|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mockingbird (Ex): The stalker vigilante can mimic almost any sort of voice, or even animal calls and sound effects, and he can throw his voice at a distance. This functions similarly to a combination of the ghost sound, ventriloquism, and vocal alteration(Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic 248) spells. A stalker vigilante must be at least 4th level to choose this talent.
I'd like to know what to expect with table-variation. Do you guys think people get a save? Does my volume increase with level like Ghost Sound? Does my range increase with level like Ventriloquism?
Would love your comments!
Do you guys think people get a save?
Probably not; it's called out as being "similar" to the spells, not as following their rules.
Does my volume increase with level like Ghost Sound? Does my range increase with level like Ventriloquism?
No, why would it? It's your own voice, it's as loud as you can yell I imagine.
What I'm curious about is its interaction with spellcasting. The spells mention can work in combination with the vocal components of other spells - can a Vigilante now cast spells while sounding like a songbird?
What kind of action is it to use? I'm quickly approaching the level I will take this talent and the more I look at it the more I don't know how it works.
Talking is a free action. Since no other action is stated to override this, i'd say it's still a free action.
There's nothing stating they get a save, so I'd say they don't. You're just that good/convincing.
I'd say your volume doesn't increase. You're still limited by your vocal range. As for how far you can project your voice... expect table variance. Both a fixed range or level-dependant seem reasonable, and the talent doesn't tip either way.
I'd say you have to use a standard action to START talking in a mimicked voice. You can then speak in that voice as a free action to the limits of the ability.
|
|
As an EX ability, it's a standard action. Check
No save, since one isn't called out. Check
What are the limits? How far can I throw my voice? How loud can my sound effects be? It is pretty vague, so using the spell blocks is what I feel like doing but it isn't a spell it is just similar to a few spells.
|
|
Would it be wrong to run all aspects of this ability as the referenced spells? The playtest document includes a blurb about saving throws being 10+CHA+1/2 level. As a standard action the vigilante activates the ability, which takes the form of the spell's effects whether it's changing his voice, making a lion's roar, or throwing his voice into another room. depending on which spells you use determines whether they get a will save. Range increases with level.
Would this interpretation be RAW?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In PFS there is no set GM,
Then as is normal, you apply the strictest limitation possible such that all GM agree with your interpretation.
In this case:
A standard action to activate, you may mimic almost any sort of voice (as per vocal alteration; no save), or even animal calls and sound effects (as per ghost sound; Will disbelief), and he can throw his voice at a distance (as per ventriloquism; Will disbelief).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not certain that's how you make PFS rulings.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm not certain that's how you make PFS rulings.
PFS requires you run Rules as Written.
The meaning of the rules are the domain of the GM.
If the GM believes the rule say what he believes, he is following RAW.
If you use a rule which isn't universally agreed upon then you must accept the GM ruling or choose not to play.
What other way would you suggest? Argue with the GM until they relent? Short of a FAQ, there is no better way.
|
|
In PFS there is no set GM,Then as is normal, you apply the strictest limitation possible such that all GM agree with your interpretation.
In this case:
A standard action to activate, you may mimic almost any sort of voice (as per vocal alteration; no save), or even animal calls and sound effects (as per ghost sound; Will disbelief), and he can throw his voice at a distance (as per ventriloquism; Will disbelief).
I think this makes the most sense. Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will-based 'Disbelief' doesn't seem to be 100% appropriate here.
I am probably not the person you are asking, but I would agree with you here.
I also have some input on whether or not it is an action.
Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions that cannot be disrupted, do not require concentration, and do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
I would say it is not an action, because I deconstruct the above statement as so.
"Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action. . . " means that unless if there is a reason that it would be an action, it is not an action.
". . . because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion." is the the reason why it is usually not an action, not the condition for it not to be an action.
"Those extraordinary abilities that are actions. . . " the talent never says that it is an action. It says it functions similarly to the spells, and a case could be made that the function of the spells is their effects, not their activation.
". . . are usually standard actions. . . " is saying that they don't always have to be standard actions. If you are categorizing the talent as an action, then by RAW, it would be most likely a standard action. See below for more follow-up on this.
". . . that cannot be disrupted, do not require concentration, and do not provoke attacks of opportunity." means that even if it is a standard action, nobody is going to punch you for sounding like an emu, unless if they readied an action, but even then, they cannot stop you from sounding like an emu. By RAW, even some ability that prevents someone from speaking would not allow you to interrupt this talent, if you classify it as a standard action.
Also, keep this in mind:
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn.
So if my above argument didn't persuade you, then compare this. Extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions. In general, speaking is a free action. Both of these pretty much say that unless if some exception is given, their rules apply. However, the exception to each is the other. Ergo, in RAW, it is either a free or a standard action. In order to get it to tip either way, you would have to compare the definitions of "usual" and "general".
Definition of general
1 :involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2 :involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group (the general equation of a straight line)
3 :not confined by specialization or careful limitation (a general outline)
4 :belonging to the common nature of a group of like individuals :generic (the general characteristics of a species)
5 a :applicable to or characteristic of the majority of individuals involved :prevalent (the general opinion)
b :concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects
6 :relating to, determined by, or concerned with main elements rather than limited details (bearing a general resemblance to the original)
7 :holding superior rank or taking precedence over others similarly titled (the general manager)
Definition of usual
1 :accordant with usage, custom, or habit :normal
2 :commonly or ordinarily used (followed his usual route)
3 :found in ordinary practice or in the ordinary course of events :ordinary
— usually \ˈyü-zhə-wə-lē, -zhə-lē; ˈyüzh-wə-lē, ˈyüzh-lē\ adverb
— usualness \ˈyü-zhə-wəl-nəs, -zhəl-; ˈyüzh-wəl-\ noun
— as usual
:in the accustomed or habitual way (as usual they were late)
According to these definitions, the term 'general' is usually defined as applicable to all instances (pun intended), though it can be defined as only most of the time. However, the term 'usual' always means most of the time, not all of the time. In the context, general is obviously used to mean most of the time, but it is still a stronger expression, taking precedence over others similarly titled (another pun ☺).
Using it to make non-speech sound effects is not directly covered by the above, but consider this: it uses the same ability as it would if you were just making speech, and there is nothing to say that they are different actions. And if you would argue that it would be a different action, would you argue that humming isn't a free action because it isn't technically speaking? In any of the aforementioned cases, the vocal chords are what is used to produce the sound. And if we consult ye olde dictionary again:
Definition of speak
. . .
1 a :to utter words or articulate sounds with the ordinary voice :talk
b (1) :to express thoughts, opinions, or feelings orally (2) :to extend a greeting (3) :to be friendly enough to engage in conversation (still were not speaking after the dispute)
c (1) :to express oneself before a group (2) :to address one's remarks (speak to the issue)
2 a :to make a written statement
(his diaries … spoke … of his entrancement with death —Sy Kahn)
b :to use such an expression —often used in the phrase so to speak
(was at the enemy's gates, so to speak —C. S. Forester)
c :to serve as spokesperson
3 a :to express feelings by other than verbal means (actions speak louder than words)
b :signal
c :to be interesting or attractive :appeal
(great music … speaks directly to the emotions —A. N. Whitehead)
4 :to make a request or claim —used with for —usually used in passive constructions (the seat was already spoken for)
5 :to make a characteristic or natural sound
(all at once the thunder spoke —George Meredith)
6 a :testify
b :to be indicative or suggestive
(his gold … spoke of riches in the land —Julian Dana)
Now, obviously, some of these would just be crazy to pass off as a free action (like definition 2), but there is no reason why definition 5 (to make a characteristic or natural sound) wouldn't be a free action. A bird could tweet as a free action, could it not? As long as it is a characteristic or natural sound of something, and would not clearly take more than a free action, it works (note that the definition does not specify that it has to be a characteristic or natural sound of the one making it).
In conlusion, I would say that RAW would put the use of this ability as a free action, not a standard action, unless if you are imitating a non-speech sound, in which case RAW + logic would put it as a free action. Of course, I'd still be open to considering someone else's take on the matter.