I guess they couldn't make eldritch nails a 2nd level feat because they already had living hair at 2nd level. I couldn't tell you why they decided the witch should have two separate unarmed brawling feats though.
Funny enough, I'm actually fine with Hair. It has some really good traits.
If you MCD into Witch as a martial, it's a pretty good get, but it's tough to justify the pick over say Basic Lesson IMO.
But on an actual Witch without further Feat support, you can still turn it into a decent "attack" action on the round if you strictly use it to Trip/Disarm, since most Witches are going to have a decent DEX.
IMO when you compare Hair to Nails, it's a no contest and Nails loses. At least the Hair gets to benefit from Handwraps.
I guess they couldn't make eldritch nails a 2nd level feat because they already had living hair at 2nd level. I couldn't tell you why they decided the witch should have two separate unarmed brawling feats though.Funny enough, I'm actually fine with Hair. It has some really good traits.
If you MCD into Witch as a martial, it's a pretty good get, but it's tough to justify the pick over say Basic Lesson IMO.
But on an actual Witch without further Feat support, you can still turn it into a decent "attack" action on the round if you strictly use it to Trip/Disarm, since most Witches are going to have a decent DEX.
IMO when you compare Hair to Nails, it's a no contest and Nails loses. At least the Hair gets to benefit from Handwraps.
They're similar enough though that you'd think they could have been one feat that said "you can instantly grow your hair or nails."
Nails has the unarmed trait, so is it the etching that prevents it from working with handwraps?
I guess they couldn't make eldritch nails a 2nd level feat because they already had living hair at 2nd level. I couldn't tell you why they decided the witch should have two separate unarmed brawling feats though.Funny enough, I'm actually fine with Hair. It has some really good traits.
If you MCD into Witch as a martial, it's a pretty good get, but it's tough to justify the pick over say Basic Lesson IMO.
But on an actual Witch without further Feat support, you can still turn it into a decent "attack" action on the round if you strictly use it to Trip/Disarm, since most Witches are going to have a decent DEX.
IMO when you compare Hair to Nails, it's a no contest and Nails loses. At least the Hair gets to benefit from Handwraps.
They're similar enough though that you'd think they could have been one feat that said "you can instantly grow your hair or nails."
Nails has the unarmed trait, so is it the etching that prevents it from working with handwraps?
Yeah it's because Nails goes out of its way to state that they don't work with Handwraps:
You can etch your nails with runes with the same cost and restrictions as for etching runes onto handwraps of mighty blows; runes etched onto your nails apply to nails unarmed attacks with both hands but not to other unarmed attacks.
Cross-posting from a similar discussion.
It wouldn't let you get extra property runes, but it is a way to get more flexibility with property runes. As an example let's consider a Winter Witch with +2 greater striking frost nails. They still have one extra slot for a property rune. They could buy +1 corrosive handwraps, +1 thundering handwraps, etc. and switch them out each morning based on current usefulness. Normally having multiple handwraps would be prohibitively expensive because of duplicating the costly maxed-out fundamental runes on each, but the Witch already has those on their nails. +1 potency runes only cost 35gp, and that's just a minor tax added to the costs of the property runes.Why not do both? Have +2 greater striking flaming frost handwraps and nails engraved with +2 corrosive shock runes?
That attack bonuses won't stack, but it seems a nice way to get around the property rune limitations.
Makes your nail attacks seem extra magical.
EDIT: Man, the designers were really paying attention. Not so sure this would work after all.
Rules don't seem to care what the source of the property runes is.
Care to spell it out?
Is the implication if a Witch were to enchant their Nails with potency runes they could swap the Rune daily?
I mean I guess I could see the value there, but that's certainly a lot of Gold for a Witch to invest (we're talking 2 sets of handwraps and a heavy investment in the nails).
But it is something. Perhaps an MCD into it on a Monk could be fruitful, but that precludes a lot of stances.
I'd like the Nails more if you only had to spend the focus to deliver the Hex if you actually hit. But that might be too good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah it's because Nails goes out of its way to state that they don't work with Handwraps:
Eh? Nothing in that quoted section says nails don't work with handwraps, just that you can enchant them like handwraps and that etchings on nails don't effect anything else.
I'd like the Nails more if you only had to spend the focus to deliver the Hex if you actually hit. But that might be too good.
It would require it to work in reverse order instead of being a free attack on the Hex cast:
"If you land a melee strike with your Eldritch Nails, you can spend an additional action to cast a non-cantrip Hex that costs at least two actions to cast and doesn't require a spell attack roll. This special casting still retains all of its original traits and components."
A little wonky, but that does make it substantially better. It would actually be competitive with the Lesson Feats, since this would effectively grant you incentives to go for Strikes in order to get your Hexes off.
Eh? Nothing in that quoted section says nails don't work with handwraps, just that you can enchant them like handwraps and that etchings on nails don't effect anything else.
Fair point I suppose, but why go out of their way to mention that there? What's the intended way to read that? What happens if I enchant my nails? Does it just treat them separately? How does it handle which Runes get applied (if proficiency governs limits of rune applications as mentioned).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like the Nails more if you only had to spend the focus to deliver the Hex if you actually hit. But that might be too good.It would require it to work in reverse order instead of being a free attack on the Hex cast:
"If you land a melee strike with your Eldritch Nails, you can spend an additional action to cast a non-cantrip Hex that costs at least two actions to cast and doesn't require a spell attack roll. This special casting still retains all of its original traits and components."
Yes, or at the very least if the Hex "charge" was held in the nails until a strike landed.
By the way, your Dhampir Swashbuckler sounds like an awesomely fun character.
I'd like the Nails more if you only had to spend the focus to deliver the Hex if you actually hit. But that might be too good.It would require it to work in reverse order instead of being a free attack on the Hex cast:
"If you land a melee strike with your Eldritch Nails, you can spend an additional action to cast a non-cantrip Hex that costs at least two actions to cast and doesn't require a spell attack roll. This special casting still retains all of its original traits and components."
Yes, or at the very least if the Hex "charge" was held in the nails until a strike landed.
By the way, your Dhampir Swashbuckler sounds like an awesomely fun character.
It was heavy on the Ability Boosts, but it came out really flavorful even without the Nails.
The Nails woulda been like the pièce de résistance though. Part of me still wanted to do it, but it was just too hard to justify an 8th level Feat when you could only use it with Malicious Shadows (and MS still increases MAP, so that Hex in general not amazing for a martial).
Instead I grabbed the Needle of Vengeance Hex, which thematically went for the "draining you" in two avenues aspect.
It's an NPC that I took to level 9, just in time to grab Fangs with Bleed, so it's just dripping with goodies.
Thank you for the kind words :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like some didn't notice Nudge Fate has a slightly different lockout than most hexes:
"...changing the outcome appropriately. The spell then ends, and the target is temporarily immune for 1 minute."
The lockout happens when the spell actually accomplishes something, not just because you cast it. That feels a lot better.
Unrelated, but is it clarified anywhere if the witch MCD familiar has one less ability than normal for a familiar (making it 1), or one less than normal for a witch's familiar (which would then be 2)? I would assume it's the former, but it's ambiguous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So explain to me again why the Frightened 1 condition, a non-magical ongoing effect of a composition spell, doesn't immediately go away when a Bard uses a new composition absent Harmonize?Because Frightened 1 is an ongoing non-magical condition.
Conditions don't end when the spell that applied them ends.
Unfortunately for you, the specific rules for Conditions applied via Compositions overrides that.
Otherwise, as previously mentioned, Harmonize would be a useless Feat because Lingering Composition would be vastly superior.
Come on guys, it's pretty clear the effects stop immediately:
If you cast a new composition spell, any ongoing effects from your previous composition spell end immediately.This isn't some negotiation. That's the RAW. Composition effects immediately end if you cast another and the only way to apply more than one at a time is Harmonize.
Otherwise Harmonize wouldn't exist.
Anything you do in the game has an effect.
Death is an effect, an effect that is ongoing. Fatal Aria is a composition spell that causes death or damage. Is the death or damage caused by Fatal Aria ended if you cast another composition cantrip? By your absurd understanding of the rules I can't see why it wouldn't be.
Harmonize exists because it allows you to have the active effects of two Compositions at once (e.g, not reduce frightened + +1 status to attack and damage), not because it is required for you to have any possible effects of a Composition not end when you cast a new one.
The rules are pretty clear that effects not mentioned in the duration are separate from the spell's effects. In other words, Frightened is not an ongoing effect of Dirge of Doom, and a dead enemy isn't an ongoing effect of Fatal Aria.
Unrelated, but is it clarified anywhere if the witch MCD familiar has one less ability than normal for a familiar (making it 1), or one less than normal for a witch's familiar (which would then be 2)? I would assume it's the former, but it's ambiguous.
Nope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like some didn't notice Nudge Fate has a slightly different lockout than most hexes:
"...changing the outcome appropriately. The spell then ends, and the target is temporarily immune for 1 minute."
The lockout happens when the spell actually accomplishes something, not just because you cast it. That feels a lot better.
Unrelated, but is it clarified anywhere if the witch MCD familiar has one less ability than normal for a familiar (making it 1), or one less than normal for a witch's familiar (which would then be 2)? I would assume it's the former, but it's ambiguous.
This came up a bit ago but didn't really get discussed. It is a huge question. I actually read it the other way.
Dedication Feat
"Choose a patron; you gain a familiar...Your familiar has one less familiar ability than normal."
Witch Familiar:
"Your patron has sent you a familiar.. "
Basic Witchcraft (Archetype Feat):
"Your familiar no longer has one less familiar ability than normal."
The RAW are vague. But if feels like it should be a witch's familiar. The Witch Familiar starts with 3 abilities, the Dedication Feat removes one of those making it a "standard" Familiar. If you invest in Basic Witchcraft you get the bonus witch one back.
Of course it really becomes a bigger question with the familiar coming back to life the next day if it dies and the bonus abilities at levels 6/12/18.
RAW it has to be all or nothing right? Either you get a "Normal" Familiar with 1 ability or you get a "Witch's" Familiar with 2 abilities and the other things (bonus abilities per level/comes back next day).
If it is "Normal" Familiar it could really suck that you lose your spellcasting for a week or more if it dies. A week of DOWN time can be really hard to come by in some campaigns.
If however it is a "Witch's" Familiar, the way I have been leaning, it is one of the best feats in the game. Unless you have other archetype plans, why take the Familiar Feat if you can take the MCD Witch? (Obviously you have to wait for level 4 and have a 14 Int, but it beats the standard Familiar just for the regen)
Anyone have any idea on an official ruling? Opinions? Anything precedent from the playtests?
Unrelated, but is it clarified anywhere if the witch MCD familiar has one less ability than normal for a familiar (making it 1), or one less than normal for a witch's familiar (which would then be 2)? I would assume it's the former, but it's ambiguous.Nope.
Why would it be anything different than one less than a normal familiar? The special witch familiar rules are a class core piece, and if they are not spelled out in the MCD, they are not a part of it.
Yeah getting a familiar with one point and cantrips is a pretty value get. If it got more that’d be a bigger power differential than most other equivalent feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would it be anything different than one less than a normal familiar? The special witch familiar rules are a class core piece, and if they are not spelled out in the MCD, they are not a part of it.Unrelated, but is it clarified anywhere if the witch MCD familiar has one less ability than normal for a familiar (making it 1), or one less than normal for a witch's familiar (which would then be 2)? I would assume it's the former, but it's ambiguous.Nope.
Yeah getting a familiar with one point and cantrips is a pretty value get. If it got more that’d be a bigger power differential than most other equivalent feats.Would it though? Every other caster dedication gives at least 1 trained skill and 2 cantrips.
A familiar with 2 abilities and a single cantrip is fairly equivalent. The familiar could take Skilled and Cantrip Connection and it's largely identical. Albeit, more flexible, but the 2 abilities isn't outrageous.
Refocus is a familiar ability so yes. It’s effectively a focus point and cantrip access.
Getting a full familiar is the equivalent of a Feat as it is, you get that and you get to cast spells.
If it were any better it’d be hands down above other choices for MCD, and it’s already one of the better caster MCDs IMO (best low level feats, pets, even martial stuff or alchemy light).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would it be anything different than one less than a normal familiar? The special witch familiar rules are a class core piece, and if they are not spelled out in the MCD, they are not a part of it.Unrelated, but is it clarified anywhere if the witch MCD familiar has one less ability than normal for a familiar (making it 1), or one less than normal for a witch's familiar (which would then be 2)? I would assume it's the former, but it's ambiguous.Nope.
Because you can't cast spells with a normal familiar.
You need the special witch familiar rules to prepare and cast.
On the flip side, getting 2-5 familiar abilities would probably be too much for a feat.
Probably supposed to be 1 ability (no scaling), daily respawn, and casting. Or at least that's how I am running it until we get some clarification.
Anything you do in the game has an effect.
Death is an effect, an effect that is ongoing. Fatal Aria is a composition spell that causes death or damage. Is the death or damage caused by Fatal Aria ended if you cast another composition cantrip? By your absurd understanding of the rules I can't see why it wouldn't be.
Harmonize exists because it allows you to have the active effects of two Compositions at once (e.g, not reduce frightened + +1 status to attack and damage), not because it is required for you to have any possible effects of a Composition not end when you cast a new one.
The rules are pretty clear that effects not mentioned in the duration are separate from the spell's effects. In other words, Frightened is not an ongoing effect of Dirge of Doom, and a dead enemy isn't an ongoing effect of Fatal Aria.
Yea, you keep going back to the definition of ongoing effect, which we all agree is what we're talking about, and then conveniently ignoring the very specific rule that says ALL ongoing effects of the composition are removed when a new one begins. You can keep defining ongoing effect all day if you want, but ALL is pretty definitive.
If it helps you, think of it this way: you're playing a really creepy song. So creepy that I can't get it out of my head. If you stop playing, it was so creepy it'll linger for 6 seconds.
But now take the same scenario and change it a bit. You're creeping me out and then you stop playing. That creepy feeling would probably keep going for a little longer, but then you immediately started playing marching band music. This is jarring and knocks me out of my creeped out state.
And to quote the CRB right back at you:
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions...
Wait, so you actually think the effects of Fatal Aria are ended when you start a new Composition? This reversal of non-magical effects caused by Compositions is a much more problematic interpretation of the rules than just running it how it says to, clear as day, in the spell duration rules.
Seriously, if you're arguing that non-magical effects that are ongoing are also ended when you cast a new Composition, then that applies to literally every effect that continues, including healing, damage, hell even temporary immunity to things like House of Imaginary Walls.
These are all ongoing effects that have durations not mentioned in the Composition's duration and it is obviously not intended that they would end when you cast a new Composition. To argue that they don't fall under the spell duration rules is patently absurd.
Uh Dirge of Doom states “while within the area”. The area isn’t there if the spell ends, and thus they aren’t frightened anymore. This is an explicit override of how the condition rules work standard, which explicitly states that the effect defines what ends a condition but defaults if none is listed.
Fatal aria applies instantly. The ongoing portion is application, not the results.
Dirge of Doom is contingent on the spell being active to apply the frightened condition, because it states within the area explicitly for both.
How does that compare to spells like Dread Aura?
If a wizard doesn't sustain Dread Aura, but an enemy is already Frightened, do they immediately lose the condition when the spell ends?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh Dirge of Doom states “while within the area”. The area isn’t there if the spell ends, and thus they aren’t frightened anymore. This is an explicit override of how the condition rules work standard, which explicitly states that the effect defines what ends a condition but defaults if none is listed.
Fatal aria applies instantly. The ongoing portion is application, not the results.
Dirge of Doom is contingent on the spell being active to apply the frightened condition, because it states within the area explicitly for both.
The full sentence is: They can't reduce their frightened value below 1 while they remain in the area.
So if they leave the area, the can reduce their frightened value normally. And if DoD ends, they can also reduce their frightened value normally. Normally being as described with the frightened condition: Unless specified otherwise, at the end of each of your turns, the value of your frightened condition decreases by 1.
And that sentence also refers back to the circumstances of DoD, "specified otherwise".
So starting a new composition will remove DoD, and it will allow creatures to lose their frightened condition normally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The full sentence is: They can't reduce their frightened value below 1 while they remain in the area.
So if they leave the area, the can reduce their frightened value normally. And if DoD ends, they can also reduce their frightened value normally. Normally being as described with the frightened condition: Unless specified otherwise, at the end of each of your turns, the value of your frightened condition decreases by 1.
And that sentence also refers back to the circumstances of DoD, "specified otherwise".
So starting a new composition will remove DoD, and it will allow creatures to lose their frightened condition normally.
No that is there so that if they try to reduce the condition while in the area, via another effect or manually by reducing it, that it cannot be reduced.
The restriction that leaving the area also removes the condition isn’t a separate part of the spell.
That’s why it’s two completely separate sentences denoting.
And if Composition did not state “immediately ends any ongoing” this point of view would be valid.
Death and damage are not ongoing effects, they are applied effects of the ongoing effect of having to roll saves in Fatal Aria.
Come on, think about how Harmonize works. If the rules worked like you all are claiming, you would only take Lingering Composition, spend your next action on whatever and start a new performance on the next round for all compositions, stacking up to 4 at a time.
If you can’t see the clear RAW of any ongoing effect ends, can you see how monstrously broken the above would be of layering 4 compositions?
The rules just don’t work that way. Frightened is tethered to the aura itself, not applying the condition, but actually stipulating the condition does not apply unless the aura is present which is an ongoing effect of the spell.
The fact that I have to sit here and sift through this blatant Red Herring of "Fatal Aria and Dirge of Doom are exactly the same! People come back to life by your reading!" is crazy.
Fatal Aria doesn't read even a modicum of close to Dirge of Doom. Dirge of Doom's effect is the Emanation and the spell says:
"Foes within the area are frightened 1."
The emanation ends, and the effect is no longer present.
The second line references the ability to try to reduce the condition while inside the aura.
Dirge of Doom basically makes everyone around the Bard Frightened 1 and they can't get rid of it until they leave the Aura or the Bard casts another composition that overrides it.
It's not that complicated.
Unless specified otherwise, at the end of each of your turns, the value of your frightened condition decreases by 1.
Yes, and this is the power that the second line grants. Not allowing this to happen while inside the aura.
The first line applies on ongoing effect of "within the aura".
That effect ends, per the specific rule of Compositions:
You can cast only one composition spell each turn, and you can have only one active at a time. If you cast a new composition spell, any ongoing effects from your previous composition spell end immediately.
Not "ends normally", not "ends whenever", ends immediately.
If you want to qualify a condition that's contingent on an emanation being present as not part of the ongoing effect, then by all means, but that makes Lingering Composition (already amazing without this) absolutely a MUST pick, better than Harmonize, and just outright broken.
Why would Harmonize even exist and be so restrictive if you could just keep applying different effects the next round? It costs an action, it cannot be used with Lingering Composition, and it deliberately fuses two Compositions.
What you are saying makes that Feat basically do nothing, and it's higher level than Lingering Composition.
Fatal Aria doesn't read like DoD at all so comparing the two is just a false equivalence.
Fatal Aria has one ongoing effect, the application of a save. The outcomes are not "ongoing", they occur instantly (heck they even say "instantly" in the effect).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on, think about how Harmonize works. If the rules worked like you all are claiming, you would only take Lingering Composition, spend your next action on whatever and start a new performance on the next round for all...
No, as when you start a new composition, the old one ends. Meaning there is no more DoD and frightened creatures will be normal again after their turn. Inspire defense ends, the composition gives the bonusses. So Harmonize has its uses, you can have Inspire defense and Inspire courage active in one turn, you can't with Lingering.
Not "ends normally", not "ends whenever", ends immediately.
In case of DoD, it ends the emanation immediately. Totally agree. But the effect of DoD is that it prevents the frightened condition to be reduced. That is gone. Meaning the frightened value can be normally reduced.
The main difference between our standpoints is what the composition does and what is removed. The bonusses from Inspire defense/Courage are different from the emanation of DoD which prevents the removal of the frightened condition.
Had a snarky response, but I don't care anymore.
This isn't the Bard Discussion thread, so I'm done pointing out how the rules for Composition limits overlapping.
Frightened 1 to me is contingent on the aura actually existing, as is stated in the first line. That to me is part of the ongoing effect just as much as Inspire Courage's bonuses are (and it's weird to me that we're separating those two applications).
Fatal Aria is a save based effect so it had nothing to do with this, and none of the original points made about how ongoing effects end applied to it anyways.
If we want to continue discussing the witch, that'd be awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument is then that I can:
Cast Dirge of Doom with Linger Composition
Apply Frightened 1 for 4 rounds
Cast Inspire Courage as my last action
Get both
#profitBecauseItsTheSameAsHarmonizeButBetter
For one round (sort of) because as soon as enemies have their turn, their frightened condition reduces by 1. You literally wasted a focus point in this scenario.
For one round because as soon as enemies have their turn, their frightened condition reduces by 1. You literally wasted a focus point in this scenario.So your argument is then that I can:
Cast Dirge of Doom with Linger Composition
Apply Frightened 1 for 4 rounds
Cast Inspire Courage as my last action
Get both
#profitBecauseItsTheSameAsHarmonizeButBetter
You don't even need to use Lingering by your reading.
You can just cast Dirge, then cast IC and repeat on the next round.
By your reading every round they gain Frightened 1 and then your allies gain IC benefits.
So literally, exactly the same as Harmonize but with an additional action every single turn to do whatever you want.
eye roll
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that *definitely* falls under the "too good to be true" clause. For one action, applying Frightened 1 to all enemies in 30 feet with no save, without taking up your composition slot for the round... that's pretty unreasonable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that *definitely* falls under the "too good to be true" clause. For one action, applying Frightened 1 to all enemies in 30 feet with no save, without taking up your composition slot for the round... that's pretty unreasonable.
Luckily, as you can only cast one composition per turn by default, it doesn't really work this way.
You can't have 100% coverage without harmonize, and harmonized Dirge and Inspire is action intensive and requires at least your level 6 and 8 feats (or worse).
At that point, we're into "Good but not worth nerfing." Territory.
I think that *definitely* falls under the "too good to be true" clause. For one action, applying Frightened 1 to all enemies in 30 feet with no save, without taking up your composition slot for the round... that's pretty unreasonable.Luckily, as you can only cast one composition per turn by default, it doesn't really work this way.
You can't have 100% coverage without harmonize, and harmonized Dirge and Inspire is action intensive and requires at least your level 6 and 8 feats (or worse).
At that point, we're into "Good but not worth nerfing." Territory.
Okay good. Let's move forward with this premise.
Which does mean a Witch has more options to cast simultaneous Hexes than a Bard does Compositions because a Bard cannot have two active at the same time outside of taking a level 6 Feat and spending all 3 actions to accomplish that task and they can never have 3 active at once.
While a Witch can have two different hexes active on turn two by level 2.
The rest doesn't matter, we were just establishing a baseline advantage that a Witch Hex has over a Composition.
You want to say that value has no value? Sure, go ahead. We can debate the value, but it is in fact there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well sure but according to some they don’t need to use harmonize. They can just Dirge to apply frightened and then IC because they’ve justified to them self that the specific ruling that says “all ongoing effects end” only applies to the can’t reduce below 1 and not to the frightened condition. So for people playing non RAW like this they still have one action a turn to spend on other stuff. (Which will probably be movement)
Well, no. The ongoing effects are:
The emanation (which defines an area and applies effects).New creatures gaining frightened.
Creatures with frightened being unable to reduce it.
Frightened itself has a duration: number of rounds specified by the frightened value (though ways may exist to reduce or end it early, such as Bravery). What the emanation is doing is preventing those other affects while also applying the condition to all foes in the area repeatedly. You end that effect, and you stop applying the condition repeatedly and it runs its normal course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to argue the Dirge of Doom thing further, go argue it in the appropriate thread.
This is the Witch discussion right? Can we get back on task?
Frightened is an ongoing condition. It ends there really isn’t much to be said despite the mental gymnastics being pulled here. It does not run its normal course. By composition rules it ends immediately. The aura ends which means the frightened and the cant reduce by 1 end. Every ongoing condition ends not just the one you want to end. Play however you want with your games but by RAW all ongoing effects caused by the composition ends. Frightened is one of them so it ends.
Can I get a straight answer from you? Do you really think healing, temporary immunity, damage and the various other effects that would normally continue after a Composition ends are ended when you cast a new Composition? Because I can't see how you would distinguished them from Frightened in this context. This is in no way mental gymnastics, this is straight from the RULES for spell durations.
You're arguing that the Composition trait's rules end all ongoing effects from the spell and therefore an ongoing effect like Frightened, but according to the spell duration rules the only ongoing effects that are actually part of the spell are ones that either don't aren't ongoing effects or that are a part of the spell's duration entry.
Just to be clear, in Pathfinder 2e the definition of "effects" is entirely open-ended, literally everything that happens is an effect. In addition the word "ongoing" has no special definition so ongoing effects encompass every single thing that continues to affect the world. If entirely mundane effects (which the Frightened from Dirge of Doom IS) are ended when you cast a new composition then you get truly absurd results that make it patently obvious that Compositions are not intended to end all ongoing effects that were caused by them, but rather the ongoing effects that are part of the spell.
Unrelated, but is it clarified anywhere if the witch MCD familiar has one less ability than normal for a familiar (making it 1), or one less than normal for a witch's familiar (which would then be 2)? I would assume it's the former, but it's ambiguous.Nope.
I suspect their intention was that the witch multi class gives you a familiar with 2 abilities instead of three at level 1 like a full witch would have. Its worded very badly though so it is confusing but since it is a witches familiar those give you a bonus ability at level 1 and then 3 other levels as you go. This just keeps a pure witch a bit better with familiars than MCD witches.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which does mean a Witch has more options to cast simultaneous Hexes than a Bard does Compositions because a Bard cannot have two active at the same time outside of taking a level 6 Feat and spending all 3 actions to accomplish that task and they can never have 3 active at once.While a Witch can have two different hexes active on turn two by level 2.
The rest doesn't matter, we were just establishing a baseline advantage that a Witch Hex has over a Composition.
You want to say that value has no value? Sure, go ahead. We can debate the value, but it is in fact there.
Witch indeed has the advantage of easily applying more stuff than a bard has. I actually like the witch, lots of options which make it a differnet character concept. you can of course play it anyway you want, for example trying to emulate a bard, or a cleric, but there is enough to see it as a separate class.
Let's look at Witch's Bottle:
It allows the Witch to essentially cast multiple Focus Hexes in the same turn, since you arent casting it when it is released.
It costs a Focus point to use, but it doesn't stipulate that you must actually spend the focus point for the Hex you put into it.
It can also help in the circumstance of the Hex costing 2 actions.
The big combinations aren't crazy, but Life Boost and Restorative Movement seem to be the big targets in the Hex lists so far.
This would allow a person with a Bandolier to draw the potion and drink it in one turn, which is an action economy increase for Restorative Movement.
It's not miraculous, but it seems cool in its own way due to the action economy and the multiple hexes out in a single turn opportunity.
If you want to argue the Dirge of Doom thing further, go argue it in the appropriate thread.
This is the Witch discussion right? Can we get back on task?
I'm going to support Midnightoker, I really don't want to sound rude......but if you want to discuss the Bard Compositions can you do it in the proper thread (linked above).
It is really cluttering up trying to discuss this topic...the Witch.