After discussing the merits of the storm druid, it became clear that there is wildly differing ideas about what the storm born feat allows, all depending upon how the GM is suppose to interpret:
"You do not take circumstance penalties to ranged spell attacks or Perception checks caused by weather, and your targeted spells don’t require a flat check to succeed against a target concealed by weather (such as fog)."
Is the inclusion of fog at the end supposed to give the all clear for storm druids using spells like obscuring mist, solid fog, and stinking cloud as cover that they can see through, or is weather only something that is happening naturally? I don't think there are any traits or other rules that can help make it clear what this feat is supposed to allow, so some developer feedback on it would seem pretty essential in figuring out how the order of the storm druid is supposed to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I literally can't see a reason Stormborn wouldn't work within obscuring mist. Mist is a type of weather. Stormborn specifies it works within fog. This could only be made more clear if the feat literally stated "this works on obscuring mist".
Weather effects are listed in the book.
Environment, Climate Core Rulebook pg. 517
"Weather is more than just set dressing to establish mood—it has mechanical effects you can combine with environmental components to create a more memorable encounter. Weather can impose circumstance penalties on certain checks, from –1 to –4 based on severity.": IE, weather has "environmental components" which is why I'd say something like obscuring mist isn't weather: it's a simple spell that blocks sight. Environmental/weather mist has a specific definition: "Conditions limiting visibility to about a mile are called mist, and those that do so to about 3 miles are called haze." obscuring mist doesn't "limiting visibility to about a mile"
Climate
I literally can't see a reason Stormborn wouldn't work within obscuring mist. Mist is a type of weather. Stormborn specifies it works within fog. This could only be made more clear if the feat literally stated "this works on obscuring mist".
This was my default assumption, but it is clear that there are some people out there thinking this is an attempt to stretch a rule into something it wasn't supposed to do/cheating.
I guess if the ability had included a phrase "including weather effects you create." it would have made the intention that the feat doesn't only work from naturally ocuring phenomena. In my mind, there is no way the feat is balanced against other druid class feats if it doesn't work against magical atmospheric manipulations.
At the same time does it allow you to see through a cloud of smoke?
What makes a magically created cloud of mist different?
while my initial reaction would be to not allow the feat to work through a cloud of smoke (or dust or sand), I'd probably allow it after thinking about it because I'd rather rest the ability as working on the concept of "clouds" and the existance of particulate in the air rather than a nebulous conception weather as rain or other regionally specific expectation of weather. Nothing in the feat description ties it to moisture or water so I'd err towards making the ability useful rather than exceedingly limited.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was my default assumption, but it is clear that there are some people out there thinking this is an attempt to stretch a rule into something it wasn't supposed to do/cheating.
Since I was the person you were discussing this with in the other thread, I want to be 100% clear that I didn't think you were stretching a rule let alone coming even close to cheating.
I DO think that the rule is inherently ambiguous and unclear and I think that your interpretation of it differs from mine.
If I ever implied malice on your part I sincerely apologize. That was most certainly not my intent.
I'll repeat myself from another thread. Take mist as an example. Even ignoring magic, it is NOT the case that mist is always weather. As anybody who has gone to Niagara Falls knows, waterfalls can generate a whole LOT of mist. So can sprinklers :-).
Let me ask a couple of different (although closely related questions).
1) What do you think the phrase "caused by weather" means?
PF1 had a magic item (the Goz Mask) with a very similar effect
"A goz mask allows the wearer to see through fog, smoke, and other obscuring vapors as if they did not exist".
It is quite clear that the PF1 Goz Mask DOES allow one to see through magical obscuring mist.
2)Why did Paizo choose to phrase the PF2 version differently than the very clear PF1 phrasing?
@pauljathome,
I didn't mean to imply any ill will towards or from you, I just saw this as an issue that needed further discussion, outside of a thread about spell casting generally. Clearly we do have different interpretations of the ability and the rules are entirely absent on any clarification, because weather is not a mechanical concept in PF2.
I am not sure that any kind of clarifying errata would ever be printed, but it would be nice to hear developers discuss the intention behind an ability like this which pretty much makes or breaks the feat's utility.
Nothing in the feat description ties it to moisture or water so I'd err towards making the ability useful rather than exceedingly limited.
I don't think only using it for the factors in the Climate section is limited at all let alone "exceedingly limited": environmental fog, rain, snow, sleet, hail, wind... "Weather can impose circumstance penalties on certain checks, from –1 to –4 based on severity." It'd only be "exceedingly limited" if you 'exceedingly limit' weather in your game.
Even ignoring magic, it is NOT the case that mist is always weather. As anybody who has gone to Niagara Falls knows, waterfalls can generate a whole LOT of mist. So can sprinklers :-).
*nods* For myself, I was thinking misting systems like you see at theme parks.
So the passage Graystone quoted is on page 517 of the Core Rule Book. Interestingly enough, in the paragraph right after that, the word mist is defined as a specific type of fog.
"Conditions limiting visibility to about a mile are called mist, and those that do so to about 3 miles are called haze."
So the question is really whether the fog spells are intended to be considered weather or not.
Again, I would give it to the players, because the words are called out in the climate section of the book and no where else, and because it thematically makes sense that the storm druid is creating clouds, mists and fogs in the same way that weather creates them, since that is the source of their power. Otherwise casting these spells might be considered breaking their anathema.
So the question is really whether the fog spells are intended to be considered weather or not.
Do they limit visibility to about a mile? If so, it's weather. That's what the section says if the definition of fog in that section.
it thematically makes sense that the storm druid is creating clouds, mists and fogs in the same way that weather creates them, since that is the source of their power.
Back in PF1, a druid was all about the nature spells but their Woodland Stride didn't work on "magically manipulated" nature: so I can see thematically differentiating natural and magical effects.
On "breaking their anathema", I'm not sure how. Pollute is to contaminate with harmful or poisonous substances and I don't see mist/fog as that. Now if they start using Cloudkill sure but I'd think that no matter if it was weather or not.
Back in PF1, a druid was all about the nature spells but their Woodland Stride didn't work on "magically manipulated" nature: so I can see thematically differentiating natural and magical effects.
Yeah, but that was because woodland stride specified as much.
So the question is really whether the fog spells are intended to be considered weather or not.Do they limit visibility to about a mile? If so, it's weather. That's what the section says if the definition of fog in that section.
it thematically makes sense that the storm druid is creating clouds, mists and fogs in the same way that weather creates them, since that is the source of their power.Back in PF1, a druid was all about the nature spells but their Woodland Stride didn't work on "magically manipulated" nature: so I can see thematically differentiating natural and magical effects.
On "breaking their anathema", I'm not sure how. Pollute is to contaminate with harmful or poisonous substances and I don't see mist/fog as that. Now if they start using Cloudkill sure but I'd think that no matter if it was weather or not.
Obscuring mist is clearly a more dense form though. Here is the whole text of that paragraph:
"Fog imposes a circumstance penalty to visual Perception checks, depending on the thickness; it causes creatures viewed through significant amounts of fog to be concealed; and it cuts off all visibility at half a mile or less—possibly much less. Conditions limiting visibility to about a mile are called mist, and those that do so to about 3 miles are called haze."
The point is that obscuring mist fits within the description of what weather based fog is, and even that mist is a weather based condition. The fact the spell limits vision more than other forms of mist isn't really relevant.
Is there any spell that a storm order druid can cast where fog (limiting visibility to half a mile) is even relevant?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take mist as an example. Even ignoring magic, it is NOT the case that mist is always weather. As anybody who has gone to Niagara Falls knows, waterfalls can generate a whole LOT of mist. So can sprinklers :-).
I have to say that I would allow the Storm Born druid to see through a mist created by a waterfall just because it breaks my brain to envision an ability that somehow automatically distinguishes between "water particles falling in the atmosphere from a cloud" and "water particles rising in the atmosphere from a pool."
I'd even allow it in a steam bath or sauna. Is it water particles in the atmosphere that obscure vision? Then, yeah, if I'm the GM, you can ignore concealment from it. Because I can't imagine being able to see through some and not through others depending solely on the source of the water.
But that's my sense of verisimilitude.
Bonus question: what if it's a misty day at Niagara Falls? ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ability lets you see through fog. It doesn't say non-magical fog, it says fog. Of course you can see through Obscuring Mist. It's fog.
Obscuring mist doesn't even say the mist is magical. "Call forth" could mean you call a cloud out of the sky, or pull existing moisture from the environment.
I'd even allow it in a steam bath or sauna. Is it water particles in the atmosphere that obscure vision? Then, yeah, if I'm the GM, you can ignore concealment from it. Because I can't imagine being able to see through some and not through others depending solely on the source of the water.
But that's my sense of verisimilitude.
You have a point, as I too find it strange that you can see perfectly well in a full gale sandstorm, but are as blind as anyone else in a mere cloud of dust raised by a stampede? The question being if the ability was written in such a way on purpose in order to not be too strong.
IMO, if it was just natural fog that was really dependent on the DM to have, it would be very weak compared to wild shape or an animal companion.
Buffing fog spells seems pretty much the main point.
Back in PF1, a druid was all about the nature spells but their Woodland Stride didn't work on "magically manipulated" nature: so I can see thematically differentiating natural and magical effects.Yeah, but that was because woodland stride specified as much.
It was a comment about theme, not a comment about mechanics.
The point is that obscuring mist fits within the description of what weather based fog is, and even that mist is a weather based condition. The fact the spell limits vision more than other forms of mist isn't really relevant.
Is there any spell that a storm order druid can cast where fog (limiting visibility to half a mile) is even relevant?
That's my point: weather is an environmental effect not a small area effect.
You have a point, as I too find it strange that you can see perfectly well in a full gale sandstorm, but are as blind as anyone else in a mere cloud of dust raised by a stampede? The question being if the ability was written in such a way on purpose in order to not be too strong.
I'd find it strange if a bag of dust dropping off a roof created weather effect. It'd be one thing if it listed just fog, rain, wind ect but it didn't: it is "You do not take circumstance penalties to ranged spell attacks or Perception checks caused by weather." The feature is tied to weather and not the end effect IMO. Most people aren't going to call a vacuum cleaner a weather effect even though it can create a cloud of dust.
IMO, if it was just natural fog that was really dependent on the DM to have, it would be very weak compared to wild shape or an animal companion.
Buffing fog spells seems pretty much the main point.
If that was the intent, it's badly worded IMO. I'd want to see an explicit comment that it's meant to work with magic.
You have a point, as I too find it strange that you can see perfectly well in a full gale sandstorm, but are as blind as anyone else in a mere cloud of dust raised by a stampede? The question being if the ability was written in such a way on purpose in order to not be too strong.I'd find it strange if a bag of dust dropping off a roof created weather effect. It'd be one thing if it listed just fog, rain, wind ect but it didn't: it is "You do not take circumstance penalties to ranged spell attacks or Perception checks caused by weather." The feature is tied to weather and not the end effect IMO. Most people aren't going to call a vacuum clearer a weather effect even though it can create a cloud of dust.
Thats correct, if the feat would allow to ignore more or less any kind of concealment it would definitely be too strong, thats why I mentioned it as a balancing factor. Nonetheless it should be clarified if artificial/magical weather(-like) effects do count.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that it is not really clear one way or the other. Weather is not a mechanical term in pathfinder 2nd edition so using it as the basis for when a power activates or not is very much leaving it in the hands of the GM/table. magic/not magic is one possible dividing line, but so could be the effect (atmospheric change) or the scope of the effect (micro localization or larger area).
Maybe the ability should only be functional out of doors/in the presence of the sky, but then again humans on planet earth are capable of making weather in indoor microclimates so maybe that is what storm druids are doing with their magic? For the sake of this argument, I think a FAQ is really the only way to get clarity.
My hesitance to dismiss magical weather effects is 2 fold: the explicit inclusion of fog as the example instead of rain or other words less tied to specific spell usage, and the fact that the storm druid becomes a terrible character in any dungeon crawl/ underground adventure. If it is going to have an ability that limited, it should probably be an archetype instead of a core class build, or at least a more clear statement about needing to be outdoors for the power to be meaningfully useful.
Weather is not a mechanical term in pathfinder 2nd edition so using it as the basis for when a power activates or not is very much leaving it in the hands of the GM/table.
It describes weather: "it has mechanical effects you can combine with environmental components to create a more memorable encounter". For me at least, I don't count temp spells as environmental.
Maybe the ability should only be functional out of doors/in the presence of the sky
I don't think so: you can have wind, heat even precipitation in caves, tunnels and indoor area that are big enough but they are created by the environment. Even fogs can be created with geothermal vents.
I think a FAQ is really the only way to get clarity.
*tosses into FAQ pile* Yeah, I agree but that's not exactly an uncommon sentiment these days. If only I could hit the FAQ button...
My hesitance to dismiss magical weather effects is 2 fold: the explicit inclusion of fog as the example instead of rain or other words less tied to specific spell usage
As they often do, they often mix a generic specific terms in the game: weather fog is described in terms of miles of viability. There is a clear difference in scope. It's like comparing a forest fire to a camp fire IMO. Or a hurricane vs a hand fan being wind.
the fact that the storm druid becomes a terrible character in any dungeon crawl/ underground adventure.
And I disagree 100%. But even if it was, it's like saying a Bomber's abilities suck if you adventure is all underwater... Yeah, and? Some combinations aren't good for some adventures. A cavalier/mounted character is going to suck in an adventure with a lot of 5' corridors too.
Weather effects are listed in the book.
Environment, Climate Core Rulebook pg. 517
"Weather is more than just set dressing to establish mood—it has mechanical effects you can combine with environmental components to create a more memorable encounter. Weather can impose circumstance penalties on certain checks, from –1 to –4 based on severity.": IE, weather has "environmental components" which is why I'd say something like obscuring mist isn't weather: it's a simple spell that blocks sight. Environmental/weather mist has a specific definition: "Conditions limiting visibility to about a mile are called mist, and those that do so to about 3 miles are called haze." obscuring mist doesn't "limiting visibility to about a mile"
Climate
No you are spliting hairs unnecesarily and assigning definitions to things when none are required, aside from common English use. The rules that you are quoting talk about weather effect ie mist limiting visibility to about a mile - that is more than a penalty of 4.
Those are general suggestions for normal weather, not a limitation on the Obsuring Mist spell.
We all know that mist or fog can be very servere. It can get to the stage that you can't see more than 10 yards away.
The ability lets you see through fog. It doesn't say non-magical fog, it says fog. Of course you can see through Obscuring Mist. It's fog.
Obscuring mist doesn't even say the mist is magical. "Call forth" could mean you call a cloud out of the sky, or pull existing moisture from the environment.
Obsuring Mist is listed as a conjuration of water, once it has appeared, it probably is non magical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take mist as an example. Even ignoring magic, it is NOT the case that mist is always weather. As anybody who has gone to Niagara Falls knows, waterfalls can generate a whole LOT of mist. So can sprinklers :-).I have to say that I would allow the Storm Born druid to see through a mist created by a waterfall just because it breaks my brain to envision an ability that somehow automatically distinguishes between "water particles falling in the atmosphere from a cloud" and "water particles rising in the atmosphere from a pool."
I'd even allow it in a steam bath or sauna. Is it water particles in the atmosphere that obscure vision? Then, yeah, if I'm the GM, you can ignore concealment from it. Because I can't imagine being able to see through some and not through others depending solely on the source of the water.
But that's my sense of verisimilitude.
Bonus question: what if it's a misty day at Niagara Falls? ;)
Weather can be very local. There is no reason to consider a small scale event like the mist/spary near a waterfall, not weather. Dictionary definitions of weather start with - the state of the atmosphere. A small amount of the atmosphere is still atmosphere.
I too would go with the logic: its too hard to imagine why it wouldn't work.
For me that harder question would be is smoke haze weather?
Plus there are things about Obscuring Mist that have been left unsaid.
If you are in the mist it is clear what happens. But what if you are outside the mist trying to look through the mist at someone standing of the other side? Is it concealment? Does it have no effect? Should it block line of sight? What about for Storm Born? I assume they can just see straight through.