|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It seems like an obvious answer, but it's not addressed directly in the rules, which leads to a lot of weaseling and trying to get out of it. Basically, do non-damaging supernatural abilities cause concentration checks in the same manner that non-damaging spells do?
I'm talking about a caster taking a non-damaging supernatural ability while casting, not the other way around.
I actually wasn't aware that non-damaging spells force concentration checks until now. Huh.
At any rate, I'm fairly certain this rule doesn't apply to supernatural abilities. If it did, how would you determine the spell level for the concentration check? SU's don't have levels like an SLA or regular spell does.
Sure, that might make calculating the concentration check different (personally I'd just consider the "spell level" variable as 0), but I don't see why it would remove the requirement for a concentration check. Is being subjected to a magical attack really less distracting than having rain blown in your face?
Angrimbor wrote: do non-damaging supernatural abilities cause concentration checks in the same manner that non-damaging spells do? You can drop the supernatural term out of the question and open it up to...
Do non-damaging abilities/attacks cause concentration checks?
And there are a lot of non-damaging effects in the game that cause concentration checks. Weather is a specific example.
So, yes, supernatural abilities that don't do damage can cause concentration checks. They all won't, but some will.
Rory wrote:
They all won't, but some will.
What do you think about Reveal Weakness?
"When you activate this school power as a standard action, you select a foe within 30 feet. That creature takes a penalty to its AC and on saving throws equal to 1/2 your caster level (minimum –1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence bonus."
Would a readied Reveal Weakness prompt a concentration check?
I believe the CRB list of concentration check conditions is supposed to be exhaustive. So no, non-damaging non-spells don't force checks in general, and neither does Reveal Weakness in particular.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: I believe the CRB list of concentration check conditions is supposed to be exhaustive. What would give you that impression? There are very few exhaustive lists in the rule books at all, precisely because it's almost impossible to account for everything. If you treat that list as exhaustive, then you have to somehow reconcile yourself with the impossible idea that having rain blown in your face is somehow more distracting and disruptive than taking a magical attack, having a sudden loud sound or appearance, etc. The rules do not state that the list is exhaustive, so I see no RAW reason to treat it as such, and the logical inconsistencies that would present eliminate RAI possibilities.
Angrimbor wrote: Rory wrote:
They all won't, but some will.
What do you think about Reveal Weakness?
"When you activate this school power as a standard action, you select a foe within 30 feet. That creature takes a penalty to its AC and on saving throws equal to 1/2 your caster level (minimum –1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence bonus."
Would a readied Reveal Weakness prompt a concentration check? Nope. The rules doesn't give any indication that it would. If you want to house-rule, go for it, but then consider that there are probably a lot of AoE, always-on (or multi-round) Su abilities that would be significantly buffed by being able to force concentration checks.
No. They do not cause concentration checks. The list is exhaustive since it gives you a specific formula for each type of concentration check. There is no formula for SU's, and that would make any formula applies by a GM a houserule.
If a list and the wording had a statement like "such as" that would be different.
Below the table it even has bolded sections to further enforce specific situations. SU's are not spells and they do not have spell levels. Being magical does not mean they get treated like spells in every possible way.
QuidEst wrote:
Nope. The rules doesn't give any indication that it would.
There we disagree. The very presence of "Wind with rain" on the table sets a very low bar for non-damaging, non-spell distractions that can force concentration checks. There are also rules in regard to constant abilities, to address your other point. Not all constant effects force concentration checks, even if they are spells. It usually has to happen specifically during the casting of the spell, unless it's damage from DoT. The only constant abilities that would force constant checks would be abilities with recurring applications that somehow managed to apply right as the caster was casting, whereas most abilities like that happen at the beginning of the user's turn.
It seems to me like you had your mind made up before you came here. Do as you wish if you are the GM, but there is no rules support or formula for what you want to do.
Maybe something like "DC of the SU + spell level" can work for you since the chart uses "DC of the spell + spell level" for spells.
PS: I understand your reasoning, but the rules do tend to be specific, and if they intended for SU's to force concentration checks they would have mentioned it
wraithstrike wrote: NThe list is exhaustive since it gives you a specific formula for each type of concentration check. There is no formula for SU's, and that would make any formula applies by a GM a houserule.
I see absolutely no reason that would qualify a list as "exhaustive". Does a blizzard not force a concentration check? That doesn't qualify as "wind with rain" or "wind with hail or debris", since snow is neither hail, rain, nor debris. So now, by your logic, a mild rainstorm is more distracting and disruptive than a severe blizzard.
The table gives guidelines for evaluating different values and types of distraction. Just like Ghost Sound doesn't explicitly specify how many human voices worth every particular sound is, it gives you examples to use as guidelines and leaves the exact volume definition of whatever sound you choose up for reasonable interpretation. That doesn't make anything besides humans, lions, and dragons a "house rule" Ghost Sound. As for calculating SU's, you can definitely use the non-damaging spell formula. It doesn't have a spell level, so you put nothing there. It's simple. Just because there are variables doesn't mean they all have to be filled with some positive value when they're not applicable. Trying to treat the list as exhaustive leads to incredible mental gymnastics here.
Angrimbor wrote: Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: I believe the CRB list of concentration check conditions is supposed to be exhaustive. What would give you that impression? There are very few exhaustive lists in the rule books at all, precisely because it's almost impossible to account for everything. If you treat that list as exhaustive, then you have to somehow reconcile yourself with the impossible idea that having rain blown in your face is somehow more distracting and disruptive than taking a magical attack, having a sudden loud sound or appearance, etc. The rules do not state that the list is exhaustive, so I see no RAW reason to treat it as such, and the logical inconsistencies that would present eliminate RAI possibilities. The table says that taking a magical attack is more distracting than having rain blown in your face. But even if it were the other way around, the important thing is that both are on the table. I see no reason that a non-magical sudden loud sound should force a concentration check unless, of course, it says so in the ability description, since specific always overrides general.
If they wanted random perhaps-distracting things to force checks, they would have put in an "Other" line and probably said that the GM should use the explicit entries for guidance.
Can you provide a couple of examples of rulebook lists that (a) are clearly not exhaustive but (b) do not state so, whether by including an entry for "Other" or otherwise? I don't see a good way to search for such myself.
wraithstrike wrote: It seems to me like you had your mind made up before you came here. Do as you wish if you are the GM, but there is no rules support or formula for what you want to do.
Maybe something like "DC of the SU + spell level" can work for you since the chart uses "DC of the spell + spell level" for spells.
PS: I understand your reasoning, but the rules do tend to be specific, and if they intended for SU's to force concentration checks they would have mentioned it
If I had my mind made up I wouldn't be asking, I just don't see the sense in any claims that the list is exhaustive. There may be valid reasons why SU wouldn't cause concentration checks, but I don't see any rules support for that line of reasoning. Most tables in the book are *not* exhaustive, and that table is not listed as exhaustive. It's a rather random and eclectic assortment of items to have on there if it was. It is very specific when it comes to spells and damage, sure; it's also very vague and seemingly arbitrary (no formula listed) when it comes to weather conditions and other non-spell non-damaging conditions. This, to me, logically suggests that there is no reasonable equation to have for those (think about it, how would you calculate a balanced equation for every single non-spell disruptive event?), but that these are guidelines to judge the severity of other events.
Angrimbor wrote: wraithstrike wrote: NThe list is exhaustive since it gives you a specific formula for each type of concentration check. There is no formula for SU's, and that would make any formula applies by a GM a houserule.
I see absolutely no reason that would qualify a list as "exhaustive". Does a blizzard not force a concentration check? That doesn't qualify as "wind with rain" or "wind with hail or debris", since snow is neither hail, rain, nor debris. So now, by your logic, a mild rainstorm is more distracting and disruptive than a severe blizzard.
The table gives guidelines for evaluating different values and types of distraction. Just like Ghost Sound doesn't explicitly specify how many human voices worth every particular sound is, it gives you examples to use as guidelines and leaves the exact volume definition of whatever sound you choose up for reasonable interpretation. That doesn't make anything besides humans, lions, and dragons a "house rule" Ghost Sound. As for calculating SU's, you can definitely use the non-damaging spell formula. It doesn't have a spell level, so you put nothing there. It's simple. Just because there are variables doesn't mean they all have to be filled with some positive value when they're not applicable. Trying to treat the list as exhaustive leads to incredible mental gymnastics here. My logic is that SU's are not on the list so it is not a part of the official ruleset, and SU's are different enough from spells that the sleet vs blizzard example does not apply since a blizzard can have debris and high winds.
If you believe you are correct show me the formula for the DC from the book.
Any GM can use the nondamaging spells formula, but that does not make it legal, per the official rules.
Until I see a formula(from the book) I am done with this conversation. I have seen enough "I have already made my mind up" scenarios to know you won't take anything beyond the word of a dev, and you might complain about that too.
Angrimbor wrote: As for calculating SU's, you can definitely use the non-damaging spell formula. It doesn't have a spell level, so you put nothing there. It's simple. Just because there are variables doesn't mean they all have to be filled with some positive value when they're not applicable. You can choose to treat it that way, but the rules actually avoid this sort of thing. "Not having X" is treated differently than "Having 0 X" in order to prevent getting extra of something you don't have any of. It usually comes up with regards to using class-specific magic items and the UMD skill to pretend you are that class. When this is not the case, it's specifically called out. (I've seen it mostly when adding some type of armor/natural armor.)
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: Angrimbor wrote: Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: I believe the CRB list of concentration check conditions is supposed to be exhaustive. What would give you that impression? There are very few exhaustive lists in the rule books at all, precisely because it's almost impossible to account for everything. If you treat that list as exhaustive, then you have to somehow reconcile yourself with the impossible idea that having rain blown in your face is somehow more distracting and disruptive than taking a magical attack, having a sudden loud sound or appearance, etc. The rules do not state that the list is exhaustive, so I see no RAW reason to treat it as such, and the logical inconsistencies that would present eliminate RAI possibilities. The table says that taking a magical attack is more distracting than having rain blown in your face. But even if it were the other way around, the important thing is that both are on the table. I see no reason that a non-magical sudden loud sound should force a concentration check unless, of course, it says so in the ability description, since specific always overrides general.
If they wanted random perhaps-distracting things to force checks, they would have put in an "Other" line and probably said that the GM should use the explicit entries for guidance.
Can you provide a couple of examples of rulebook lists that (a) are clearly not exhaustive but (b) do not state so, whether by including an entry for "Other" or otherwise? I don't see a good way to search for such myself. A supernatural ability (especially in this case) is a magical attack. It's in the official definition.
You can see no reason why a sudden loud sound would force a concentration check, but I see no reason why a little rain would either in that case. It's not magical rain. It's just rain. So, according to Paizo, the act of having the wind blow some rain onto you is distracting enough to force a check. I've seen people get rain blown onto them without so much as blinking, but there are very few people who aren't distracted by a gunshot.
As far as the Other line, what would that accomplish? In every instance I can think of, they never say: "Oh and other stuff, just figure it out". They provide examples to base your decisions on. Mundane but distracting occurrences, like rain blowing in your face. Or hail. Which they did; we have a list of otherwise completely random and arbitrary conditions, but if taken as obviously intended, it's guidelines for judging the severity of the thousands of situations the list doesn't cover. Is it more distracting than rain? Less distracting than a bucking ship? Okay, somewhere in between those values then.
As for examples, I already provided the Ghost Sound example, and I can also submit the Prestidigitation example. Paizo has a clear style when it comes to things with near infinite possibilities, and that style is to provide examples, with values where applicable, and to leave the rest to reasonable interpretation.
wraithstrike wrote: Angrimbor wrote: wraithstrike wrote: NThe list is exhaustive since it gives you a specific formula for each type of concentration check. There is no formula for SU's, and that would make any formula applies by a GM a houserule.
I see absolutely no reason that would qualify a list as "exhaustive". Does a blizzard not force a concentration check? That doesn't qualify as "wind with rain" or "wind with hail or debris", since snow is neither hail, rain, nor debris. So now, by your logic, a mild rainstorm is more distracting and disruptive than a severe blizzard.
The table gives guidelines for evaluating different values and types of distraction. Just like Ghost Sound doesn't explicitly specify how many human voices worth every particular sound is, it gives you examples to use as guidelines and leaves the exact volume definition of whatever sound you choose up for reasonable interpretation. That doesn't make anything besides humans, lions, and dragons a "house rule" Ghost Sound. As for calculating SU's, you can definitely use the non-damaging spell formula. It doesn't have a spell level, so you put nothing there. It's simple. Just because there are variables doesn't mean they all have to be filled with some positive value when they're not applicable. Trying to treat the list as exhaustive leads to incredible mental gymnastics here. My logic is that SU's are not on the list so it is not a part of the official ruleset, and SU's are different enough from spells that the sleet vs blizzard example does not apply since a blizzard can have debris and high winds.
If you believe you are correct show me the formula for the DC from the book.
Any GM can use the nondamaging spells formula, but that does not make it legal, per the official rules.
Until I see a formula(from the book) I am done with this conversation. I have seen enough "I have already made my mind up" scenarios to know you won't take anything beyond the word of a dev, and you might complain about that too. This is so hypocritical it's ironic.
Angrimbor wrote: Would a readied Reveal Weakness prompt a concentration check? I would say no, as it does not actually have a noticeable effect on the targets ability to cast.
Quote: If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way...
TriOmegaZero wrote: Angrimbor wrote: Would a readied Reveal Weakness prompt a concentration check? I would say no, as it does not actually have a noticeable effect on the targets ability to cast. Neither does Flare, or any non-damaging spell which is successfully saved against, nor does rain. But all of those cause concentration checks, because it's not about shutting down the ability to cast, it's about distracting enough that they have to consciously concentrate on what they're doing to continue doing it. A concentration check is not an automatic fail.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
"The noise a ghost sound spell produces can be virtually any type of sound within the volume limit" explicitly makes clear that the preceding list is not exhaustive. IMO the language in prestidigation does also.
You are definitely reaching at this point, and I believe wraithstrike is correct about your mind being made up already. If not, take a coffee break, because you are clearly agitated.
I would say Flare may distract you while casting, as bright light is distracting. However, on further review I would say that non-damaging Su abilities do not incur a concentration check.
Quote: Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. They are not spells, and so do not fall under the Concentration rules as written.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: "The noise a ghost sound spell produces can be virtually any type of sound within the volume limit" explicitly makes clear that the preceding list is not exhaustive. IMO the language in prestidigation does also.
You are definitely reaching at this point, and I believe wraithstrike is correct about your mind being made up already. If not, take a coffee break, because you are clearly agitated.
If that concludes that Ghost Sound's list is not exhaustive, then "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." concludes that the concentration check table is not exhaustive. Any number of things can interrupt someone's concentration.
Non-damaging spells only makes a caster do concentration checks if it somehow interferes or distracts with the casting of spells. Being hasted does not interfere with casting, for example.
I think there's no real general rule about SU abilities. However, if they do cause something that does interfere or distracts spell casting or simulates the same effects of spells that does, I'd treat it as such. Apply the existing rules. Otherwsie, they're just like any other non-interfering effect.
TriOmegaZero wrote: I would say Flare may distract you while casting, as bright light is distracting. However, on further review I would say that non-damaging Su abilities do not incur a concentration check.
Quote: Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. They are not spells, and so do not fall under the Concentration rules as written.
Yes, Flare distracts while casting. That's the point. So does a supernatural ability which broadcasts your weakness across an entire battlefield. Pretty distracting. It has nothing to do with the actual effect of the magic, and everything to do with the fact that you have become the target of a magical attack. Spells which are saved against and have no effect still cause concentration checks.
There are plenty of things which are not spells which are obviously accounted for in Concentration rules, so the fact that SU abilities are not spells is irrelevant to the RAW.
Angrimbor wrote: Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: "The noise a ghost sound spell produces can be virtually any type of sound within the volume limit" explicitly makes clear that the preceding list is not exhaustive. IMO the language in prestidigation does also.
You are definitely reaching at this point, and I believe wraithstrike is correct about your mind being made up already. If not, take a coffee break, because you are clearly agitated.
If that concludes that Ghost Sound's list is not exhaustive, then "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." concludes that the concentration check table is not exhaustive. Any number of things can interrupt someone's concentration. That line is not part of the list. The list is the table. That line is an intro to chatting about the table, explaining why anything is on it at all. The table is still exhaustive.
Angrimbor wrote: Yes, Flare distracts while casting. That's the point. So does a supernatural ability which broadcasts your weakness across an entire battlefield. That's a GM call, not a RAW call. There is no written rule saying that Su abilities force concentration checks.
Angrimbor wrote: There are plenty of things which are not spells which are obviously accounted for in Concentration rules, so the fact that SU abilities are not spells is irrelevant to the RAW. The fact that only spells are listed means that supernatural abilities do not cause concentration checks in all cases. If it said 'If you are affected by a magical attack', then supernatural abilities would be included.
Rub-Eta wrote: Non-damaging spells only makes a caster do concentration checks if it somehow interferes or distracts with the casting of spells. Being hasted does not interfere with casting, for example.
I think there's no real general rule about SU abilities. However, if they do cause something that does interfere or distracts spell casting or simulates the same effects of spells that does, I'd treat it as such. Apply the existing rules. Otherwsie, they're just like any other non-interfering effect.
Any non-damaging spell causes a concentration check if you are targeted while casting, even if you save against it successfully. I'll refer you to a Paizo blog for that one.
Blog
"Spells like enlarge person or slow or even ray of enfeeblement break a caster’s concentration if they manage to affect her while she’s casting, so you have to make a concentration check in order to cast when this happens. The DC for a non-damaging spell is fairly low unless you’re affected by a spell with a seriously high save DC, and you’re forced to make the check even if you succeed on your saving throw against the spell and negate its effects. It’s a nasty bit of aftershock that you can leave a caster with if you’re lucky."
It has nothing to do with the effect of the spell, or whether it interferes with casting. Being targeted by a magical effect or attack is enough of a distraction to trigger the check, according to Alex Augunas. By that same logic, so would any SU ability that directly targets someone as they are casting.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: Angrimbor wrote: Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: "The noise a ghost sound spell produces can be virtually any type of sound within the volume limit" explicitly makes clear that the preceding list is not exhaustive. IMO the language in prestidigation does also.
You are definitely reaching at this point, and I believe wraithstrike is correct about your mind being made up already. If not, take a coffee break, because you are clearly agitated.
If that concludes that Ghost Sound's list is not exhaustive, then "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." concludes that the concentration check table is not exhaustive. Any number of things can interrupt someone's concentration. That line is not part of the list. The list is the table. That line is an intro to chatting about the table, explaining why anything is on it at all. The table is still exhaustive. Then the line of Ghost Sound falls under the same arbitrary logic. The line you dismiss is part of the official rules. You can't just dismiss it because you don't like the implications. The table is not listed as exhaustive, that line dismisses the idea that it can even be exhaustive, and at this point your clinging to a very thin argument and taking your RAI over explicitly stated rules.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Angrimbor wrote: Yes, Flare distracts while casting. That's the point. So does a supernatural ability which broadcasts your weakness across an entire battlefield. That's a GM call, not a RAW call. There is no written rule saying that Su abilities force concentration checks.
Angrimbor wrote: There are plenty of things which are not spells which are obviously accounted for in Concentration rules, so the fact that SU abilities are not spells is irrelevant to the RAW. The fact that only spells are listed means that supernatural abilities do not cause concentration checks. If it said 'If you are affected by a magical attack', then supernatural abilities would be included. Both of those statements are false.
1) The written rule says: "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." That covers any distraction. It even goes on to give guidance for things not on the list: "The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC". It wouldn't need to state that the DC gets higher with more distraction if the list was exhaustive. The values would be set in stone, there would be no interpretation.
2) Spells are not the only things listed. They simply aren't, even if you for no reason take the list as exhaustive. The majority of the examples are non-magical in nature.
Angrimbor wrote: Both of those statements are false.
1) The written rule says: "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." That covers any distraction. It even goes on to give guidance for things not on the list: "The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC". It wouldn't need to state that the DC gets higher with more distraction if the list was exhaustive. The values would be set in stone, there would be no interpretation.
2) Spells are not the only things listed. They simply aren't, even if you for no reason take the list as exhaustive. The majority of the examples are non-magical in nature.
1) I did not say the list was exhaustive. I said that supernatural abilities are not on the list, meaning the GM must consider if the ability is an interruption of concentration, and then call for a concentration check. You personally saying 'I consider Flare/Reveal Weakness/Gently Caress to be distracting' does not mean 'the rules say supernatural abilities cause concentration checks'.
2) Spells are the only magical attacks listed. If the rules meant to have concentration checks for being affected by supernatural abilities, they would have included that explicitly or by using a broader term such as 'magical attacks'. This is a Rules Forum discussion, so I am speaking to what the rules say, not what I think they should say.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The rules do not expressly say that Su abilities can force concentration checks.
If we assume that they can, the question remains as to what the DC is.
You suggest using the spell DC rules.
At this point, it's definitely a house-rule; supernatural abilities are not spells or even spell-like. This results in a lot of other things, like not requiring concentration checks or being subject to spell resistance. It also requires assigning them a spell level of zero, which (while intuitive) is not how the rules work.
Is this reasonable? Sure. Just make sure that all the players know in advance so they can account for it. (I don't know of any immediate action at-will enemy-targeting Su abilities that can be used during the target's casting, fortunately, so the worst abuse seems to be off the table.)
Will people say that the rules suggest or support this on the rules forum? Probably not.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're hoping for.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Angrimbor wrote: Both of those statements are false.
1) The written rule says: "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." That covers any distraction. It even goes on to give guidance for things not on the list: "The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC". It wouldn't need to state that the DC gets higher with more distraction if the list was exhaustive. The values would be set in stone, there would be no interpretation.
2) Spells are not the only things listed. They simply aren't, even if you for no reason take the list as exhaustive. The majority of the examples are non-magical in nature.
1) I did not say the list was exhaustive. I said that supernatural abilities are not on the list, meaning the GM must consider if the ability is an interruption of concentration, and then call for a concentration check. You personally saying 'I consider Flare/Reveal Weakness/Gently Caress to be distracting' does not mean 'the rules say supernatural abilities cause concentration checks'.
2) Spells are the only magical attacks listed. If the rules meant to have concentration checks for being affected by supernatural abilities, they would have included that explicitly or by using a broader term such as 'magical attacks'. This is a Rules Forum discussion, so I am speaking to what the rules say, not what I think they should say. 1) Not every supernatural ability would, but every targeted supernatural ability would, for the same reason every targeted spell would. Literally any spell forces a concentration check if you cast it in reaction. In case you didn't see it, I'll direct you the the blog in this comment as well.
Blog
Any spell, regardless of effect, beneficial or harmful, saved or unsaved, causes a check when targeting a caster who is casting. Spells which cause damage add the damage to their check, and spells which have no damage don't. But every spell does. For the exact same reason, every targeted supernatural ability would.
2) The list is not exhaustive, therefor what is listed is irrelevant. Including every single item explicitly is also ridiculous and irrelevant. The rules clearly state that any interruption of concentration causes a check, and the check increases in DC based on how distracting it is. That value is left open to interpretation within the provided guidelines of the list, just like the approximate human voice total of a given sound is left open to interpretation in Ghost Sound. The actual rule:
"To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type. Clerics, druids, and rangers add their Wisdom modifier. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers add their Charisma modifier. Finally, wizards add their Intelligence modifier. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect."
The table is there as a reference for determining appropriate DCs. The rules as written are clear, and do not need to account for every distracting action explicitly, because the book would be taller than you if they did. The reason I point out the significance of SU being "magical attacks" is that it brings them under the same reasoning as the blog post. If a spell can cause a check, even when saved against and having absolutely no other effect, than under the same reasoning an SU ability is equally as distracting. What caused the check wasn't the spell, it wasn't what the spell did, it was being magically targeted. Whether that's by a spell or an SU doesn't matter. Whether there's a save or not doesn't matter. What the spell does doesn't matter. It's the interference of a magical attack on the concentration of the caster.
If you want to ignore RAW, RAI and an explanatory official blog you be my guest, but at that point I'm going to need you to point to where in the rules you're getting your reasoning.
The author of that blog post is a freelance writer for Pathfinder, not a dev. So while it's a handy guide, it's not actually official as far as I know.
Angrimbor wrote: 1) Not every supernatural ability would, but every targeted supernatural ability would, for the same reason every targeted spell would. Literally any spell forces a concentration check if you cast it in reaction. In case you didn't see it, I'll direct you the the blog in this comment as well.
Blog
All due respect to Alex, he did not write the rules and is not a part of the development team. Until he is, and until he changes the rules, his blog means nothing when discussing the rules save as another experienced voice.
QuidEst wrote: The rules do not expressly say that Su abilities can force concentration checks.
If we assume that they can, the question remains as to what the DC is.
You suggest using the spell DC rules.
At this point, it's definitely a house-rule; supernatural abilities are not spells or even spell-like. This results in a lot of other things, like not requiring concentration checks or being subject to spell resistance. It also requires assigning them a spell level of zero, which (while intuitive) is not how the rules work.
Is this reasonable? Sure. Just make sure that all the players know in advance so they can account for it. (I don't know of any immediate action at-will enemy-targeting Su abilities that can be used during the target's casting, fortunately, so the worst abuse seems to be off the table.)
Will people say that the rules suggest or support this on the rules forum? Probably not.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're hoping for.
The rules expressly say that any distraction during the action of casting forces a concentration check. The DCs of a few specific actions are given, and the rest is left for interpretation. The table is not exhaustive. There is no rule stating that SU abilities are for some arcane reason unable to distract people, which would need to be the case for them to not cause distraction. It's a magical attack. Unless the rules state otherwise, it's distracting.
There is no "house rule" involved in the interpretation of official rules. Not every official rule is lined out in exact decimal point notation. The GM is an official part of the game, and a large part of the role is to interpret the official rules. No house rule is necessary to ensure SU causes distraction, because it's covered by the official rule:
"To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type. Clerics, druids, and rangers add their Wisdom modifier. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers add their Charisma modifier. Finally, wizards add their Intelligence modifier. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect."
The official rule provides the condition for a concentration check (If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting), and it provides guidance for the DC (The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC), and it provides examples (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). Everything is officially accounted for. No house ruling involved. It's not a house rule when a DM decides approximately how many human voices a crashing wagon is worth for Ghost Sound, it's not a house rule when a DM decides exactly how heavy a particular wagon is. A house rule is a new rule, or the changing of a rule. Following an official rule within official guidelines is not houseruling.
Determining the DC of a SU, utilizing the table provided, leaves you with two options: attempt to determine a fixed DC based on the fixed DC values provided by estimating the severity of the distraction in comparison to provided examples, like rain or violent movement. Or you can compare it to a non-damaging spell, which is a magical attack like a SU, and use the appropriate provided formula. How you want to determine the DC may be up for debate, and may require errata, but the fact that a targeted SU causes a concentration check of some kind should be obvious by this point.
The rules obviously point to this, and the official blog clarifies further. If you want to keep discussing the DC calculation, I'm game, but there's no longer a question of whether or not it causes a concentration check.
Angrimbor wrote: The table is there as a reference for determining appropriate DCs. The rules as written are clear, and do not need to account for every distracting action explicitly, because the book would be taller than you if they did. The reason I point out the significance of SU being "magical attacks" is that it brings them under the same reasoning as the blog post. If a spell can cause a check, even when saved against and having absolutely no other effect, than under the same reasoning an SU ability is equally as distracting. Except not every spell is distracting. The written rule requires the GM to determine if the spell or ability is distracting enough to cause a concentration check. If you feel it is, then the check is made. But there is no rule stating that all supernatural abilities cause concentration checks.
Could you please explain how Alex's blog qualifies as "official"? It's not on the Paizo website, he's not listed as an employee, and it is not endorsed in any way by Paizo as authoritative.
The official blog is here, for reference.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Angrimbor wrote: 1) Not every supernatural ability would, but every targeted supernatural ability would, for the same reason every targeted spell would. Literally any spell forces a concentration check if you cast it in reaction. In case you didn't see it, I'll direct you the the blog in this comment as well.
Blog
All due respect to Alex, he did not write the rules and is not a part of the development team. Until he is, and until he changes the rules, his blog means nothing when discussing the rules save as another experienced voice.
His word means more than yours, seeing as he's a Paizo writer. Now you're just splitting hairs. Would you quibble when the development team member tells you you're wrong, because he wasn't the exact individual who wrote that particular section?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Angrimbor wrote: Now you're just splitting hairs. Would you quibble when the development team member tells you you're wrong, because he wasn't the exact individual who wrote that particular section? I have, and will continue to do so, when what they say is provably wrong according to the rules as they are written, until they change the rules to match what they are saying.
Freelance doesn't mean amateur. It means he's not permanently employed, but he has written in an official capacity for them and other Pathfinder material distributors.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Angrimbor wrote: Now you're just splitting hairs. Would you quibble when the development team member tells you you're wrong, because he wasn't the exact individual who wrote that particular section? I have, and will continue to do so, when what they say is provably wrong according to the rules as they are written, until they change the rules to match what they are saying. It's not provably wrong. What you say is provably wrong RAW. The rules do not support your argument that anything not on the example list is not distracting. They rules state that any distraction forces a concentration check. You would need to change the rules to match your claim that something which is an obvious distraction is not. When you have some action RAW to quote, come back.
He's not a part of the Pathfinder Design Team, meaning his statements are not offical.
PRD wrote:
Injured while casting 10 + damage dealt + spell level
Continuous damage while casting 10 + 1/2 damage dealt + spell level
Vigorous motion while casting 10 + spell level
Violent motion while casting 15 + spell level
Extremely violent motion while casting 20 + spell level
Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Wind with hail and debris while casting 10 + spell level
Entangled while casting 15 + spell level
(note that Spell level is the level of the spell you are casting, not the level of the spell that target you)
I see very little stuff that can affect you on a failed save and that don't fail within one of the above categories or that don't already affect you in a obvious way.
Confused? it don't interrupt your spellcasting. It mess with your targeting.
Charmed? the same.
Dominated? the person dominating you decide if you complete the spell or not.
and so on.
TriOmegaZero wrote: He's not a part of the Pathfinder Design Team, meaning his statements are not offical. Then satisfy yourself with the official rules, which directly contradict you.
Diego Rossi wrote: PRD wrote:
Injured while casting 10 + damage dealt + spell level
Continuous damage while casting 10 + 1/2 damage dealt + spell level
Vigorous motion while casting 10 + spell level
Violent motion while casting 15 + spell level
Extremely violent motion while casting 20 + spell level
Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Wind with hail and debris while casting 10 + spell level
Entangled while casting 15 + spell level
(note that Spell level is the level of the spell you are casting, not the level of the spell that target you)
I see very little stuff that can affect you on a failed save and that don't fail within one of the above categories or that don't already affect you in a obvious way.
Confused? it don't interrupt your spellcasting. It mess with your targeting.
Charmed? the same.
Dominated? the person dominating you decide if you complete the spell or not.
and so on.
I don't know why you're throwing out persistent conditions when concentration checks are about interruptions.
Angrimbor wrote: When you have some action RAW to quote, come back. You're asking me to prove a negative. The rules do not say that supernatural abilities cause a character to make a concentration check. They say that "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." It is up to the GM if something is interrupting your spellcasting. Since there is no entry saying 'affected by a non-damaging supernatural ability' anywhere in the concentration rules, you need to provide more evidence that supernatural abilities cause concentration checks than your own call as a GM.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Angrimbor wrote: When you have some action RAW to quote, come back. You're asking me to prove a negative. The rules do not say that supernatural abilities cause a character to make a concentration check. They say that "If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." It is up to the GM if something is interrupting your spellcasting. Since there is no entry saying 'affected by a non-damaging supernatural ability' anywhere in the concentration rules, you need to provide more evidence that supernatural abilities cause concentration checks than your own call as a GM. No, I'm asking you to find me any rules which contradict the very positive stated rule that any distraction causes a concentration check. As for evidence, the list itself is evidence. If something as minor as rain can cause a check, then a magical attack causes a check. That's the reason the examples were listed, and it's the reason that the rain is the lowest check there (low enough to be inconsequential to any mid-level or higher caster). It sets the bar for distractions.
Angrimbor wrote: No, I'm asking you to find me any rules which contradict the very positive stated rule that any distraction causes a concentration check. I have just explained why that stated rule does not mean what you think it means.
|
