"Make a melee unarmed Strike. If you hit and the target is alive, anytime during the duration, you can spend a single action, which has the auditory and concentrate traits, to speak a word of death that could instantly slay it."
"A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it. This is different from a sonic effect, which still affects targets who can’t hear it (such as deaf targets) as long as the effect itself makes sound."
As written, Quivering Palm can be delivered but it has no effect on deaf targets.
You could argue that the Monk itself is the target of the auditory effect, so it doesn't matter if the target can't hear... but then, why wouldn't it be a sonic effect instead?
Is this something that should be errata'd?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I never even noticed that the target has to be able to hear the word to die. This is the problem with nesting such important rules within a Trait.
That's a massive departure from all other versions of Quivering Palm, where the Monk could will the Creature to die from another Plane of Existence if he so chose.
If the creature has to hear it, that makes the Month long Duration rather pointless.
I didn't even notice that, and I doubt many other people did either.
This should definitely be errata'd to Sonic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect this is an oversight.
I doubt the intention was to break the plot of an entire Tales novel. :P
Or it can stay as-is if the change was deliberate, since it's kind of in line with the reduction of other cases of potent abilities across the system.
If it was deliberate, it should be more clear. Relying on people to notice and remember the details of such a massive change based purely on a Trait is asking too much. Nobody outside these forums will play it that way, because they won't even notice they are technically doing it wrong.
Here, the effect of the word of death is not "sound-based," for all the reasons people give above--the death effect travels with the person, it doesn't depend on them hearing it.
What I think you're missing here is the sonic trait.
The only difference between Auditory and Sonic is that the Target needs to hear an Auditory effect, while Sonic is only dependent on the ability to make a sound.
Essentially, the auditory trait exists only and specifically to indicate that the person being subjected to the ability must hear it, or it does nothing.
Your point here seems to be that we should just treat it like a sonic effect, which is fair if we're assuming there's an error here.
But as written there's no reason for it to have the auditory trait if the intent wasn't to require the target to hear it.
Here, the effect of the word of death is not "sound-based," for all the reasons people give above--the death effect travels with the person, it doesn't depend on them hearing it.What I think you're missing here is the sonic trait.
The only difference between Auditory and Sonic is that the Target needs to hear an Auditory effect, while Sonic is only dependent on the ability to make a sound.
Essentially, the auditory trait exists only and specifically to indicate that the person being subjected to the ability must hear it, or it does nothing.
Your point here seems to be that we should just treat it like a sonic effect, which is fair if we're assuming there's an error here.
But as written there's no reason for it to have the auditory trait if the intent wasn't to require the target to hear it.
Yeah, I wouldn't be willing to rule it as an error...
It seems pretty intentional to me.
I'm not sure this is the right read of what the auditory trait does here.
Here's the full language: "Auditory actions and effects rely on sound. An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds. A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it. This applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined by the GM. This is different from a sonic effect, which still affects targets who can’t hear it (such as deaf targets) as long as the effect itself makes sound."
Several things to note.
First, the second sentence makes clear why speaking the word of death should have the auditory trait: if you can't speak the word, you shouldn't be able to do it.
Except that the most common thing in the game that you have to speak for, Verbal Component, doesn't have the Auditory Trait.
Or it can stay as-is if the change was deliberate, since it's kind of in line with the reduction of other cases of potent abilities across the system.If it was deliberate, it should be more clear. Relying on people to notice and remember the details of such a massive change based purely on a Trait is asking too much. Nobody outside these forums will play it that way, because they won't even notice they are technically doing it wrong....you kinda just said "nobody outside these forums can read" - I know you didn't mean to say that, I'm just pointing out the phrasing you chose was unfortunate.
And I disagree - I don't think there is a way to make this "more clear" than they already have, and I do not think expecting people to reference traits is asking too much.
I also believe that the primary cause of anyone thinking this ability works differently than the target needing to hear the word is having learned a different game and not taken the initiative to learn this game rather than assume they already know it because of the other game they learned.
I do not think adding "..to speak a word of death that could instantly slay it if it can hear you." is asking too much.
Using Traits as a Reference in other rules is fine, but giving them rules of their own is a lot for anyone to memorize, and if the intention is truly that the target must be able to hear it, the ability should say that.
Yeah, if the goal was to just need the word spoken (but not heard) then a Verbal action would take care of that and include the concentrate trait. (Though I'm not 100% sure you can have a verbal component outside of the actual casting of a spell.) Which isn't to say that this couldn't still be a mistake. As Max notes, it would violate previous canon pretty egregiously.
I would assume it's intentional, and as someone mentioned is just part of the overall depowering of abilities.
The note about the tales novels is important as the lore of the game is supposed to change because of the rules, which is clearly an issue in this instance.
Maybe adventurers got drastically weaker in the timespan between PF1 and PF2.
It sure feels like it from a player perspective. Could be true from an in world perspective as well.
I keep telling my players to be mindful of traits, as there are a lot of rules behind them.
And they STILL make mistakes like this, all the time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using Traits as a Reference in other rules is fine, but giving them rules of their own is a lot for anyone to memorize, and if the intention is truly that the target must be able to hear it, the ability should say that.
That is exactly the point of the traits. Traits encapsulate rules that apply to a variety of abilities or effects, so that these rules do not need to be repeated each and every time they are used. In this case, the ability does say that the target must hear, and it does so by having the auditory trait. That is what traits are for.
By the way, the verbal component of Cast a Spell does not have the auditory trait, because that would require the target of any spell to hear you casting, which is certainly not what is intended.
I would assume it's intentional, and as someone mentioned is just part of the overall depowering of abilities.
The note about the tales novels is important as the lore of the game is supposed to change because of the rules, which is clearly an issue in this instance.
i meant to say that the lore is not supposed to change in going from 1st edition to 2nd edition, which clearly this rule does in fact change a significant piece of lore.
i meant to say that the lore is not supposed to change in going from 1st edition to 2nd edition, which clearly this rule does in fact change a significant piece of lore.I would assume it's intentional, and as someone mentioned is just part of the overall depowering of abilities.
The note about the tales novels is important as the lore of the game is supposed to change because of the rules, which is clearly an issue in this instance.
It's not a change that is more impactful than certain spells being made uncommon or rare.
It was then, and still is now, an ability to inflict a delayed death upon an enemy from a distance. It's just the degree that has changed - much like how fireball has been changed from a range of 600-1200 feet to a range of 500 feet: it's the same from a lore perspective, but mechanically different.
Fireball being able to be cast at a 500 foot distance vs a 1000 foot distance, or a caster needing to be 7th level instead of 5th to cast Fly feels unimportant to the lore though. That's a level of fine detail that isn't really represented in the narrarive. A story is unlikely to hinge on that sort of fine detail, though an actual game might.
If a book revolves around Quivering Palm being used remotely, then this is a much bigger change in canon. Now, it is possible that the Paizo team wasn't aware, didn't remember, or didn't care about this particular book when making this change. But given the lore is mostly unchanged and the game works to tell the same sort of stories, this definitely raises eyebrows and isn't comparable to the exact range of a fireball.
Yeah, I wouldn't be willing to rule it as an error...It seems pretty intentional to me.
I mean, I could see someone writing an ability and thinking "makes a sound, so auditory trait obviously" without going back and double checking the rules on auditory to make sure it makes sense. A number of people in this thread have admitted to not being familiar with the trait rules, so I could see that happening to a writer too.
Especially if you have a PF1 background, Sonic sounds more like an elemental property than a default trait for things that make sounds. So I don't think it's all that impossible that it could have been simple error.
But that's also just speculation on my part, nothing definitive.
Using Traits as a Reference in other rules is fine, but giving them rules of their own is a lot for anyone to memorize, and if the intention is truly that the target must be able to hear it, the ability should say that.That is exactly the point of the traits. Traits encapsulate rules that apply to a variety of abilities or effects, so that these rules do not need to be repeated each and every time they are used. In this case, the ability does say that the target must hear, and it does so by having the auditory trait. That is what traits are for.
By the way, the verbal component of Cast a Spell does not have the auditory trait, because that would require the target of any spell to hear you casting, which is certainly not what is intended.
I disagree. Only a small handful of Traits are used that way. The vast majority of Traits have no meaning at all in and of themselves, and are simply tags for other rules to reference them. Like "If you use an Action with the Water Trait, such and such thing happens."
I understand full well why Verbal Components don't have the Auditory Trait. I was responding to another post.
There is some surrounding weirdness here - is the effect caused by the feat, or the action? If it's the former, there is no problem; Quivering Palm does not have the auditory trait and doesn't gain it even if a granted action does.
Based on my understanding of the rules so far, the effect that kills the target is not [granted action], it's [Quivering Palm].
Oh, and that's not getting into the can of worms that is verbal components and the auditory trait...
|
Thanks for pointing this out, it doesn't match my understanding of Quivering Palm at all. I always thought the monk hits the target in such a way that their heart will stop, unless they use an other punch or pressure point touch to neutralize the effect. I don't see how speaking phrase would have anything really to do with it. Does the semi-sentient(?) quivering vibration in the target's body hear the phrase and then know it's time to kill the target? Can you cast Silence on the target to make sure the vibration never hears that command phrase/sound? It seems like that is the case.
|
|
That's not how it worked previously in either P1 or 3.5, the Monk had to will the target to die within the time limit, otherwise the effect expired with no ill effect on the target.
I'm not thinking of PF1 or D&D here, just legends about the ability: Touch of death Wikipedia
|
That's not how it worked previously in either P1 or 3.5, the Monk had to will the target to die within the time limit, otherwise the effect expired with no ill effect on the target.I'm not thinking of PF1 or D&D here, just legends about the ability: Touch of death Wikipedia
Which isn't really relevant since it has nothing to do with Pathfinder or DnD's Quivering Palm.