Can Misfortune be used on an ally other than yourself? He rolled a 3 on his save, he is forced to reroll through Misfortune, he gets a 16.
If it can be used on an ally other than yourself, it can be used on yourself as well.
Now, if I were the game master, I'd rewrite the rule in an clearer fashion for it to match the intent, not allowing targeting of allies.
|
For me, this settles the issue. Until Paizo "explicitly" tells us that "force a creature" means you can target yourself without an "explicit" instruction to do so, it does not work to the benefit of the caster. By RAW it can still work on allies, but that doesn't seem to be the intent.
I don't understand why force a creature is you big sticking point Haste Forces a creature to get +30 movement speed but no one has ever ruled casters can't benefit from the effect if they are within the range of effect. Creatures/level within 30 ft.
|
Can Misfortune be used on an ally other than yourself? He rolled a 3 on his save, he is forced to reroll through Misfortune, he gets a 16.
If it can be used on an ally other than yourself, it can be used on yourself as well.
Now, if I were the game master, I'd rewrite the rule in an clearer fashion for it to match the intent, not allowing targeting of allies.
It can be used on an ally and not just bad guys. Here the misfortune benefit goes to the ally but the bad luck goes to the caster. Hence why I believe you can use the ability on self.
|
|
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.
Have you checked the new 2e rules? Way more complicated, yet somehow restrictive in the imagination. From what I saw that new system is not fixing anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a bunch of stuff that helps him/her divine RAI that is irrelevant to a discussion of RAW.
That's right. They "explicitly" tell us that in this situation, the Dragon can use the ability on itself. Note that they "explicitly" tell us this. Does Misfortune explicitly tells this?....No.
I don't know what to tell you. You said that to accept that creatures can force themselves to do things, you would need an example where an effect that forces a creature to do something clearly could be used on the creature with the ability. That's what I showed you. Now you say it proves the exact opposite of what you said it would prove.
The Second Chance ability says " an ancient or older time dragon can force a creature (including itself) to reroll any d20 roll". When it says "including itself", "itself" is a subset of "a creature". This shows that the writers consider it possible for a creature to force itself to do something.
I completely agree that there are many examples in the rules where "a creature" is not followed by a complete or incomplete list of creatures that can be affected.
Again here is the revelation.
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.
Who can be targeted? "A creature within 30 feet"
Is a PC "a creature"? Yes, as per the definition of playable races.Does Paizo consider a creature to be "within 30 feet" of itself? Yes, as per the Angel aura example.
Does Paizo consider it possible for a creature to force itself to do something? Yes, as per the Second Chance example.
You are, of course, free to house rule this any way you want at your table. I'm just saying that Paizo's rules are consistent with a plain English reading. An Oracle can use Misfortune on themselves.
Can Misfortune be used on an ally other than yourself? He rolled a 3 on his save, he is forced to reroll through Misfortune, he gets a 16.
If it can be used on an ally other than yourself, it can be used on yourself as well.
Now, if I were the game master, I'd rewrite the rule in an clearer fashion for it to match the intent, not allowing targeting of allies.
Why do you think that the intent was to limit who the ability could be used on? Because of the name? Both Misfortune and Fortune can help or hurt whoever they are used on. Misfortune could cause an enemy to get a better result. Fortune could cause you to get a worse result.
The names can't really be read as intent. Inflict wounds heals a Damphir. Overland flight works just fine over water. I think Fortune and Misfortune are just luck-related words that were used to convey that outcomes can be changed.
Note too that Misfortune says "The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it's worse than the original roll." That seems to imply an expectation for an improvement in rolls. It is, at least, a recognition that Misfortune can be helpful.
Hes actually starting to convince me otherwise.
Second chance does allow the power to be used on self. But it goes out of it's way to say so. If it was the norm it wouldn't have to.
Also I feel the flippant attitude towards finding multiple examples of forcing another not having anything to do with ones self to be in poor intention for the thread. The research was done and doesn't get to be handwaved away as "a bunch of stuff".
It's not undermining his point but rather everyone else when you casually hand wave multiple actual examples away with a throw away comment. Please readjust if you're going to continue to post, cuatroespada.
Finally I dont think the idea of always being ones ally unless it doesn't make sense means this is one of those times. Forcing someone to do something means it's against what their wishes or intentions. And while I do agree that RAW it may work for an ally (as you may think you know what's better for them than they do, turning a miss into a crit by adjusting a swing for example) you can't be expected to know what's better for yourself... or you would do that.
I think it may be an example of doesn't work logically on an ally, which is what that FAQ reinforce. I honestly do agree that RAI it shouldn't work. And now an starting to think perhaps RAW it doesn't either. One does not "force someone" to "suffer" up on ones self.
Except maybe continuing to watch the daily show after Stewart left.
But Second Chance shows that, by the rules, a creature can force itself to do things. Beyond that, I think you are assuming that Paizo's writing is far more precise than it is. Adding some clarifying text to one ability (published after Misfortune), does not mean that the opposite of that language applies elsewhere.
Consider Second Chance for a moment. If the user can use it to force themselves to reroll, does that not also mean that it is possible for a creature to force themselves to do something?
As for waving NN's examples away, I think the point is that they don't actually serve to support his claim.
Perhaps I do think the writing is more precise than you think it is. Which is why I'm seeing second chance as the exception and not the rule, as the other examples outweigh it in volume that counter the idea of second chances example.
But I won't disgree that it is possible to force themself to do to something. At least as far as second chance goes. The other examples? I actually would say no. It isn't. Which Carrie's as much validity and weight.
But in Second Chance, "including yourself" clarifies "a creature". Player characters are always creatures*. Does this text now mean that anything that works on "a creature" no longer works on "yourself" unless it specifically says it does?
Hes actually starting to convince me otherwise.
Second chance does allow the power to be used on self. But it goes out of it's way to say so. If it was the norm it wouldn't have to.
paladin spirit bond goes out of its way to say it only affect one end of a double weapon despite not needing to because the norm is to treat double weapons as two separate weapons. magus does not. does this mean we now ignore the norm and allow arcane pool to enchant both ends of a double weapon at once?
Also I feel the flippant attitude towards finding multiple examples of forcing another not having anything to do with ones self to be in poor intention for the thread. The research was done and doesn't get to be handwaved away as "a bunch of stuff".
It's not undermining his point but rather everyone else when you casually hand wave multiple actual examples away with a throw away comment. Please readjust if you're going to continue to post, cuatroespada.
it's not meant to undermine his point. everything he said is great if we're trying to figure out what the intent is, but we're not because the intent doesn't matter we're discussing RAW. what you think the intent is can inform your games, but it doesn't inform a discussion of RAW. what the words in the ability in question say is that it works on a creature within 30 ft... you are a creature within 30 ft. your allies are also creatures and might be within 30 ft. so i'm not dismissing actual examples. i'm dismissing irrelevant examples as irrelevant, say as much, and will continue to do so. those examples are relevant to RAI not RAW.
Finally I dont think the idea of always being ones ally unless it doesn't make sense means this is one of those times. Forcing someone to do something means it's against what their wishes or intentions. And while I do agree that RAW it may work for an ally (as you may think you know what's better for them than they do, turning a miss into a crit by adjusting a swing for example) you can't be expected to know what's better for yourself... or you would do that.
nonsense, plenty of people know they should quit smoking and don't... or that they should get up and exercise and don't... or plenty of other things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's not meant to undermine his point. everything he said is great if we're trying to figure out what the intent is, but we're not because the intent doesn't matter we're discussing RAW. what you think the intent is can inform your games, but it doesn't inform a discussion of RAW. what the words in the ability in question say is that it works on a creature within 30 ft... you are a creature within 30 ft. your allies are also creatures and might be within 30 ft. so i'm not dismissing actual examples. i'm dismissing irrelevant examples as irrelevant, say as much, and will continue to do so. those examples are relevant to RAI not RAW.
If you don't think understanding intent is important in coming to the correct understanding of RAW, please tell me what the DC is to jump a 10' pit? Or please tell me if I can make a wand of maximized magic missile for the same cost a normal wand of magic missile? (pre-metamgic FAQ). Or can I flank with a ranged attack? Or any number of other FAQ answers that clarifies RAW to be in line with RAI.
This doesn't mean everytime we have a seemingly clear intent that if PDT decides to answer a FAQ on it that the answer will come out as the collective whole thought it was, but it is a rarity that it doesn't. So given two readings of RAW, I'll take the one that appears to more closely match intent every time.
Given that we also know that the rules aren't written in an exacting way, then yes we need to read them in a "so what do they actually mean here?" manner.
|
|
But what do you mean by intent?
Is it the wording? Misfortune/Fortune
Historically and in literature luck is a very fickle thing. That neither of those two abilities say to roll twice and take the worse/better result respectively seem to embody this concept.
An enemy's misfortune is my fortune. My misfortune is my enemy's fortune.
I think the intent is clear any creature within 30 ft. As the caster you fall within 30ft. Rules as worded this is definitely legal. I know earlier there was a discussion about the verbiage of within itself. But within encompasses a 30ft bubble. Not a 29ft bubble and minus the center... Which would be ridiculous since the center would become subjective as well.
Misfortune is definitely the stronger of the revelations, but having fortune is also very beneficial. I roll, it's low, misfortune reroll, it's low, fortune reroll, nice I pass! Or fortune for the devil that gets my soul after death.
Final verdict RAW: Works on caster, allies, and enemies within 30ft.
...except what exactly is a creature?
Edit:
Found it! Wasn't sure if it would affect non-living things such as golems etc.
"Creature: A creature is an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters."
Further, when Paizo wants an ability to only affect enemies, they use phrases like "hostile creatures" or just "enemies".
We've talked about Second Chance and how it includes the phrase "including yourself". Paizo seems to sprinkle that phrase in haphazardly. Sometimes it is a specific rule that overrides a general rule. Sometimes it is a clarification. Sometimes it is just a reminder of the general rule. For example, the general rule is that everyone within an AOE spell is affected by that spell, yet Paizo will sometimes add "including yourself" to remind the player that they too can be harmed by their spell.
But Paizo uses "hostile creatures" or "enemies" in a far more deliberate way. In fact, Paizo is good about defining the intended limitations of abilities in general. Spells that only affect evil creatures say so in the text. Spells that only affect allies say so in the text. Spells that only affect enemies say so in the text. This is true regards of whether the name of the spell suggests otherwise.
Moreover, they have been printing variations of the Misfortune, as other abilities, for years now. If RAI was really different than RAW, Paizo would have changed the text to state that it does not work on the user (or allies or whatever). Instead, the only text they've added was in Second Chance, which states it can be used on the user.
Well, it says "a creature within 30 feet". They didn't say "yourself" for the same reason they didn't say "an Elf 5 feet away" or "a troll 15 feet away". All of these things are included in "a creature 30 feet away". There may be multiple RAI, but there is only one RAW in this case.
You are a creature. (From definition of PC playable races)
You are within 30 feet of yourself. (e.g. Angel aura)
It is possible for creatures to force themselves to do something. (e.g. Second Chance)
There is nothing ambiguous about the RAW.
The RAI? Well, we've seen three arguments. 1) It can target anyone. 2) It can target anyone but the Oracle. 3) It can only target enemies. I see nothing that suggests that number 2 can be correct. I'll discuss number 3, because I think that is at least reasonable.
There are two pieces of evidence, IMO, that support 3. The name is Misfortune. I do not think that is especially helpful. As others have pointed out, one sides fortune is misfortune for someone else. Protecting an ally is bad luck for the enemy. The other piece of evidence is the word "suffered". This, I do think, shows the writers may have been seeing this as a weapon against enemies.
However, it also says "the creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it's worse than the original roll," which hints that the target may have been expecting their fate to improve.
And, of course, the RAW allowing the ability to be used on anyone has to also be seen as an indication of the intent. If they didn't want it usable on the Oracle, they could have said "another creature" instead of "a creature". If they only wanted it used on enemies, they could have said "enemies".
Is it really reasonable to assume that "misfortune" and "suffered" were meant to be highly precise and meaningful, but that their mechanical description of "a creature within 30 feet" was causal talk that can be discarded? "Creature" is a specific and well understood term. "Suffered" is fluff. I personally think the writers take more care with their mechanics than their fluff.
If the author's intent was to be able to affect anyone, hence possibly improving the luck of allies, then naming the ability Misfortune is poor workmanship. Without thinking much more than thirty seconds, including checking there isn't already something called as such, and being neither author nor copywriter - and English being my third language -, I find Twisted Fate could have carried all the required meaning without room for misunderstanding.
Conversely, if Misfortune is to target enemies only, in the hope of worsening their luck, then the explanatory text is lacking, ambiguous and incoherent with the rest of the corpus, several better ways have already been proposed in this thread.
It is because of this conclusion that I believe Paizo owes the community a clarification out of professionalism, their works on this point is of poor quality, far from something acceptable.
However, it also says "the creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it's worse than the original roll," which hints that the target may have been expecting their fate to improve.
That's an interesting point. If you weren't meant to use this on allies, then I can't think of why that text would be there.
If the argument here is that the name of the power "Misfortune" should match and determine the mechanics of the power, who the power can target is irrelevant. It isn't "Enemy Misfortune". It is "Misfortune".
The disconnect between the name and the mechanics is not in who it can target, but what it does. The power makes the target reroll a d20 and take the second result, regardless of whether it is better or worse. As it is written any target, caster, ally, enemy, or neutral can have things change for the positive or the negative. It is not misfortune. It is a change in fortune.
Pointing at the name "Misfortune" or the word "suffered" does not support the idea that the targeting portion of the power is wrong. It supports the idea that the functional portion of the power is wrong.
That said, if you are going to start rewriting powers so they tightly fit their names, you are going to be busy for a LONG time. But I don't think you need to. Paizo tells you what they want the powers to do in the descriptions of the powers. In the case of "Misfortune", it causes a creature within 30 feet to reroll a d20 and take the second result.
If you are going to change anything, change the name to "95% chance of Changed Fortune". "Fortune" could become "95% of Changed Fortune, But Only On Self But Multiple Times Per Day".
On the other hand, maybe it is better to just have the fluffy name with the precise definition left in the description.
"Misfortune" could actually just be translated as Divergent Luck, thought that is far from the common interpretation.
Here is a different question regarding misfortune. It says that once a creature has "suffered" from misfortune, they can't be targeted again for a day. What does this mean?
1) Creatures may only be targeted once per day.
2) Creatures may be targeted until their second roll is lower, and then may not be targeted for a day.
Or, put another way, does "suffered" mean being affected by Misfortune or does it mean being *negatively* affected by Misfortune?
It works one time on a person once per day on a roll you'd choose at a time you choose. Which is why you'd make them reroll saves or crits to make them suffer a misfortune.
Honestly. This isn't a gotcha question.
I meant the question in all honestly. If the power does not make the target "suffer", can it be used again within a day? How important is the word "suffered"? I personally don't think it is important at all, but I can see people having a different view. I'm wondering if anyone does.
It works one time on a person once per day on a roll you'd choose at a time you choose. Which is why you'd make them reroll saves or crits to make them suffer a misfortune.
Honestly. This isn't a gotcha question.
it seems like you may have missed his point. if the connotations of "suffer" aren't important mechanically, then why are the connotations of the word "misfortune?"
"Suffer" can also just have a meaning of tolerate. In that case, tolerating the ability in any way would mean that you can't be affected by it again.
They aren't important only if you can use on allies, then I guess you can ignore half the words in the power.
If you are using them to give misfortune to others to make them suffer, then it's clear how it should work, once a day.
But yes, if you're willing to ignore some sections to make others less valid, I guess it gives you more of a leg to stand on.
You seem to be saying that creatures can only be targeted once per day, even if they don't suffer, even if they benefit. It seems you are saying we should ignore the word "suffered".
So why are you saying that other people are ignoring "half the words"?
Maybe I'm being unclear. Consider this example.
There I was, a blind and deaf double cursed Oracle of Time, trying to take a quick nap in a trolls den. The troll, finding me there half asleep decides to squash me with his big club. He rolls a 1 on his attack. Me, being all confused, use Misfortune on him. He rolls again, gets a natural 20, and knocks me down to exactly zero hit points.
Has this troll "suffered" from Misfortune? If not, can I use the ability on him again? If he has "suffered" from misfortune, what does "suffer" mean in this context?
Hell, have *I* suffered from Misfortune?
If the argument here is that the name of the power "Misfortune" should match and determine the mechanics of the power, who the power can target is irrelevant.
The name should match the mechanics and the mechanics should match the name. Which determines which is part of production, however once the product is finished, a match there must be.
The classes are called Fighter, Wizard, Oracle and so on, not Class I, Class II, Class III. Likewise, the abilities have names relevant to what they do, instead of being called Class III - Archetype 2b - Ability 1-1. Some abilities from different places sometimes are named the same yet they do different things, though in each case, the name is aptly chosen, e.g. Smite Evil from the Paladin and from summoned creatures with the Celestial template. Improved Initiative isn't the name of a feat that allows to reroll 1s on healing spells. In a more general fashion, nomenclature is important in our societies.
In this case, naming Misfortune something that can by design be used detrimentally on enemies as much as beneficially on allies is a poor job. As an analogy, if something of this quality was served at a restaurant, I'd either not eat it or return it, depending on my mood but certainly not make use of it as is.
Misfortune isn't supposed to be vague, left to interpretation of the table, it is supposed to be an ability ready to use, without strong ambiguity.
As an analogy, if something of this quality was served at a restaurant, I'd either not eat it or return it, depending on my mood but certainly not make use of it as is.
The name should match the mechanics and the mechanics should match the name. Which determines which is part of production, however once the product is finished, a match there must be.The classes are called Fighter, Wizard, Oracle and so on, not Class I, Class II, Class III. Likewise, the abilities have names relevant to what they do, instead of being called Class III - Archetype 2b - Ability 1-1. Some abilities from different places sometimes are named the same yet they do different things, though in each case, the name is aptly chosen, e.g. Smite Evil from the Paladin and from summoned creatures with the Celestial template. Improved Initiative isn't the name of a feat that allows to reroll 1s on healing spells. In a more general fashion, nomenclature is important in our societies.
In this case, naming Misfortune something that can by design be used detrimentally on enemies as much as beneficially on allies is a poor job. As an analogy, if something of this quality was served at a restaurant, I'd either not eat it or return it, depending on my mood but certainly not make use of it as is.Misfortune isn't supposed to be vague, left to interpretation of the table, it is supposed to be an ability ready to use, without strong ambiguity.
Eh. Fighters do more than fight. Thieves might never steal anything. Cure Light Wounds can cause damage. Overland flight can be used over water.
Misfortune can harm creatures. It can also help them. This is true no matter who is it used on. You might think that Misfortune has to always cause harm, just as you might think Thieves have to steal stuff. But we don't have to guess. We can read the full description.
Misfortune tells us what it does. It causes a d20 to be rolled with the second value being used. It tells us who it can target. Any creature within 20 feet. It doesn't matter if Paizo's Misfortune is not what you or I would design.
If I'm reading you right, you think that Misfortune should only work on hostile creatures, but should be able to make things better or worse, depending on the roll of the second die.
But I don't think there is much vague about what it does. It states it pretty clearly. If there is a mismatch between the name and the power, I would suggest that the correct conclusion is that the name is a little muddy, not that the clear, complete power was entirely miswritten.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Fortune? That too can help or hurt the target.