Problems with Counteract Levels

[Kigvan]

So the general counteract rules use spell level or 1/2 creature level rounded up for things that are not spells.

" If an effect is a spell, its level is the counteract level. Otherwise, halve its level and round up to determine its counteract level. If an effect’s level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature’s level. " Core Rulebook 459

However there are a few examples where this is not the case.

First Example is the Clay Golem's Cursed Wounds:

"Cursed Wound (divine, curse, necromancy) A creature hit by the clay golem’s fist must succeed at a DC 29 Fortitude save or be cursed until healed to its maximum HP. The cursed creature can’t regain HP except via magic, and anyone casting a spell to heal the creature must succeed at a DC 29 counteract check or the healing has no effect. The golem’s counteract level is equal to its creature level." Bestiary 186

Another example of this is the level 16 rogue feat Dispelling Slice:
"Your sneak attack slices through the threads binding magic to a target. Make a Strike against a flat-footed creature (your choice). If your Strike deals sneak attack damage, you attempt to counteract a single spell active on the target. Your counteract level is equal to your rogue level, and your counteract check modifier is equal to your class DC – 10." Core Rulebook 189

So normally a level 10 creature (like a clay golem) would have a counteract level of 5 for it's abilities, requiring a successful counteract check with a level 4 spell, or a critical success from a level 2 spell. But as written it would take a success from a 9th level spell, or a critical success from a 7th level spell to counteract, which makes it essentially impossible for characters who are appropriate level to face a level 10 creature to counteract it.

Then suddenly at 16th level the rogue is the best dispeller in the game, having suddenly a level 16 dispel magic affect. (meaning successfully counteracts up to 15th level spells on a failure, though not on a critical failure)

I believe these examples are unintentional errors, but as written it could be quite detrimental to some play experiences, especially if they should come up in something like an Organized Play experience.

I first ran into this when our 8th level group fought a Clay Golem, and my fighter took 100dmg from 2 crits, and it became impossible for the group to heal him. The GM ended up giving us a macguffin to remove the cursed wound from some folks we helped.

[Kigvan]

Kigvan wrote:

However there are a few examples where this is not the case.

There may be other examples of this problem, I have certainly not performed an exhaustive search.

[thenobledrake]

The clay golem case is likely to be intentional as the curse it's attached to can be overcome without a counteract check, and needing that potent of a counteract effect to deal with it matches to traditional versions of the monster (such as the AD&D version specifically requiring a heal spell from a 17th+ level caster to heal the wounds it inflicts).

The rogue feat, however, seems most likely to be an error because it seems odd that the rogue class would be the choice for having the absolute best chance of counteracting spells of anything in the game. Plus just the way it functions as written would mean that any roll other than a critical failure would counteract all the spells in the game.

[thenobledrake]

Aratorin wrote:

Dispelling Slice is far from the best Counteracting ability in the game, as the Counteract Modifier for the Roll is Class DC -10.

Say the rogue picks it up at 16th and has a Class DC of 35, so their modifier is +25. That's only 2 behind a wizard's counteract modifier at that level as far as I can tell.

The difference comes down to that a wizard at that level can swing a counteract level of 8, meaning counteracting level 10 spells on a critical success, level 9 on a success, and level 7 or lower on a failure - but the rogue has a counteract level of 16, meaning counteracting level 10 spells on anything but a critical fail.

So being 2 points behind is actually a lot like being way more than 2 points ahead.

[Aratorin]

Ok, fair point. Class DC comes up so rarely that I was calculating it wrong.

The only things I can find outside the Golem that use their level for Counteract Level are in the CRB, so yeah, might be a mistake.

[Paradozen]

thenobledrake wrote:

The clay golem case is likely to be intentional as the curse it's attached to can be overcome without a counteract check, and needing that potent of a counteract effect to deal with it matches to traditional versions of the monster (such as the AD&D version specifically requiring a heal spell from a 17th+ level caster to heal the wounds it inflicts).

I disagree that the clay golem curse is intentionally impossible for a 10th level party to cure with their own powers. I think it's more likely the ability is supposed to be similar to the PF1 monster where it is difficult for a party of the appropriate level to fix, potentially requiring a few days and some adventuring before the curse is broken, but not necessarily beyond the party's capabilities.

[MaxAstro]

Clay golem is almost certainly a mistake; it can't be intentional that it almost requires a wish to remove the curse.

Creatures having abilities wildly outside of their level range is something that 2e has entirely gotten rid of, as far as I have seen.

[thenobledrake]

Paradozen wrote:

I disagree that the clay golem curse is intentionally impossible for a 10th level party to cure with their own powers. I think it's more likely the ability is supposed to be similar to the PF1 monster where it is difficult for a party of the appropriate level to fix, potentially requiring a few days and some adventuring before the curse is broken, but not necessarily beyond the party's capabilities.

It isn't beyond a 10th level party to cure the curse - they just do it with non-spell magical healing, such as potions.

MaxAstro wrote:

Clay golem is almost certainly a mistake; it can't be intentional that it almost requires a wish to remove the curse.

It doesn't almost require a wish to remove it though. A character that can cast 7th level spells can get it done... though they'd likely need to roll a 17+ on their counteract check so it could take multiple tries.

And is it really just "impossible" that Paizo could have decided to nod at tradition?

In AD&D 2nd it took a 17th level or higher caster and a high-level heal spell. There weren't any direct "monster level" indicators so this didn't seem odd at all.

In 3.5 any healing spell could work but you had to roll 1d20+your caster level and get 26 or higher. It was a CR 10 monster and you had to be 15th level for 50/50 odds of your healing working.

In PF1... same DC 26 caster level check, and still CR 10. I don't think there were significant difference in what went into that check from 3.5, but maybe I don't remember correctly.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

The DC is only 29 to overcome it with healing spells.

A level 10 cleric casting a two action heal as a high level spell can handle it in many cases. Not guaranteed, but a +19 on the check before bonuses will handle it over half the time the spell is cast. Far easier than casting wish :p

If you mean counteracting with spells that ignore the healing to maximum health aspect of the ability, yeah it is hard. But I see that as intentional.

[thenobledrake]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

A level 10 cleric casting a two action heal as a high level spell can handle it in many cases. Not guaranteed, but a +19 on the check before bonuses will handle it over half the time the spell is cast. Far easier than casting wish :p

That's not the case, though. A level 10 cleric can use at most a 5th level spell. That means their counteract results are:

critical failure: nothing counteracted.
failure: up to level 4 counteracted.
success: up to level 6 counteracted.
critical success: up to level 8 counteracted.

The level 10 needed to counteract the curse from the clay golem is unreachable, despite that the DC for the counteract check is low enough that it appears to be within reach of a level 10 character - that low DC serves the purpose of giving a character capable of 7th level spells up to a 20% chance at the counteract check rather than it only being 5%, and makes it almost certain than the curse will be overcome by a character capable of casting 9th level spells instead of remaining challenging at that point too like other 10th level counteract effects would.

[Ascalaphus]

I do think the high counteract level is intentional, nodding at tradition at all; but it should have been signaled more explicitly rather than being so terse that you can mistake it for a typo.

PFS1 #8-00:

Early in this scenario the level 10-11 party fought one of these monsters and someone took a 20 damage cursed wound. Cleric fails the caster level check to cure it. Tries again a couple of times over the course of the adventure because hey, 20hp is 20hp. But a DC 26 counteract check is just hard for a level 11 cleric. Then near the end of the scenario, they're in a room with an imprisoned demigod and made enough progress that one of the "the whole room gets a benefit" effects trigger, in this case a burst of healing at CL 30, so it automatically passes the check to get rid of the cursed wound. That was a pretty neat demonstration that whatever the party was trying to free, was big.

[Castilliano]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I do think the high counteract level is intentional, nodding at tradition at all; but it should have been signaled more explicitly rather than being so terse that you can mistake it for a typo.

** spoiler omitted **

Had a similar experience w/ my Mystic Theurge, but having a lower caster level & using my highest slot. Rolled really well thankfully both to bypass & total amount of healing, yet the Bard-arian still came out pretty bad. He whipped out his Wand of Stoneskin though (a spell he'd declined from me at first which would've been a whole lot better earlier!)

Damn harsh, but the saddest thing is nobody ID'd the golem to know it had to be killed before its ally. Players knew, had to suck it up for RPing.

[Paradozen]

I find the potion solution strange. It results in the most efficient way to fix the curse permanently being a boatload of potions rather than seeking out an NPC to break the curse. Your powerful cleric adventuring companion keeps getting blocked, even some of the strongest healers in the world say it tests their prowess, but the local potion shop will have you cured with no risk as soon as they can make enough minor healing potions. I didn't play AD&D but I doubt that is a tradition they are trying to call back to. PF1 had a tradition of low-level consumables being the most cost efficient solution to high-level healing problems and PF2 made significant changes to the healing system to get away from that particular trend.

Even if the curse is supposed to be a nod to tradition and potions are an intentionally back door solution, I'd still like it if this were cleared up somehow. There are three other threads about Clay Golem Curses so I think it fits the bill of a Frequently Asked Question or a good candidate for Errata, even if I'm wrong about it.

[thenobledrake]

It's definitely a strong FAQ candidate because it's only "intuitive" to folks that are intimately familiar with other versions of the game (and the game the game is based on).

Even the potion thing is a point of confusion because some people perceive it as "powerful magic doesn't work, but weak magic does" rather than envisioning the fact that potions work as a "boon" given by the devs because otherwise the complaint people have had "It's impossible for a party for which a level 10 monster is supposed to be a 'normal' challenge to deal with" would be 100% true.

Even asking for it to be "signaled more explicitly" doesn't have a lot of room besides adding "Yes, we meant that last sentence." after the sentence which is absolutely clear - but people struggle to believe it because it stands out.

[MaxAstro]

thenobledrake wrote:

It's definitely a strong FAQ candidate because it's only "intuitive" to folks that are intimately familiar with other versions of the game (and the game the game is based on).

I am reminded of a post I saw once by a confused Fourth Edition player, after a round of WotC errata, asking "why did Magic Missile get changed to hit automatically? That's completely different from every similar ability in the game!"

[Ascalaphus]

Yeah I'm not convinced the potion solution should work/is intentional. If you look through the whole magic item chapter, you see that curative items that remove things that normally require a counteract check (like disease), those items all get notes about their counteract level.

Removing damage normally doesn't require a counteract check, that only happens with a select few monsters. So I can see how healing potions didn't get explicit counteract levels baked in. But I don't think we should draw the conclusion that they therefore were intended to bypass these curses.

[thenobledrake]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah I'm not convinced the potion solution should work/is intentional.

Here are the pieces of evidence which support the conclusion that it is intentional:

The curse says "except via magic" rather than "except via spells" or other similar wording which would exclude potions from working.

It also says "anyone casting a spell to heal the creature" rather than "any magic used to heal the creature" or other similar wording which would include non-spell magical healing in needing to succeed at a counteract check.

Healing potions have the "magical" trait which proves they are magical, which confirms that they fit the "except via magic" clause of the curse.

Healing potions do not have any language in their description that makes their effect count as a spell in any way.

And of course, the "which interpretation seems more plausible?" test:
option a) the designers put in a way to get past the curse that is available at the levels for which the monster's level rates it as a relevant challenge - even though that particular means seems "weird" to you and some other folks.

option b) the designers wanted a curse inflicted by a level 10 monster to be completely outside the capability of a PC to remove until the point that a level 10 monster isn't even on the "Creature XP and Role" table anymore.

Which is to say we have almost every piece of possible evidence saying "this is intentional" vs. "I dunno, seems weird to me."

[Ubertron_X]

I am in the potions do work as per RAW camp though I also understand the potions do no work as per possible RAI line of reasoning. However the biggest reason for me is that else every low level AP that features any such creature would also need to contain a suitable location & NPC & quest to be able to clear the curse. Else the additional side quest would be annoying for me as a player and GM because I guess most people are buying these paths to not need to make up their own content.

[Castilliano]

As well as potions, there are the Elixirs of Life which don't seem magical (technically). Though I dislike loopholes, that one seems hard to close.

[Aratorin]

Castilliano wrote:

As well as potions, there are the Elixirs of Life which don't seem magical (technically). Though I dislike loopholes, that one seems hard to close.

Elixir of Life doesn't work. A Creature afflicted with a Cursed Wound can only regain HP via Magic.

[Castilliano]

Aratorin wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

As well as potions, there are the Elixirs of Life which don't seem magical (technically). Though I dislike loopholes, that one seems hard to close.

Elixir of Life doesn't work. A Creature afflicted with a Cursed Wound can only regain HP via Magic.

Thanks. Somehow I'd translated that into can't be healed naturally long ago and it stuck.

[Orithilaen]

In both cases, I think the purpose of the text is just to remind the reader of the general rule that an effect's counteract level is based off the level of the creature generating it.

Aside from all the considerations others have mentioned above, there's a textual point: in both cases, the language doesn't refer to the counteract level of the effect (which is what the counteracting rule refers to), but rather the counteract level of the golem or rogue. So it's the level you base the effect's counteract level from (by dividing by 2 and rounding up)--the creature level for purposes of counteracting.

I acknowledge that this is a very confusing way to phrase this (and it may be a remnant of a different counteracting rule that was based off creature level and spell level*2). But I think it's the best reading, absent errata.

[Megistone]

I agree with this interpretation. Wording could be much clearer, though.