Not sure if this is rules discussion or advice.
I'm brand new to PF2E, so forgive my ignorance.
The spell gust of wind. Since it is a line, if the target succeeds, fails, or critically fails their save, can they just take move 5' to the side and advance normally?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it only works in 5foot line.
Not as useful in an open field but can be fantastic in a hallway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes but that means they waste 5 feet of movement and aren't aligned with you. My Air Elemental Sorcerer has used this to great effect. It has been consistently his most successful spell and probably saved his life several times.
You cast gust of wind and then stride full speed away. The enemy gets a success, meaning they take their frist 5ft of stride to the right, then straight toward you. If you both have the same speed, the creature would need to take two strides to close the distance and thus only gets one action left. If they fail their save, then they are knocked prone, meaning they have to use all three actions to get next to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes but that means they waste 5 feet of movement and aren't aligned with you. My Air Elemental Sorcerer has used this to great effect. It has been consistently his most successful spell and probably saved his life several times.
You cast gust of wind and then stride full speed away. The enemy gets a success, meaning they take their frist 5ft of stride to the right, then straight toward you. If you both have the same speed, the creature would need to take two strides to close the distance and thus only gets one action left. If they fail their save, then they are knocked prone, meaning they have to use all three actions to get next to you.
What prevents them from just moving 5 feet diagonally forward? Unless they are in a 5 foot wide corridor, I don't see that the spell has any discernible effect on a creature that succeeds at their save.
What about the damage?
Is it something as substitute for falling from XX feet height ( like the target manages to slow the fall )?
Is it meant to be some extra damage In adjunct to the falling damage?
Is it meant to deal damage to creatures on the ground on a critical failure?
It's just damage from the wind hitting them. Falling has nothing to do with it.
What prevents them from just moving 5 feet diagonally forward? Unless they are in a 5 foot wide corridor, I don't see that the spell has any discernible effect on a creature that succeeds at their save.
I would argue that is still moving against the wind. Obviously that is a GM call, but the system is written to give at least a minor benefit on a success. If they can move diagonally against the wind, it is effectively no benefit. Compare that to Fear which gives frightened 1 on a success, or a damaging spell that does at least half damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you use it against cloudkill to disperse it?
Hmm... Probably not, actually.
Neither Cloudkill, nor Obscuring Mist that Cloudkill references say that they are dispersed by wind of any variety.
Gust of Wind says that it 'extinguishes small non-magical fires, disperses fog and mist, blows objects of light Bulk or less around, and pushes larger objects.' It could be argued that dispersing fog and mist is referencing the magical effects of Obscuring Mist, but that is a bit of a stretch. RAI it is probably meaning non-magical fog or mist - just like it mentions non-magical fire. In fact, the sentence structure of that sentence could be applying the 'non-magical' adjective to both the fire and the fog and mist. But that is not entirely clear.
So it is not completely out of the question, but if I was going to allow it, I would at least have the Gust of Wind make a Counteract check against Cloudkill or Obscuring Mist rather than just having it disperse them automatically.
+1 to the counter act check. Gust of Wind used to counter cloudkill etc back in the day.
Forced movement like gust of wind and hydraulic push can break grabs by moving enemies out of grabbing range.
I would think Obscuring Mist qualifies as a mist and could be dispersed, if only in the area the gust covers. Since Cloudkill acts like that spell, I'd have it dispersed too. It seems straightforward.
On the opposing side, it doesn't suit PF2's style to have automatic counter-effects like that (especially when targeting a higher level effect), so a Counteract check might be in order, except then the rules would've been explicit. This would've been my preference from the start, except I run (or ran, pre-covid) a lot of PFS so kind of have to go with a yes or no.
+1 to the counter act check. Gust of Wind used to counter cloudkill etc back in the day.Knowledge of prior editions is not something the writers of a game ever expect of players to know how to rule on things, so "back in the day" shouldn't be relevant.
At least, not as anything except for a proof of deliberate change (i.e. "the way it's worded now doesn't read as compatible with how it used to work, so it must not work that way anymore by design") or a reason to lean to one interpretation of another when something is ambiguous (i.e. "it can be read two ways, and one of those ways aligns with tradition so I'm leaning toward that as the one I think is intended."
Because if you let "back in the day" have any more bearing than that, you're essentially saying the new game can't ever have different rules than the old one.
Except in this case it is unclear. Obscuring Mist and Cloudkill by extension are mist/fog. So without a more modern rule to cover it I am happy to allow gust of wind a counteract check. Also to forget new editions are built on and from the old is a bit odd. While no knowledge of past editions is required its useful when current edition rules are vague.
Nothing in my post required a somewhat aggressive response that you gave. Old editions can still guide and influence new editions. I never claimed rules couldn't be updated. Seems like a sore point for you.
We will have to agree to disagree on it being unclear. Nothing in Obscuring Mist's description says it doesn't behave like any other mist or has special wind resistant properties (unless you can point to a rule where conjurations have special properties making them immune).
Given Obscuring Mist is a conjuration and given other conjurations like creatures would be affected by Gust of Wind I would have it disperse the cloud.
Also the non-magical part seems to apply only to the fires, not to the 'disperses fog and mist' since the non-magical is coupled with fires. Otherwise the wind would affect magical objects and creatures (the end of the same sentence).
When something is explicitly changed than I use the new rule. When it is unclear and there is a rule that covered it before I tend to use that. Your opinion clearly differs but I find no rules that say it should behave
The issue is that there isn't anything defining "disperses fog and mist": if you walked out of the inn and fog is covering the entire town, would you expect a gust of wind to disperse it all? Not IMO. It might disperse the fog in it's area of effect but the surrounding fog just instantly fills it in.
I see it much the same with Obscuring Mist: It conjures a cloud of mist and sustains it for the duration, even in conditions where it would disperse [like wind and very low humidify]. So the Gust of Wind might disperse the mist in it's line while it's is in effect but once it's over, the cloud reforms until Obscuring Mist's duration ends.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neither Cloudkill, nor Obscuring Mist that Cloudkill references say that they are dispersed by wind of any variety.
Gust of Wind says that it 'extinguishes small non-magical fires, disperses fog and mist, blows objects of light Bulk or less around, and pushes larger objects.' It could be argued that dispersing fog and mist is referencing the magical effects of Obscuring Mist, but that is a bit of a stretch. RAI it is probably meaning non-magical fog or mist - just like it mentions non-magical fire. In fact, the sentence structure of that sentence could be applying the 'non-magical' adjective to both the fire and the fog and mist. But that is not entirely clear.
So it is not completely out of the question, but if I was going to allow it, I would at least have the Gust of Wind make a Counteract check against Cloudkill or Obscuring Mist rather than just having it disperse them automatically.
This sort of thing is well and truly into GM interepretation here. This is exactly the sort of thing a GM should decide.
If I think one effect should clearly win over the other I just let it happen, a counteract check is for when its unclear to the GM. For many things I just prefer to say yes or no.
IMHO Wind always beats a Cloud. I'd just disperse the cloud. No counteract check. Not every thing should be a roll. Narratively I just prefer it this way.
IMHO Wind always beats a Cloud. I'd just disperse the cloud. No counteract check. Not every thing should be a roll. Narratively I just prefer it this way.
The danger is in unbalancing the scale of magic. Magic is not ubiquitous in PF2, so it would suck to have a 2nd level spell negated because the GM decided there was a breeze.
In PF1 magic was no big deal, so if the GM handwaves off a spell, characters could use a charge off of a 50-charge 1st level wand to re-up.
IMHO Wind always beats a Cloud. I'd just disperse the cloud. No counteract check. Not every thing should be a roll. Narratively I just prefer it this way.The danger is in unbalancing the scale of magic. Magic is not ubiquitous in PF2, so it would suck to have a 2nd level spell negated because the GM decided there was a breeze.
In PF1 magic was no big deal, so if the GM handwaves off a spell, characters could use a charge off of a 50-charge 1st level wand to re-up.
It's really bad when a 1st level spell or just a casual breeze auto bypasses things like an ancient cloud dragons Deflecting Cloud or Cloud Form. It'd also feel REALLY bad when your 20th level druid sees his 9th level focus spell, Storm Lord, auto dispelled by the same. Or think of the poor, poor Bythos, a 16th level creature with a body made of mist... It'd mean a 1st level spell would be a death sentence as would any slight draft in the room... :P
It's really bad when a 1st level spell or just a casual breeze auto bypasses things like an ancient cloud dragons Deflecting Cloud or Cloud Form. It'd also feel REALLY bad when your 20th level druid sees his 9th level focus spell, Storm Lord, auto dispelled by the same. Or think of the poor, poor Bythos, a 16th level creature with a body made of mist... It'd mean a 1st level spell would be a death sentence as would any slight draft in the room... :PIMHO Wind always beats a Cloud. I'd just disperse the cloud. No counteract check. Not every thing should be a roll. Narratively I just prefer it this way.The danger is in unbalancing the scale of magic. Magic is not ubiquitous in PF2, so it would suck to have a 2nd level spell negated because the GM decided there was a breeze.
In PF1 magic was no big deal, so if the GM handwaves off a spell, characters could use a charge off of a 50-charge 1st level wand to re-up.
Dispell a cloud effect, or surpress a cloud for one round or a circumstance penalty on a saving throw to push a cloud creature away, just seems fair to me. Yeah there has to be a sense of balance about it. Thats the GM's job.
Bythos has heaps he can do.I know level dominates everything in balance terms in PF2, but really the narative should be stronger. I have no problem with a level 1 gust of wind auto dispersing a level 2 obscurng mist. For sure it should not take down some awesome high level storm. Again lets the GMs decide.