Is there any creature types immune to witch hexes such as the misfortune, 50% chance to act, -6 to all, that sort of thing
? like undead, plants, constructs, golems, and such ?
Right, so which creatures types would qualify?
Basically I'm having trouble seeing hexes effecting such types as: Golems, Constructs, Undead, Plants, Oozes.
Basically I'm having trouble seeing hexes effecting such types as: Golems, Constructs, Undead, Plants, Oozes.
Why would golems be immune to bad luck?
/shrug, im only asking " What creature types are immune to hexes"
besides sleep and such
/shrug, im only asking " What creature types are immune to hexes"
Nothing in the game has a blanket immunity to hexes.
I don't believe there is a creature "type" that is immune. There may be some individual creatures though.
As a witch gains notoriety, it's reasonable for some enemies to prep this spell. Heck, in a home game, it's reasonable for crafty types to make a custom magic item with that as a permanent effect.
Immunity? None that I'm aware of.
so a piece of wood can be cursed is what your sayin lol ? or an ooze ?
|
Hexes vary depending on the effect. Evil Eye states it is a mind-affecting effect and thus anything immune to mind effects (undead, serpentfolk, golems, etc) are immune to this hex.
Likewise the Sleep hex does not work on creatures immune to sleep effects like elves or dragons.
Misfortune only last 1 round (or up to 3 at 16th level). It can be used against anything since it is not a specific effect.
|
Hexes vary depending on the effect. Evil Eye states it is a mind-affecting effect and thus anything immune to mind effects (undead, serpentfolk, golems, etc) are immune to this hex.
Likewise the Sleep hex does not work on creatures immune to sleep effects like elves or dragons.
Misfortune only last 1 round (or up to 3 at 16th level). It can be used against anything since it is not a specific effect.
Misfortune can be made to last longer via cackle. It is a good strategy to misfortune and cackle a golem or similarly difficult creature, since your spells will be less effective.
Since most hexes are single-target effects, swarms should be immune to them
Can you hex a chest with misfortune so that is has to roll twice when you trip the poison dart trap?
Is a chest a creature? If so then yes.
I offer the game boy that survived a bombing as an example of a lucky item.
|
Can you hex a chest with misfortune so that is has to roll twice when you trip the poison dart trap?
If the hex could affect objects then sure, it would affect the trap. But it doesn't.
Since most hexes are single-target effects, swarms should be immune to them
This is really the best bet if you need something anti-witch. It shuts down basically all hexes and can be used to distract/nauseate them into being unable to use their spells as well (a fort save, which is typically low for a witch).
That said, as a general rule you shouldn't be looking for ways to shut players down. The witch's strength is their consistent ability to contribute and a large part of why people select them. Take that away and they just get to twiddle their thumbs, which won't be fun for anyone. Doing this as a one-off "wow, that was dangerous" reminder to the player that they aren't invincible might be okay, but don't do it consistently.
There is no creature immune to all of the hexes, so you really have to go by hex, but undead are immune to any requiring fort saves unless they also work on objects, and they are also immune to any that are mind affects. However witches are also full casters so they should always have a backup plan to handle them.
PS: Contructs might also be an issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you hex a chest with misfortune so that is has to roll twice when you trip the poison dart trap?Is a chest a creature? If so then yes.
I offer the game boy that survived a bombing as an example of a lucky item.
When I was a young I had a subscription to Nintendo Power, ever month in the letters to the editor column their would be a story of a gameboy surviving or a Nintendo surviving some horrible experience. Like burned, pitched out of a moving car, or crushed. There were so many incidents I don't think that luck has anything to do with it any more.
Appreciate the information everyone. I'm not looking to "Shut Down" the Witch, just ran a game last night in which i was under the belief that certain creatures were immune to compulsions and mind effects. I was told that it would say under the description of the spell if that was so. When I tried to make a ruling of 0 for the time being so that we could move on, he became extremely nasty, and started acting horridly in the party, even after i had ruled that his way was right for the time being, until i could get more info on the matter. He left the game.
and what of constructs ? since they state that any effect in which they get a saving throw they are immune to, except for certain spells and effects.
and what of constructs ? since they state that any effect in which they get a saving throw they are immune to, except for certain spells and effects.
Constructs don't say that:
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
Immunity to disease, death effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
Not subject to ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, energy drain, or nonlethal damage.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless).
Golems which are the closest don't say that either. Their magic immunity only costs as SR of Infinity. That means any spell that doesn't allow SR is not stopped by their magic immunity:
A(n) <type> golem is immune to spells or spell-like abilities that allow spell resistance. Certain spells and effects function differently against it, as noted below.
hmm ok
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Appreciate the information everyone. I'm not looking to "Shut Down" the Witch, just ran a game last night in which i was under the belief that certain creatures were immune to compulsions and mind effects. I was told that it would say under the description of the spell if that was so. When I tried to make a ruling of 0 for the time being so that we could move on, he became extremely nasty, and started acting horridly in the party, even after i had ruled that his way was right for the time being, until i could get more info on the matter. He left the game.
Well, you can't do much with nasty players. That said, having been in that position of being completely shut down before I know how that feels. It's like the DM coming in and saying "you don't get to play today".
The player wasn't wrong either: Spells and effects are usually very explicit about calling themselves out as mind-affecting and such. (Well, misc. effects aren't as consistent, but spells are.)
Though the situation wasn't your fault, I might still offer a suggestion for improvement: in the future try telling the player to look up the rules references between turns so you could look at them in 10-15s rather than several minutes. This means they are only shut down by rule 0 for 1 or 2 turns instead of an entire session. I've seen this technique used effectively in PFS before.
Appreciate the information everyone. I'm not looking to "Shut Down" the Witch, just ran a game last night in which i was under the belief that certain creatures were immune to compulsions and mind effects. I was told that it would say under the description of the spell if that was so. When I tried to make a ruling of 0 for the time being so that we could move on, he became extremely nasty, and started acting horridly in the party, even after i had ruled that his way was right for the time being, until i could get more info on the matter. He left the game.
That kind of behavior May need a Grown up talk or a boot. There are plenty of creatures that are immune to all kind of things but rarely is it made like immunity to (class feature). Elfs and Half elfs are immune to slumber hex.
Appreciate the information everyone. I'm not looking to "Shut Down" the Witch, just ran a game last night in which i was under the belief that certain creatures were immune to compulsions and mind effects. I was told that it would say under the description of the spell if that was so. When I tried to make a ruling of 0 for the time being so that we could move on, he became extremely nasty, and started acting horridly in the party, even after i had ruled that his way was right for the time being, until i could get more info on the matter. He left the game.
You have a mistaken belief all witch hexes are compulsions and mind-affecting effects. In fact, only a few are.
Stabbity Doom, i did rule zero that he was RIGHT until i could find out otherwise. not that he COULDNT do it.
Appreciate the information everyone. I'm not looking to "Shut Down" the Witch, just ran a game last night in which i was under the belief that certain creatures were immune to compulsions and mind effects. I was told that it would say under the description of the spell if that was so. When I tried to make a ruling of 0 for the time being so that we could move on, he became extremely nasty, and started acting horridly in the party, even after i had ruled that his way was right for the time being, until i could get more info on the matter. He left the game.
While he certainly shouldn't have been nasty, its pretty understandable for a player to be upset when a dm tries to re-write rules in the middle of a session to a players disadvantage. This wasnt a ruling, this was a house rule. That should always be presented before the game. If you want to make all witch hexes compulsions that is your business as dm (they are not in the rules as written, only specific ones are), but a player should know that upon character creation, and if its a change during a campaign, he should have the option of altering a character appropriately.
Particularly in this case, constructs are immune to just about everything a witch can do, as they are principally debuffers, with very few spells without spell resistance. Misfortune is probably the only thing the player could have actually used during a conflict with one or more constructs. In essense, you were houseruling away, on the fly, his ability to participate in the encounter. I can definately see being upset about that. And if the dm wasnt apologetic about doing so later on, I probably wouldn't play in that game.
The one thing I always say about rule zero is it should NEVER be applied in a way that prevents a player from meaningfully participating in a significant portion of the game. No matter how much something doesn't make sense to you as dm, the time to reconcile that is not in the middle of the game, especially if it means the player effectively sitting out an encounter or two. Your job as dm is to fascillitate a fun and interesting game. Telling a player he cant use the one abilitiy he has that actually works in a given situation isnt doing that.
|
|
Stabbity Doom, i did rule zero that he was RIGHT until i could find out otherwise. not that he COULDNT do it.
Some people will lose trust in you for ruling against them even if you change your mind. The (brief) moment you said "no" may have been all he heard, emotionally speaking. I can't really judge this side of the situation without having been there.
ok, so i dont think anyone is reading what i said. I said i used rule 0 to say that he was RIGHT!!!!! and that we could move on, and that i would looki t up later and do research, not that rule 0 meant he couldnt do it.
|
|
ok, so i dont think anyone is reading what i said. I said i used rule 0 to say that he was RIGHT!!!!! and that we could move on, and that i would looki t up later and do research, not that rule 0 meant he couldnt do it.
Your post makes it sound like you initially wanted to rule against him then changed your mind. That is different from simply saying "Sure, we'll look it up later, but it works for now."
Or did you say that they were definitely supposed to be blocked but would let it happen for now? This could be worse, as it implies you set up an encounter with the plan of shutting him down and were merely temporarily allowing him to move past that.
Nasty responses from people often come from subtle differences in approach that not all people are sensitive to. We wouldn't be able to judge why a player reacted poorly to a rule 0, especially one in the favor, without having a good video of the situation, and maybe not even then.
EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, it's not worth dwelling on the nastiness. Think about anything you may have been able to do to approach the situation better, talk to the player about why they got upset, and try to do better next time.
In the meantime, try to be careful with immunities. They shut people out of fights entirely on a regular basis as it is, and even if everyone agrees on the rules this can be very not-fun very fast. If you have to understand no other rules, understand first what a creature is and is not immune to.
that is correct, i did not say "Sure it works, we'll look it up later"
I discussed with him in skype, which then moved into our game chat, which upset me, because i prefer players keep arguments out of open mic. Afterwhich, i said your right for now, i will look it up later. so please stop b~!@@ing. (because by then, it was a b*!$~ fest, ruining everyone's fun, not just his and mine)
I take complete responsibility for not handling it better, as well as not knowing the rules of his class better before allowing a high level witch into my campaign.
|
Tbh if he's a high level witch concerned about fighting immunity to Mind Effecting, I'd tell him to either pick up Ice Tomb or more of the utility hexes such as Flight, Healing, Fortune, etc. Your party will never be immune to generic buffs after all.
In the S&S game I mentioned earlier, half of my witch's actions are "I Fortune the Barbarian." I much prefer that to the time at level 3 when our party nearly got killed by coconut crabs because I couldn't hex them, and the free rerolls make me fairly popular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that is correct, i did not say "Sure it works, we'll look it up later"
I discussed with him in skype, which then moved into our game chat, which upset me, because i prefer players keep arguments out of open mic. Afterwhich, i said your right for now, i will look it up later. so please stop b@%%$ing. (because by then, it was a b&$*@ fest, ruining everyone's fun, not just his and mine)I take complete responsibility for not handling it better, as well as not knowing the rules of his class better before allowing a high level witch into my campaign.
I am not completely sure you are taking responsibility for it. People who take responsibility for something they handle badly generaly accept that the other party had reason to be upset. Calling it a b**** fest isnt acknowledging that.
And this is sort of the point, you did something that was objectively wrong (namely houseruled a non-ambiguous ability on the fly based on a gut reaction to something you didnt completely understand). You can take responsibility for that, and own your mistake or not. But you cant say my bad, and then be annoyed that your bad caused a negative reaction.
If it in fact was a b!&!@ fest, then calling it such is perfectly fine. They were bickering at each other. It wasn't just him or his player. They were both at fault. There was nothing wrong with that phrasing.
This isn't some public flogging arena where you can freely "correct" someone either.
If it in fact was a b#@!@ fest, then calling it such is perfectly fine. They were bickering at each other. It wasn't just him or his player. They were both at fault. There was nothing wrong with that phrasing.
This isn't some public flogging arena where you can freely "correct" someone either.
I am not trying to flog anyone. My point is that if one wishes to prevent problems in any social interaction you have to actually own your mistakes. Calling it a b**** fest regardless of what actually occured is deflecting blame. Mind you, its completely fine if you want to blame the other person. But that isnt taking responsibility for your own mistake. You cant be defensive AND take responsibility at the same time.
If you want to resolve the conflict, and you genuinely feel you were in error, then step one is to stop criticizing the other party's reaction to your error. Thats basically conflict resolution 101. You cant say "you know im really sorry about what I did, but also, you are totally out of line being upset about that thing i did. I mean i was wrong, but you shouldn't be upset." That doesn't work.
The player was clearly upset by the OP's actions. And I think probably not unduely so. Exactly what constitutes a b**** fest is sort of impossible to sort out short of getting a trascript of the conversation and somehow coming to a consensus of what kind of reaction is appropriate in a rules dispute(effectively impossible). If the OP wants to either A, get the rules right/make an informed pre-game houserule on witch hexes in his game, or B get the player back into the game/smooth over any issues, then the simple act of calling the reaction of the player something obviously inteded to paint the player in a bad light is a step in the wrong direction.
Not once did i deflect blame. I take full responsibility for lack of knowledge regarding his character. I also stated that after we argued some, i let his ruling stand, and tried to move on. stating that it was a bi-tch gest, was just being honest. I apologized to the player after i found out i was wrong, and tried to fix the situation. I also said we were BOTH wrong not for the ruling, but for causing an argument in game chat instead of privately, and out of game. Anyway, i appreciate everyone's comments, and have made amends.