 1st level, as an immediate action, [u]you can force a creature[/u] 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.
Despite the name implying misfortune, it makes no reference to enemies or allies. Simply "a creature." Indeed, one could argue that the misfortune from forcing a reroll for an ally is simply misfortune... for the guy trying not to get smacked in the face by your ally. But either way, mechanically speaking and going by RAW, it affect a creature. You are a creature. Your allies are creatures. Your enemies are creatures. It is not picky.
|
Imagine if the Oracle was under a compulsion effect, and was forced to use the ability on themselves, or an ally.
Would your response be so visceral, and come to the same conclusion?
Would you deny any attack spell or ability to effect themselves, or their allies?
Would you cry "cheese" if they were somehow immune to these spells/abilities?
Imagine if the Oracle was under a compulsion effect, and was forced to use the ability on themselves, or an ally.
Would your response be so visceral, and come to the same conclusion?
Would you deny any attack spell or ability to effect themselves, or their allies?
Would you cry "cheese" if they were somehow immune to these spells/abilities?
Well, ideally you would have used it on the save against the compulsion effect... though if you didn't have the immediate action available, I admit that's a possibility.
That said - and assuming you're talking to me - it can totally be used on anyone. The only requirements are that they're a creature and within 30 feet. Twisting fate to bring misfortune upon your foes works in many ways through many channels, it seems.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine if the Oracle was under a compulsion effect, and was forced to use the ability on themselves, or an ally.
Would your response be so visceral, and come to the same conclusion?
Would you deny any attack spell or ability to effect themselves, or their allies?
Would you cry "cheese" if they were somehow immune to these spells/abilities?
Well, ideally you would have used it on the save against the compulsion effect... though if you didn't have the immediate action available, I admit that's a possibility.
That said - and assuming you're talking to me - it can totally be used on anyone. The only requirements are that they're a creature and within 30 feet. Twisting fate to bring misfortune upon your foes works in many ways through many channels, it seems.
More to all those who would refuse the ability to be used on the Oracle, as if it were RAW, and spew bile that anyone who disagrees is some sort of "munchkin" twisting the rules.
I'm actually not debating whether its RAW to use it on an ally. I bring that up as an ancillary point.
I'm not quite sure what the debate is. RAI? No clue. Should have been like the witches, if they wanted it to be something cast on foes. Fluff wise? I'll go ahead and say "Yep, this is causing misfortune... for the bad guys!" Or I'll houserule it to act like the witches. Depends on my players/DM.
I've already covered the problem with your interpretation earlier in the thread.
If you're referring to forcing yourself to do something... well, I don't get a save. I don't get to undo it. I don't get to say "Nope, don't like that roll, I don't use the ability, I don't take the reroll." You say "I use the misfortune hex on myself" and it will hopefully bring misfortune to the foe that's trying to make you make a will save or the foe you're trying to hit but it might just force you to fail or save or miss the foe about to smash your face in.
There's not really a standard for what "forcing" can be applied to in Pathfinder.
People could very easily be arrested for forcing themselves to break their own leg. It could be fraud - insurance fraud is arrestible at least in some places. Or it could be arrest and being entered into a mental hospital because holy ---- you just broke your own leg.
Forcing doesn't *have* a definition in pathfinder. It's context here does allow something of an argument against using it on yourself (though not against using it on your allies) but I'm not convinced, and it's one of those fuzzy areas that I feel is going to be left to the DM in any given case.
For what it's worth, I'm liable to just change it to "take worse of two rolls on the d20 roll" and leave it at that, if I were DM.
But clearly the devs didn't want that. They'd already done that and the specifically did not go that route. I actually LIKE the fact that the two version work differently. I appreciate the artistic decision of the Oracle mechanic. They just need to clarify how it works and then change the name if need be.
Of course, if the devs wanted an ability to work a way, perhaps they should have defined "force" in a bit more... definite way? Or said "Another creature." Or "An enemy."
Or "Cause" instead of force, if they truly meant for it to be anyone.
So, we have moved on to RAI?
Kinda. Re: self use, it's pretty much "DM's call." There is no definite RAW. I tend towards "yes" but.. eh. RAI probably says no.
Re: ally use, RAW says yes. RAI say.. probably no.
Oops we are discussing the oracle version. I just read the title.. "Move along, nothing to see here." :)
They should have made it like the witch's version since the intent is a negative affect. RAW however allows this to be used in a positive manner.
I also do not think it is RAI that you target yourself, but since the question is here I will hit the FAQ button. I will be modifying it in my games to be like the witch version to an extent. Basically it will still be an immediate action that must be made before the dice roll is made, and the worse of the two rolls will be used.
Revelations still advance at half progression if you multiclass, after all.
You're thinking of curses, not revelations.
You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject's mind.
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:
You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding.
You should study some neuroscience.
You already have a telepathic link with yourself in real life. In fact, you have many such links.
Science. Do you even?
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.
Does it make sense to reroll a d20? Yup.
Is it impossible to reroll a d20? Naw.
Looks like misfortune works on yourself, dunnit? After all, you are a creature that is within 30ft of yourself.
Disagree? Home rule it in your game.
If you're referring to forcing yourself to do something... well, I don't get a save. I don't get to undo it. I don't get to say "Nope, don't like that roll, I don't use the ability, I don't take the reroll."
There's not really a standard for what "forcing" can be applied to in Pathfinder.
And this is you making a RAI argument, not a RAW argument. Plain english translation is that "you force a creature" is you doing something to someone else.
Let me illustrate: The criminals laws are about one person doing something to another. Nobody is arrested for forcing themselves to break their own leg.
You say "I use the misfortune hex on myself" and it will hopefully bring misfortune to the foe that's trying to make you make a will save or the foe you're trying to hit but it might just force you to fail or save or miss the foe about to smash your face in.You're like the second or third person to try and rationalize this. As an FYI, it really only highlights the cognitive dissonance that occurs with this line of reasoning.
You can get arrested for breaking your own leg if you're in the military. You can get arrested for doing stuff to yourself, like drugs n such. Laws don’t only concern themselves with what you do unto others… we’re not that enlightened of a society… or of a species. Laws dictate even what we can do unto ourselves. Get over it, or do something about. But don’t be wrong about it, huh?
If your issue is just with the word force? You can absolutely force yourself to do things… or not do things.
I'm forcing myself to refrain from insulting... a poster here, who isn't you, at this very moment.
I forced myself to get up this morning.
I can force my large self into a pair of pants that are a bit too small.
I can force myself to eat vegetables. Well, sometimes.
I can force myself to do a lot of things, yo.
Now, regarding the Misfortune ability directly? You can absolutely force yourself to reroll a d20.
Normally you cannot choose to. If you try it the DM might get a lil upset, maybe even the whole group. So, there is no choice of whether you reroll a d20 or not. Unless an ability can force you to. Then you do.
You don’t get a choice. Misfortune, however, forces you to reroll. That is what it does.
All you need to ask yourself is this. Are you a creature? Are you within 30ft of yourself? Yes and Yes? You are a viable target for the misfortune revelation.
So, we have moved on to RAI?
RAI: Dual-Cursed is a horrible archetype that asks you to give up a LOT just to get 2 additional revelation slots (I've yet to find a mystery w/ enough good revelations to carry it to 20 w/o running out of ones you actually want yet) and a 2nd curse which never improves (when curses are largely overwhelming and BY DESIGN tend to be a raw deal at 1st level, if anything). ...And these two new revelation options. Of which, Fortune is not that impressive and forces you to endure the suck for 4 levels before giving you the payoff. Misfortune being as good as it is, is literally the only reason most people even consider Dual-Cursed in the first place. It needs to stay as it is.
Revelations still advance at half progression if you multiclass, after all.You're thinking of curses, not revelations.
Ah, my mistake. I've yet to have an oracle at either of my tables, my players tend to prefer clerics or inquisitors.
Well guess what. Neither does the Witch's version:
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.
And I have no problem with players using the witch's misfortune to target their allies if they want to... I don't know why you think I have an issue with that?
I'll use an example from a home game: The party beefcake is participating in a duel and the party needs that duel to go on for a while since they're using it as a distraction for some extracurricular activities. The party knows for a fact that the fighter clearly outclasses his opponent and would beat him handily if there were no outside influences, and has no ranks in Bluff so he'd have a hard time "pulling his punches" without making people suspicious.
What does the party do? They load the fighter up with debuffs which he voluntarily failed saving throws on to make it a more even fight. Ray of Enfeeblement, Bane, Doom, the works.
In that party they didn't have a witch with Misfortune, but if they did that witch could (and probably would) have used Misfortune on her ally, the fighter, in order to make the fight last longer.
RAW is clear - you cast Misfortune on "one creature within 30 feet". Typically you'll want to use it on an enemy since that's what makes the most sense, but if you want to use it on an ally the rules explicitly state that you can.
RAW is equally clear on the oracle version - you cast Misfortune on a creature within 30 feet. Is it intended to grant allies rerolls? I don't know, I suspect it might not be. That doesn't matter though, the rules are perfectly clear that that is a valid option.
Let's say I were to design a law intended to strike down on knife crime, and I worded it like this: "All people found to be carrying or holding a knife in a public place will be subject to detention in a holding facility of no less than three years".
My intent was to cut down on robberies involving knives, stabbings etc. However, if my law is followed as written, the result will be that anyone who works or spends time in a restaurant, cutlery factory, diving or survival store will be spending a significant amount of time in prison.
Intent matters. So does the result.
In this case we don't know for certain what the intent behind the Oracle's Misfortune was - any interpretation into whether or not it's intended to only affect enemies would be RAI and will vary depending on who's reading it. In my opinion, that's probably the intent - I don't think Misfortune was meant to be able to target allies as well as enemies.
However, what we can say for sure is that the result of the Oracle's Misfortune phrasing makes it perfectly legal to use Misfortune on your own allies as well as your enemies - the revelation does not distinguish between the two.
They should have made it like the witch's version since the intent is a negative affect. RAW however allows this to be used in a positive manner.
I also do not think it is RAI that you target yourself, but since the question is here I will hit the FAQ button. I will be modifying it in my games to be like the witch version to an extent. Basically it will still be an immediate action that must be made before the dice roll is made, and the worse of the two rolls will be used.
I'd be careful with that houserule - you're essentially giving oracles an Immediate Action Misfortune curse. The action economy advantage and being able to pick exactly what roll to screw up each round makes it significantly more powerful than the witch version.
Personally I'd just tell your players that Misfortune is intended to target enemies, not allies, and treat it as such.
I use misfortune as written (ie; working on both yourself, your allies, and your enemies) in my game, and PC-rerolling hasn't been problematic at all. Based on those experiences, I can't really see any reason why I should reduce its usefulness.
The biggest advantage of the ability is always going to be its use against enemies (as it works once on every enemy in every encounter), and the additional boon of allowing PCs a 1/day opportunity to reroll a failed save or a particularly important attack roll (as long as the ability hasn't already been used in the same round) hasn't struck me as being overpowered.
They should have made it like the witch's version since the intent is a negative affect. RAW however allows this to be used in a positive manner.
I also do not think it is RAI that you target yourself, but since the question is here I will hit the FAQ button. I will be modifying it in my games to be like the witch version to an extent. Basically it will still be an immediate action that must be made before the dice roll is made, and the worse of the two rolls will be used.I'd be careful with that houserule - you're essentially giving oracles an Immediate Action Misfortune curse. The action economy advantage and being able to pick exactly what roll to screw up each round makes it significantly more powerful than the witch version.
Personally I'd just tell your players that Misfortune is intended to target enemies, not allies, and treat it as such.
It is already an immediate action. The difference is that with my version the oracle must declare it before the roll is made, not after so they can't use it as a pseudo-fortune.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The word ally is not used, at all, so that FAQ is irrelevant.
The target is 'a creature within 30' of you'.The Oracle is a creature.
The Oracle is within 30' of himself.
The Oracle is a creature within 30' of himself.
The Oracle is a legal target for the ability.
Basic logic, irrefutable fact.
How you WANT it to work has no bearing on how it DOES work.
It is already an immediate action. The difference is that with my version the oracle must declare it before the roll is made, not after so they can't use it as a pseudo-fortune.
I realize it is an immediate action for an Oracle, I meant the action economy advantage compared to the witch hex.
Think about it like this: At the moment the Oracle Misfortune is circumstantial - you might want to use it when an opponent rolls really well on an attack (foil a potential critical hit) or when you suspect an opponent has rolled well on a save (to give him a second chance to fail the save). You don't want to use it on average-good attack rolls or average-good saves since there's a chance you can bump it up to a threat instead - the reroll can go either way. There's a potential downside to using the power.
If you change the function to the witch misfortune but leave it as an immediate action, he will always use the worse roll - he can't possibly benefit from the reroll. There's no downside to using it. That means that unless you have a better use of your Swift action, you're going to want to use it every chance you get.
That dramatically increases the power of the ability. It also makes it significantly better than the witch hex since unlike the witch you're not spending a standard action to deploy it and you can cherry-pick which roll the target will have to take the worse of two rolls on.
Misfortune (Su): 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.
I don't think you understand how the Witch's hex works.
The Witches hex applies to all rolls regarding abilities, attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks. You roll twice and take the worse result. It applies for the entire duration. It is easily extended by the Cackle hex. It does not need to be applied to only a single roll. It can be applied to all the rolls someone makes, if they fail their save - Cackle does not allow a save, so you can misfortune and cackle in the same round, then just cackle every round, forever. Twice, if you have nothing else to do!
I don't think you understand how the Witch's hex works.
This is what I get for reading the description of the Oracle's Misfortune, the witch's Misfortune and the Ill Omen spell immediately after one another - clearly I muddled up the descriptions. Thanks for catching that!
That said, the witch hex takes a standard action to put in place, a move action and another hex to maintain, and is negated by a will save.
The Oracle revelation takes an immediate action to put in place, there is no way to avoid it, but it only applies to a single roll.
I still think "roll twice and take the worse result" is significantly better than "reroll and take the new result" for a debuff. One of those is situational, one of those is pretty much always an improvement.
...Though it does close the ally loophole. Hm.
Dual-cursed Oracle is a good class to dip in for 7 or 8 levels. You can pick four good revelations and then get out to find a prestige class to finish off with: Nature's Warden, Divine Scion.
I wish there was a better selection of revelations too. If there were it would be a decent class to stay in. But you are 100% on point. It is not that great of a class to stick around in.
Or you could just use feats and items to gain more revelations.
In any case, I think if anything D-C Oracle sucks the most upfront. You lose the bonus class skills. You get hit with another curse that will never get better. You lose your normal 1st level bonus spell known for one that is likely worse (or the one you lost isn't normally an oracle spell). You gain no extra goodies for all of this, you even have to wait a few levels for your first bonus revelation slot. The *only* thing you get for all that sacrifice at level 1-2 is the ability to take the Misfortune revelation with your normal revelation slot or a feat. That is all you "get."
The rules say you can use it on any creature within 30 feet of yourself. You are a creature within 30 feet of yourself. Ergo, you can use it on yourself. Nothing has or will ever be able to change this unless a dev says otherwise.No, you are not a creature within 30' of yourself. The very concept is of being within a distance of something mandates that there are two separate things.
----
The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.
So, the effect emanates from one of the points of your square, which means "you" are within 30' of it.
And the Channel example doesn't prove anything and almost seems to go against your point. There would be no point in including the "or not", if the default assumption was that you never include yourself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And once again fortune exists for a reason.Bingo.
Assertions that RAW means you can use it on yourself requires the supposition that Paizo doesn't know how to write Misfortune so that it works on the caster...and yet they did that with Fortune???!! It's a nonsensical assertion.
It also requires that we construe "force a creature" to by synonymous with targeting oneself. If someone can show me one other spell/ability in any of the books written by Paizo where this convention is used, I'll concede the point. In the absence of such a reference, there is no context to interpret that as targeting oneself.
The ability is clearly written to put "misfortune" on others.
Wow, over four years later and you're still repeating the same opinion as though your interpretation was the only valid one.
You've posted the same opinion 26 times now in this thread (I counted). Out of 90 posts, nearly a third of them are you repeating yourself.
It's time to walk away from this one; I think we can all figure out what your thoughts are on misfortune at this point.
it's also really funny because they assert they are the one sticking to RAW and not RAI yet they keep referencing the Fortune revelation as though it says "Normal: A creature can not target themselves with the Misfortune revelation." it doesn't say that though so the only thing it does tell you is that the intent is probably that you wouldn't use it on yourself. but that would be RAI not RAW. RAW it says a creature within 30 ft. of the origin of the spell. both interpretations expressed so far seem valid to me as a native speaker. personally, i never would have questioned whether or not one could be said to be within a certain distance of oneself, but clearly N N 959 does, and that's fine.
|
And once again fortune exists for a reason.Bingo.
Assertions that RAW means you can use it on yourself requires the supposition that Paizo doesn't know how to write Misfortune so that it works on the caster...and yet they did that with Fortune???!! It's a nonsensical assertion.
It also requires that we construe "force a creature" to by synonymous with targeting oneself. If someone can show me one other spell/ability in any of the books written by Paizo where this convention is used, I'll concede the point. In the absence of such a reference, there is no context to interpret that as targeting oneself.
The ability is clearly written to put "misfortune" on others.
Wow, over four years later and you're still repeating the same opinion as though your interpretation was the only valid one.
You've posted the same opinion 26 times now in this thread (I counted). Out of 90 posts, nearly a third of them are you repeating yourself.
It's time to walk away from this one; I think we can all figure out what your thoughts are on misfortune at this point.
I am still looking for an answer for this. I don't understand why paizo is making a new edition when things need to be cleared up here first.
On another note. I understand what you mean about the wording of fortune and misfortune. But with that in mind, my benefit is still my enemy's misfortune :-p
With the "ally" ruling, and the fact that I often have to force myself to do work and other unfavorable things, I am of a mind that misfortune should work on oneself. And fortune is just another chance try again if you mess up the second time.
I think better wording for these abilities would have been the take worse or better results as seen in some other feats/abilities. But as it stands I can see it going both ways.
I am still looking for an answer for this. I don't understand why paizo is making a new edition when things need to be cleared up here first.
Paizo has always been - and likely will continue to be - advocates for tables figuring out their own interpretations for things. They don't want to spell everything out in very certain terms, and the community has a tendency to be more upset when they do than not, because they tend towards clarifications that heavily nerf the rule in question.
I'd actually say that their decision to abandon PF1E and move to a new system is because they have too many things at this stage that they'd want to address with PF1E, and the cleanest, most efficient use of their time to address all the concerns at once is with a new edition.
I would not hold your breath for a ruling on this. However, if you got your wish, I expect that the "official" ruling would be that you can only target "another creature" or "an enemy" (removing its utility in targeting allies entirely). They don't actually want to do that because they want different tables to decide for themselves how powerful they want the ability to be.
i have to do no such thing because those things both mean the things you claim they don't. you are a creature within 30 ft. of the spell's origin. i understand that you don't believe a thing can be considered "within" any distance of itself, but i disagree that a significant majority of native speakers would be unable to parse that phrasing.
also, it doesn't say "force another creature" as that would be explicitly saying it can't be you. it says "force a creature," and again, i'm pretty sure most native speakers understand if you say you forced yourself to do something.
anyway, i think this is kind of the point. it doesn't say "another" before either instance of creature when it would have been that easy to exclude the user.
you have yet to make a compelling argument for why the words don't mean what they say that isn't rooted in your perception of the authors' intents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW it says a creature within 30 ft. of the origin of the spell.What matters when it comes to the rules is how certain phrases are used within the context of the game. Can you identify other spells/abilities where the rule uses the same language as Misfortune and clearly means for the ability or effect to work on oneself? The closest I found was Channel and it explicitly says that you can include yourself.
Additionally, you'll need to show me an ability which says "force another creature" and the effect clearly allows one to target oneself.
thanks.
Channel explicitly says that you can choose whether OR NOT you include yourself.
Here is an example of a creature within a distance of itself.
Protective Aura (Su) Against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures, this ability provides a +4 deflection bonus to AC and a +4 resistance bonus on saving throws to anyone within 20 feet of the angel.
Is an angel someone within 20 feet of itself? Well, when I look at an Astral Deva, I see those +4 benefits written in the stat block. So, yes, it is someone within 20 feet of itself.
Misfortune also does not say "force another creature". It says "force A creature". The difference is important, even if it is not the point you were trying to make.
No one needs to find examples of other spells or abilities where a person can "force" themselves to do something. "Forcing" is not a defined term for Paizo's rules. And in common English, people talking about forcing themselves to do things all the time.
But hell. Here you go. Ancient Time Dragon ability.
Three times per day as an immediate action, an ancient or older time dragon can force a creature (including itself) to reroll any d20 roll. The target must use the result of the second roll.
There. They explicitly say that this creature can force itself.
Note that it does NOT say the dragon can force a creature OR itself. It says that the dragon itself is considered a creature that can be forced.