Inaccuracies or possible errors


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Not sure if this is appropriate yet since the release date has not officially arrived - if so, please delete this thread.

I am enjoying the book so far, but I have encountered a case which does not seem to be working as intended to me, so I figured, why not make a thread where people can post these quibbles?

Anyway, the issue I have run into is that RAW, it is impossible to attack with a flaming weapon in aquatic combats because the Strike action gains the fire trait and actions with the fire trait are forbidden underwater. My assumption would be that the weapon should at least function as a normal weapon (modified by the usual underwater rules for weapons).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Are you likely to play with a GM that would rule against what you describe?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

No, but my intentions in bringing it up are not closely tied to my own future games. That is also why I wanted to make this a more general thread rather than just me nitpicking this one issue - so that maybe after having collected some stuff, we might get a developer comment clearing up our collective confusions, once it is actually warranted to expect one.

In any case, it might well be that my conception of the flaming rune does differ from how the designers envisioned it - for instance, if the rune is supposed to, in a sense, *transform* the weapon into one mostly made of fire, which only does the original damage type as a side effect, it would be perfectly reasonable to use RAW, but I find this intended interpretation unlikely.


I dunno how it is in pf2 but in pf1 you could at will toggle of the flame - therefore the attack would lose the flame trait and work (without the fire damage of course)


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have found another issue which I do not know how to resolve. The rules state that if both a fortune and a misfortune effect apply to a roll, they cancel each other out. This is fine if both effects are of the variety that lets/makes you roll twice and take the higher/lower result, but what happens if the misfortune effect is like this while the Fortune effect is, say, Halfling Luck, i.e. an effect that lets you reroll? It is impossible to retroactively cancel out the misfortune effect since two dice have already been rolled and their numbers observed. But letting you use Halfling Luck as normal would cheapen the misfortune effect, while forbidding it entirely would remove the opportunity to at least get a straight roll out of the whole situation, which by RAW should be possible. How do I resolve this conundrum?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

my big one, is that it seems a paladin of Irori, can't use blade ally with his fist.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Q 1) As Seisho noted I think this is what the deal is. Good luck trying to swing a weapon that is trying to light itself on fire and boiling the water around it with ANY amount of accuracy. It would in effect create a steam/gas barrier around the weapon that would wholesale prevent it from doing any damage at all to the intended target- Just switch the fiery weapon quality off or you have a piece of junk for underwater combat, seems about right to me.

2) Can't say because I know nothing about "Fortune/Misfortune" effects, I'm guessing that those are a specific kind of Tag or Trait that defines an effect? That said I'm not sure where the conflict in your scenario plays out based on how you're describing it. If you have a misfortune Trait in play on an attack, you'd need to decide to trigger your Halfling Luck to cancel it out before you roll anyhow so the whole thing is a wash no matter what, unless I misunderstand what these actually do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Edit: I'm super wrong here. My continued searching found a rule on page 451 that specifically says the attack action gains the trait of its damage types, and even goes so far as to give flaming weapons specifically as an example. Leaving the rest of the post unchanged.

As far as I can tell, this isn't actually true, RAW. I'm bolding traits for clarity, and capitalizing as it was in whatever I'm immediately referencing.

Things that are true:
- The Flaming rune has the Fire trait (and Conjuration and Magical)
- The Flaming rune rules text makes no allowance for turning it off or on
- The Strike action has the Attack trait
- The weapon will have whatever traits it comes with (for a Trident, since it's thematic for an ocean fight, it has Thrown 20 ft. as a weapon trait)
- The aquatic combat section says, "You can't cast fire spells or use actions with the fire trait underwater"
- The aquatic combat section also says you gain resistance 5 to fire

But...I can't find a rule saying that the action gains any of the weapon's traits, never mind the weapon's runes. For full RAW literalism, I'd rule that the action only has the Attack trait, as printed. Anyone hit would have (at least) resistance 5 to the fire damage.

Feel free to point out where you think the action gains the traits of the item. It's a lot harder to flip through relevant sections on a paper book than Ctrl-F a PDF, but that's where things sit for me today.

That said, there are some other interesting consequences. Take some fire elementals: Do their non-action non-spell abilities that do have fire traits (like the passive Fetid Fumes ability with aura, fire) function underwater? Do their special attack actions like "fire mote" work at all? There are a couple of actions (Breath Weapon, Inferno Leap) that clearly wouldn't work, but RAW a bunch of others still would.

Unless I missed something else.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ikarinokami wrote:
my big one, is that it seems a paladin of Irori, can't use righteous blade with his fist.

I'm assuming you mean the blade ally ability. I don't see a righteous blade feat or feature.

Handwraps of Mighty Blows wrote:
You can upgrade, add, and transfer runes to and from the handwraps just as you would for a weapon, and you can attach talismans to the handwraps. Treat the handwraps as melee weapons of the brawling group with light Bulk for these purposes.
Divine Ally, Blade wrote:
Select one weapon when you make your daily preparations. In your hands, the weapon gains the effects of a property rune. ... You also gain the weapon's critical specialization effect.

I feel like someone would have to go out of their way not to let you select the handwraps there. The critical specialization is a little iffier on literalist RAW, but I think the common sense interpretation is pretty safe for you, especially since unarmed attacks are called out in all the weapon specialization features...

But...I don't see the same language under Deific Weapon covering unarmed attacks for the damage die size increase that the comparable Cleric feat has (which specifically calls out a d6 for unarmed to avoid stacking with a Monk increase, for instance), nor for the actual weapon proficiency increases (like monks have as a comparison). That could be a problem for the RAW literalists.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RicoTheBold wrote:
Edit: I'm super wrong here. My continued searching found a rule on page 451 that specifically says the attack action gains the trait of its damage types, and even goes so far as to give flaming weapons specifically as an example. Leaving the rest of the post unchanged.

Sorry for the confusion, I should have referenced page numbers in the original post.

Themetricsystem wrote:
2) Can't say because I know nothing about "Fortune/Misfortune" effects, I'm guessing that those are a specific kind of Tag or Trait that defines an effect? That said I'm not sure where the conflict in your scenario plays out based on how you're describing it. If you have a misfortune Trait in play on an attack, you'd need to decide to trigger your Halfling Luck to cancel it out before you roll anyhow so the whole thing is a wash no matter what, unless I misunderstand what these actually do.

Fortune effects are effects that let you roll two dice and take the better one or reroll a check; Misfortune effects make you roll twice and take the worse result or force you to reroll a successful check.

Halfling Luck is a free action triggered by a failed skill check or saving throw, so it needs to be used after the roll. This is where the issue comes from, since it makes it impossible to have the two effects cancel each other out before making the roll.


My guess is that you would use the halfling luck ability to eliminate the lower rolled dice? thus the cancelling it out. at least that is how I would rule it in the heat of the moment. but not sure if that is raw or not.

Shadow Lodge

pixierose wrote:
My guess is that you would use the halfling luck ability to eliminate the lower rolled dice? thus the cancelling it out. at least that is how I would rule it in the heat of the moment. but not sure if that is raw or not.

that would effectively turn the misfortune into fortune. As mentioned earlier it'd make sense to declare the use of halfling luck before the dice are rolled to cancel out the misfortune. Alternatively if you want to use halfling luck after the rolls use a coin flip to determine which roll to use.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There would have to be a way to turn the flame (or acid or whatever) trait off. Otherwise the blade would flame inside the sheathe and catch stuff on fire constantly while you're drinking in a tavern.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Skerek wrote:
that would effectively turn the misfortune into fortune. As mentioned earlier it'd make sense to declare the use of halfling luck before the dice are rolled to cancel out the misfortune. Alternatively if you want to use halfling luck after the rolls use a coin flip to determine which roll to use.

I guess that is one solution, but it still makes the misfortune unduly beneficial since if you have rolled two low numbers, you know to save your luck for a roll where it might actually help. Maybe the misfortune rolls could be made in secret by the GM, with only the result being announced, not the number on the higher die? But I could also get behind using Halfling Luck beforehand in this case, even though RAW would not allow you to.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You could say 'this is my regular roll, and this is my misfortune roll', then when you apply halfling luck, you simply remove the misfortune roll from the table. Retroactively making it so you only rolled one die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My interpretation of the halfling luck would you if you failed, you roll again... WITH Misfortune again.

Also, What are peoples thoughts on Giant Instinct Barbarian?

The Weapon size rules say a weapon can only increase in size once. A Giant Instinct Barbarian gets a Large weapon. So D8 -> D10. If they then become large does the weapon go from D10 to D12 or does it not?

The weapon itself hasn't theoretically been increased, because it's just a large weapon.

Thoughts?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MongrelHorde wrote:

Also, What are peoples thoughts on Giant Instinct Barbarian?

The Weapon size rules say a weapon can only increase in size once. A Giant Instinct Barbarian gets a Large weapon. So D8 -> D10. If they then become large does the weapon go from D10 to D12 or does it not?

The weapon itself hasn't theoretically been increased, because it's just a large weapon.

Thoughts?

Weapon die doesn't change on resize. This is the same thing as the playtest. The only extra damage is the listed increase to the amount you get while raging. Also, since the Clumsy doesn't penalize Str-based attacks like Sluggish did, it's strictly better than the playtest version.


RicoTheBold wrote:
Weapon die doesn't change on resize.

I must have missed this in the book, could you point me to generally where this is stated in the CRB?


MongrelHorde wrote:
My interpretation of the halfling luck would you if you failed, you roll again... WITH Misfortune again.

I'd agree with that only if misfortune normally has a duration longer than a single roll. If not, then I'd say misfortune applies to the first roll as normal, so you'd take the lower of the dice as your result. Then if you choose to use halfing luck you reroll that result.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MongrelHorde wrote:
I must have missed this in the book, could you point me to generally where this is stated in the CRB?

Page 295 states: "In most cases, Small or Medium creatures can wield a Large weapon, though it's unwieldy, giving them the clumsy 1 condition, and the larger size is canceled by the difficulty of swinging the weapon, so it grants no special benefit."

Apart from that, it is, of course, difficult to give a citation for the absence of a rule. There simply is no point at which any increase in damage dice for larger weapons is stated as a rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
painted_green wrote:
Sorry for the confusion, I should have referenced page numbers in the original post.

No worries; one of the reasons I did the exercise was to help me learn the rules better as I've found edge cases force a better understanding to resolve. I'd already started a list of some inconsistencies/minor errors/early FAQ candidates of my own to try to hunt down, but most of them are much simpler and I'm mostly waiting until I can search PDFs to double-check things more easily. (Plus, I don't want to post a list of copy edit issues when people don't have access to the books yet to have context; they're almost all really minor and overall I'm super impressed with how structurally sound all the rules systems seem to be.)

painted_green wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
2) Can't say because I know nothing about "Fortune/Misfortune" effects, I'm guessing that those are a specific kind of Tag or Trait that defines an effect? That said I'm not sure where the conflict in your scenario plays out based on how you're describing it. If you have a misfortune Trait in play on an attack, you'd need to decide to trigger your Halfling Luck to cancel it out before you roll anyhow so the whole thing is a wash no matter what, unless I misunderstand what these actually do.

Fortune effects are effects that let you roll two dice and take the better one or reroll a check; Misfortune effects make you roll twice and take the worse result or force you to reroll a successful check.

Halfling Luck is a free action triggered by a failed skill check or saving throw, so it needs to be used after the roll. This is where the issue comes from, since it makes it impossible to have the two effects cancel each other out before making the roll.

Skimming through the spells chapter, Fortune effects can be more varied than that, which makes for some other weird interactions.

- Hero Point rerolls have you take the second roll's result, even if it's worse, and can obviously be used on any type of roll
- The Bard focus spell Counter Performance (p.386) gives you or an ally a performance check as a 2nd roll to take the better of for a save, but notably you pick to use it before the roll
- The Cleric focus spell Lucky Break (p.393) is a simple reroll and take the better result after a failed (but not critically failed) saving throw
- The Cleric focus spell Perfected Form (p.394) gives a reroll and take the better effect after a failed save against a morph, petrification, or polymorph effect
- The Cleric focus spell Unity (p.398) lets each ally in 30 feet opt to use your saving throw modifier instead of their own
- The Cleric focus spell Zeal for Battle (p.399) gives you and and ally each one roll for initiative, but you both use the better of the two
- The Wizard focus spell Diviner's Sight (p.406) gives the option to replace a roll with a pre-rolled D20 for saves/skill checks, and has some extra text to handle secret checks.

There were several more I found that had similar effects so I didn't include them. The big outlier there is Unity, which doesn't grant a reroll at all but is still a Fortune effect.

The only Misfortune effect I could find is Outcast's Curse (p.355) which is the basic roll twice, take the worse result, but only affects Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, and Performance checks and has a duration of 10 minutes to permanent depending on the initial save.

That said, I also didn't check the Bestiary, which could have them in monster abilities (especially afflictions). That's probably something that will have to wait until I have the PDF and can search for the keywords.

So...I don't think it will come up much until more Misfortune effects are printed, and there will at least be warning due to the long duration. I'd probably opt to let a player affected know that they can preemptively use one of their Fortune triggers to cancel out the misfortune if they want, but that's not literal RAW. The Fortune rules are more likely to be an issue when someone tries to use multiple Fortune effects and is told they can't.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Fortune cancels Misfortune. You roll again and take the new result


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Fortune cancels Misfortune. You roll again and take the new result

But there could be circumstances where Misfortune triggers, say, a natural 1 and therefore any new roll could be no worse. Enabling a Fortune effect after the fact to get a new reroll would be exactly like having the benefit of the Fortune effect in its entirety, when the rule says they should be canceling each other out.


RicoTheBold wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Fortune cancels Misfortune. You roll again and take the new result
But there could be circumstances where Misfortune triggers, say, a natural 1 and therefore any new roll could be no worse. Enabling a Fortune effect after the fact to get a new reroll would be exactly like having the benefit of the Fortune effect in its entirety, when the rule says they should be canceling each other out.

I agree with the MongrelHorde on this for the specific case of 'Lucky Halfling' vs 'Misfortune' (the latter of which has been stated as having a duration of more than one roll). Since they are not the inverse of each other there is not a clean 'cancel out' mechanic. So invoking 'Lucky Halfling' would mean a second reroll WITH misfortune. I think that would be totally fair and capture the effects of both nicely.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RicoTheBold wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Fortune cancels Misfortune. You roll again and take the new result
But there could be circumstances where Misfortune triggers, say, a natural 1 and therefore any new roll could be no worse. Enabling a Fortune effect after the fact to get a new reroll would be exactly like having the benefit of the Fortune effect in its entirety, when the rule says they should be canceling each other out.

Cancel each out is cancel each out : no effect. Hence the reroll. When the effects are applied does not matter. Only that they apply to the same roll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

The class kit for Sorcerer (And maybe all of them) have the wrong weight. An Adventurer pack is 2 bulk, but the sorcerer kit is only 1.6 bulk.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
John Ryan 783 wrote:
The class kit for Sorcerer (And maybe all of them) have the wrong weight. An Adventurer pack is 2 bulk, but the sorcerer kit is only 1.6 bulk.

Mark Seifter's already commented on this one, and it's actually the Adventurer's Pack that's wrong (it's supposed to be 1 Bulk).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The Sorcerer's Signature Spell writeup says that it takes the same amount of time to retrain as a spell, but the page on retraining doesn't say anything about retraining spells. Is it one week like a feat, or one month (or more) like a class feature?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The Staff of Necromancy has a 4th level spell Enervation. But I can not find the spell anywhere.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Bullette in the bestiary is listed as a Creature 8, but its stats align with Creature 10, I would say it's thematic if one stat was off but all of them seem to be at the higher level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Cancel each out is cancel each out : no effect. Hence the reroll.

But a reroll is an effect.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Fortune cancels Misfortune. You roll again and take the new result
But there could be circumstances where Misfortune triggers, say, a natural 1 and therefore any new roll could be no worse. Enabling a Fortune effect after the fact to get a new reroll would be exactly like having the benefit of the Fortune effect in its entirety, when the rule says they should be canceling each other out.
Cancel each out is cancel each out : no effect. Hence the reroll. When the effects are applied does not matter. Only that they apply to the same roll.

Okay, I'll try again.

Example case without Misfortune:
- Roll a natural 1
- Fortune effect with "fail a roll" trigger lets you reroll and take the better
- Result: new roll, which can't possibly be worse

Problematic case:
- Misfortune effect caused two rolls, one of which was a natural 1 and you have to take that result
- Fortune effect offers two rolls, take the better, but for some reason (like Halfling's luck, in the original post) it only triggers after a failure
- Your proposed "cancel each other out, so reroll" result: New roll, which can't possibly be worse

That's exactly the same as the base Fortune effect in this edge case of following a really bad roll, which is why it's a problem. It's not really canceling out the effect when it only happens conditionally, after the results are available. And it's why I, as a GM, will just call out any misfortune roll beforehand and say if there's a fortune effect it gets a new trigger to be done before the roll and take it then or lose the opportunity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Fortune cancels Misfortune. You roll again and take the new result
But there could be circumstances where Misfortune triggers, say, a natural 1 and therefore any new roll could be no worse. Enabling a Fortune effect after the fact to get a new reroll would be exactly like having the benefit of the Fortune effect in its entirety, when the rule says they should be canceling each other out.
Cancel each out is cancel each out : no effect. Hence the reroll. When the effects are applied does not matter. Only that they apply to the same roll.

Okay, I'll try again.

Example case without Misfortune:
- Roll a natural 1
- Fortune effect with "fail a roll" trigger lets you reroll and take the better
- Result: new roll, which can't possibly be worse

Problematic case:
- Misfortune effect caused two rolls, one of which was a natural 1 and you have to take that result
- Fortune effect offers two rolls, take the better, but for some reason (like Halfling's luck, in the original post) it only triggers after a failure
- Your proposed "cancel each other out, so reroll" result: New roll, which can't possibly be worse

That's exactly the same as the base Fortune effect in this edge case of following a really bad roll, which is why it's a problem. It's not really canceling out the effect when it only happens conditionally, after the results are available. And it's why I, as a GM, will just call out any misfortune roll beforehand and say if there's a fortune effect it gets a new trigger to be done before the roll and take it then or lose the opportunity.

Very succinctly put. I think you've ably demonstrated how this particular interpretation of two effects "cancelling" doesn't actually result in anything being "cancelled".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Fortune cancels Misfortune. You roll again and take the new result
But there could be circumstances where Misfortune triggers, say, a natural 1 and therefore any new roll could be no worse. Enabling a Fortune effect after the fact to get a new reroll would be exactly like having the benefit of the Fortune effect in its entirety, when the rule says they should be canceling each other out.
Cancel each out is cancel each out : no effect. Hence the reroll. When the effects are applied does not matter. Only that they apply to the same roll.

Okay, I'll try again.

Example case without Misfortune:
- Roll a natural 1
- Fortune effect with "fail a roll" trigger lets you reroll and take the better
- Result: new roll, which can't possibly be worse

Problematic case:
- Misfortune effect caused two rolls, one of which was a natural 1 and you have to take that result
- Fortune effect offers two rolls, take the better, but for some reason (like Halfling's luck, in the original post) it only triggers after a failure
- Your proposed "cancel each other out, so reroll" result: New roll, which can't possibly be worse

That's exactly the same as the base Fortune effect in this edge case of following a really bad roll, which is why it's a problem. It's not really canceling out the effect when it only happens conditionally, after the results are available. And it's why I, as a GM, will just call out any misfortune roll beforehand and say if there's a fortune effect it gets a new trigger to be done before the roll and take it then or lose the opportunity.

I don't think a general solution should be based entirely on an edge case. That being said, I think MongrelHorde's suggestion of making a second misfortune roll makes the most sense in both the common case and this edge case (again, specifically talking about using Halfling Luck after a roll with Misfortune. Where Fortune/Misfortune effects are reciprocal they should obviously cancel out cleanly, leaving you with a single straight roll.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure this is a problem. The text says that misfortune and fortune effects on the same roll cancel each other out, but Halfing Luck doesn't modify the roll directly, it doesn't even apply to the roll at all in the first place, it just allows you to activate it to reroll after the effect.

Repeating the roll, with misfortune, seems like the most consistent application of the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One could argue that they are two separate instances. I would argue at least (and I could be wrong since I don't have the stuff in front of me* That this is a case of specific over general,

The General rule is that misfortune and fortune cancel each other out.

Halfling Luck, is a specific ability that has a *triggers* after the failure, which means the misfortune's effect on the role has already transpire, halfling luck is triggering because misfortune cause it to fail. But it is essentially a new roll, the other effect has already transpired, it's moment is gone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:

One could argue that they are two separate instances. I would argue at least (and I could be wrong since I don't have the stuff in front of me* That this is a case of specific over general,

The General rule is that misfortune and fortune cancel each other out.

Halfling Luck, is a specific ability that has a *triggers* after the failure, which means the misfortune's effect on the role has already transpire, halfling luck is triggering because misfortune cause it to fail. But it is essentially a new roll, the other effect has already transpired, it's moment is gone.

That's an interesting spin to put on things. Now what happens if the misfortune effect has a duration of one or more entire rounds? Would it not then apply to the re-roll? Assuming yes, should both effects then "cancel', and if so, what would "cancelling" look like in this particular case? I think that's the core of what's being debated here.


Bardic Dave wrote:
pixierose wrote:

One could argue that they are two separate instances. I would argue at least (and I could be wrong since I don't have the stuff in front of me* That this is a case of specific over general,

The General rule is that misfortune and fortune cancel each other out.

Halfling Luck, is a specific ability that has a *triggers* after the failure, which means the misfortune's effect on the role has already transpire, halfling luck is triggering because misfortune cause it to fail. But it is essentially a new roll, the other effect has already transpired, it's moment is gone.

That's an interesting spin to put on things. Now what happens if the misfortune effect has a duration of one or more entire rounds? Would it not then apply to the re-roll? Assuming yes, should both effects then "cancel', and if so, what would "cancelling" look like in this particular case? I think that's the core of what's being debated here.

Since Misfortune was stated as having a duration of more than just one roll, the Halfling Luck reroll would also be under Misfortune and require two rolls, taking the lowest of the two dice rerolled as a result.


Prince Setehrael wrote:
The Staff of Necromancy has a 4th level spell Enervation. But I can not find the spell anywhere.

I wondered based on what I saw about conditions whether Enervation had survived into the final book. I'm sad that it didn't.


mrspaghetti wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
pixierose wrote:

One could argue that they are two separate instances. I would argue at least (and I could be wrong since I don't have the stuff in front of me* That this is a case of specific over general,

The General rule is that misfortune and fortune cancel each other out.

Halfling Luck, is a specific ability that has a *triggers* after the failure, which means the misfortune's effect on the role has already transpire, halfling luck is triggering because misfortune cause it to fail. But it is essentially a new roll, the other effect has already transpired, it's moment is gone.

That's an interesting spin to put on things. Now what happens if the misfortune effect has a duration of one or more entire rounds? Would it not then apply to the re-roll? Assuming yes, should both effects then "cancel', and if so, what would "cancelling" look like in this particular case? I think that's the core of what's being debated here.
Since Misfortune was stated as having a duration of more than just one roll, the Halfling Luck reroll would also be under Misfortune and require two rolls, taking the lowest of the two dice rerolled as a result.

Yes, I tend to agree with you. But I was curious how the poster I was replying to would rule, given the slightly different spin they put on things.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
mrspaghetti wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
pixierose wrote:

One could argue that they are two separate instances. I would argue at least (and I could be wrong since I don't have the stuff in front of me* That this is a case of specific over general,

The General rule is that misfortune and fortune cancel each other out.

Halfling Luck, is a specific ability that has a *triggers* after the failure, which means the misfortune's effect on the role has already transpire, halfling luck is triggering because misfortune cause it to fail. But it is essentially a new roll, the other effect has already transpired, it's moment is gone.

That's an interesting spin to put on things. Now what happens if the misfortune effect has a duration of one or more entire rounds? Would it not then apply to the re-roll? Assuming yes, should both effects then "cancel', and if so, what would "cancelling" look like in this particular case? I think that's the core of what's being debated here.
Since Misfortune was stated as having a duration of more than just one roll, the Halfling Luck reroll would also be under Misfortune and require two rolls, taking the lowest of the two dice rerolled as a result.

I think it's really against the intent of the rules to consider rerolls separate rolls. I'll quote the entire section here:

Fortune and Misfortune Effects, p.449 wrote:

Fortune and misfortune effects can alter how you roll your dice. These abilities might allow you to reroll a failed roll, force you to reroll a succesfull roll, allow you to roll twice and use the higher result, or force you to roll twice and use the lower result.

You can never have more than one fortune and more than one misfortune effect come into play on a single roll. For instance, if an effect lets you roll twice and use the higher roll, you can't then use Halfling Luck (a fortune effect) to reroll if you fail. If multiple fortune effects would apply, you have to pick which to use. If two misfortune effects apply, the GM decides which is worse and applies it.

If both a fortune effect and a misfortune effect would apply to the same roll, the two cancel each other out, and you roll normally.

The example, specifically mentioning Halfling Luck, makes it pretty clear: it's not a new roll.

Again, I could only find a single Misfortune effect in the core rule book (manually searching spell traits, and some other things like alchemical poisons and snares, so it's entirely possible I missed something), so this isn't super likely to come up anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1) if the misfortune effect last longer than one roll, then I guess I could see the case applying to halfling luck but im not sure.

2) The way fortunes work(and thus the ruling between stacking fortune abilities) is a different paragraph is cirically about not stacking fortune abilities. I dont think it has too bearing on my ruling. but I can also how it might.

3) alternative ruling: you roll a third die you take the median number. canceling the lowest and highest numbers


pixierose wrote:
3) alternative ruling: you roll a third die you take the median number. canceling the lowest and highest numbers

Very clever! I doubt there's a cleaner way to make the two effects "cancel" if that's your desired outcome.


RicoTheBold wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
pixierose wrote:

One could argue that they are two separate instances. I would argue at least (and I could be wrong since I don't have the stuff in front of me* That this is a case of specific over general,

The General rule is that misfortune and fortune cancel each other out.

Halfling Luck, is a specific ability that has a *triggers* after the failure, which means the misfortune's effect on the role has already transpire, halfling luck is triggering because misfortune cause it to fail. But it is essentially a new roll, the other effect has already transpired, it's moment is gone.

That's an interesting spin to put on things. Now what happens if the misfortune effect has a duration of one or more entire rounds? Would it not then apply to the re-roll? Assuming yes, should both effects then "cancel', and if so, what would "cancelling" look like in this particular case? I think that's the core of what's being debated here.
Since Misfortune was stated as having a duration of more than just one roll, the Halfling Luck reroll would also be under Misfortune and require two rolls, taking the lowest of the two dice rerolled as a result.

I think it's really against the intent of the rules to consider rerolls separate rolls. I'll quote the entire section here:

Fortune and Misfortune Effects, p.449 wrote:

Fortune and misfortune effects can alter how you roll your dice. These abilities might allow you to reroll a failed roll, force you to reroll a succesfull roll, allow you to roll twice and use the higher result, or force you to roll twice and use the lower result.

You can never have more than one fortune and more than one misfortune effect come into play on a single roll. For instance, if an effect lets you roll twice and use the higher roll, you can't then use Halfling Luck (a fortune effect) to reroll if you fail. If multiple fortune effects would apply, you have to pick which to use. If two misfortune effects
...

Actually, it specifies Halfling Luck as not being allowed to stack with another Fortune effect. It still does clarify how Halfling Luck would 'cancel' with Misfortune, which was the OPs initial issue.


pixierose wrote:
3) alternative ruling: you roll a third die you take the median number. canceling the lowest and highest numbers

That is quite clever.

It is also possible that the intent with fortune/misfortune effects is that the first one applied wins - so if an effect of either kind is already active, you simply can't apply another. In that case, you just can't use Halfling Luck, period.

Sounds like a potential errata or FAQ entry for Paizo.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
mrspaghetti wrote:
Actually, it specifies Halfling Luck as not being allowed to stack with another Fortune effect. It still does clarify how Halfling Luck would 'cancel' with Misfortune, which was the OPs initial issue.

The context of that post was in determining whether a reroll from Halfling Luck would count as a new roll for another misfortune effect. No one is talking about it stacking with other fortune effects. I included the entire section for the benefit of people who were trying to interpret rules they could not actually read yet.

For the potential issues with how canceling works, please read the earlier posts. The timing is problematic, because the misfortune effect has already taken place and therefore canceling it may not be possible without essentially granting the full fortune effect, which is clearly not the intent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

halfling luck is a reroll, not an entirely new check. Everything that applied to the first check applies to the reroll, including misfortune and any "+X to your next check" type abilities.

I imagine a lot of players would be pretty peeved if a spell gave them +1 to their next roll and then the GM took that bonus away if they used Halfling Luck.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As somebody who's not going to see the actual rules for a while, is there any reason why it wouldn't go:

GM: "Roll with Misfortune, roll twice & take the worst"

Player: "I'm using Halfling Luck"

GM: "OK, roll normally, and you can't use any other fortune effect"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andy Brown wrote:

As somebody who's not going to see the actual rules for a while, is there any reason why it wouldn't go:

GM: "Roll with Misfortune, roll twice & take the worst"

Player: "I'm using Halfling Luck"

GM: "OK, roll normally, and you can't use any other fortune effect"

From my understanding the reason that doesn't work is because halfling luck has the specific trigger of having to fail the roll.

That specific trigger is why I still argue that it should still work as it is a specific rule overriding the base rule of how the fortune interacts with misfortune. (since you can't cancel that something that has already happened) and the fortune tag is more so there so that you can't stack it with other fortune abilities. Which If I remember from the playtest, was actually something they we're concerned about. the stacking that is.

Also thank you everyone for thinking my third suggestion was clever. While I still think i would rule with my first one, the third one would be what I would go to as a middle ground kind of thing. That is until we get an official ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would just have people roll two different coloured D20s and designate one of them the "mis/fortune" die.

If one of the two die turns out as a 1 the mis/fortune die isn't considered as both fortune and misfortune have been triggered at that point. Simple and RAW.

ex1.
Die 1: rolls a 1
Die 2: rolls a 12

Misfortune and fortune cancel each other out and the 1 is taken.

ex2.
Die 1: rolls a 20
Die 2: rolls a 1

Misfortune and fortune cancel each other out and the 20 is taken.

Even in 1e I have a second distinctive die when re-rolling or rolling 2d20 pick highest/lowest

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Inaccuracies or possible errors All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.